**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ehyeh // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 points to Con
>Reason for Decision:
"Pro has the burden of proof, yet has not provided a single argument for his side of the debate. This reads to me as peculiar. The voters have no reason to believe his position.
Burundi is not the best country in the world because it is the worlds poorest country, thus living there would be a nightmare and their citizens experience poor quality of life. "
>Reason for Mod Action:
This isn’t an RFD, just a direct quote of Pro’s final round. That is not sufficient.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ehyeh // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 points to Con
>Reason for Decision:
"None of con's arguments provide any reason to nuke India. My argument is pretty simple: India is not involved in any war that makes it necessary to use nuclear weapons. India is a country that has overwhelmingly positive relations with the US, and they have not caused any major global issues, therefore, we should not destroy millions of innocent people. "
>Reason for Mod Action:
This isn’t an RFD, just a direct quote of Pro’s final round. That is not sufficient.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ehyeh // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 points to Pro
>Reason for Decision:
"You can legally pass something that should be illegal, but we are debating whether or not this should be legal, not whether making laws should be legal. Mall has thus not made a case for his position."
>Reason for Mod Action:
This isn’t an RFD, just a direct quote of Pro’s final round. That is not sufficient.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ehyeh // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 points to Pro
>Reason for Decision:
"Mexico is an innocent country, and a trade ally of the US, thus, they have done nothing to deserve being wiped out. The level of devastation this will cause is critical, and Mexico has not wronged the US nor is in any conflict with them.
Mexico is close enough to the US, that American citizens will also be impacted by this (those closer to the southern border) thus we would be unnecessarily harming our own citizens.
This action will set dangerous international precedents on the use of nuclear weapons for convenience. "
>Reason for Mod Action:
This isn’t an RFD, just a direct quote of Pro’s final round. That is not sufficient.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: K_Michael // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 5 points to Con
>Reason for Decision:
Debate description reads: "we only consider debateart because debate.org is gone and we don't know about it"
All of Con's arguments are based on statistics gathered on the DART site. They unambiguously demonstrate that Barney is well above the average user in terms of being able to win debates (which is if not definitionally, the most commonly accepted goal of a "good" debater.) Pro's only counter to this evidence is the argument that this metric means nothing because no one on this site is a "good" debater. Con rebuts this based on the debate description. Arguments to Con
Con provides the most valuable sources, as well as an impressive amount of BTS math on his own rankings. Sources to Con
S&G are equal. I had no difficulty reading/understanding either argument, nor did I notice any egregious errors. Tied.
I was tempted to take conduct points from Pro as I find the premise of the argument itself disrespectful, but I suspect that it violates the voting policy somehow, and anyway, he was civil during the debate itself.
As a critical note I wish someone had taken the time to define "good" in this debate. It was danced around very loosely and while I feel the arguments themselves were unambiguous, it was left to the voter to decide how they should evaluate the arguments in terms of the claim itself. RM or Intelligence (as well as myself) would almost definitely not have left this unaddressed, and I personally feel the debate suffers for it.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter does sufficiently analyze arguments insofar as he covers points presented by both debaters and considers their context with regards to the description. The voter is not required to cover all points made by the debaters, particularly when they set a standard for evaluating those points that applies more broadly to other points. This appears to be the case with this vote.
However, the voter does not sufficiently justify sources. The voter must evaluate sources presented by both debaters to award this point, but only covers sourcing given by Con.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Undefeatable // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con
>Reason for Decision:
Commentary: This debate might actually be a difficult one for Barney since his only real evidence would be his RFD’s and defeating Oromagi previously on DDO.
RFD: pro gives a few good arguments about Con failing to defeat any one significant and lists examples of Whiteflame, Bones, etc. as truly good debaters. However con manages to barely win out thanks to showing that his debate analysis is relatively thorough in his votes. He tried to show his enemy was serious and good in the fetus USD debate, but there is a mere assertion so I can’t really buy it just like that. The other debates also seemed like weak assertions since he’s just tossing out assertions with very little refutation on how his enemies usually forfeit or have no good win record. Still, I do agree he’s shown insightful analysis from the bit of evidence he’s given, but his source of welcoming noobs to the site seems irrelevant to noob sniping. So I do not accept that argument.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter does assess arguments given by both debaters, but the decision itself hinges on an argument the voter says Con made that isn't present in the debate:
"However con manages to barely win out thanks to showing that his debate analysis is relatively thorough in his votes"
Unless it is clarified within the RFD where Con made this argument, the voter cannot base his decision on an argument not given in the debate.
**************************************************
It’s a legitimate way of reading the debate going into it, one based in the text of the description. You can chalk that up to “predisposed belief” if you like, but that doesn’t change the fact that his vote meets the required standards.
I haven't been through the entire debate yet, so I can't know what arguments you emphasized, but just looking back at those two points, it does appear as though Public-Choice addressed those issues, at minimum in response to you in the comments. He seems to be straight up telling you that any response doesn't suffice to get around what was in the description. That's dismissive, but it's not ignoring your arguments. He's telling you why those arguments don't work based on his perception of the debate's setup. Not really sure what more you wanted him to do here in order to justify a vote that clearly runs contrary to your central thesis, since, based on the back-and-forth I'm seeing here in the comments, it would have just been extensions of the same point he has already made in the RFD.
I don't see him copy-pasting any rhetoric from Con in his RFD. He found this view of the debate and what the description confines it to persuasive. He explained how that view of the debate affects how he views your arguments. He doesn't have to look at them all individually in order to express that there is a problem with them under this framing of the debate. That looks like reasonable analysis to me, it's certainly not akin to "copy and pasting the side which I agree withs conclusion, and submitting it as a vote."
He addressed an issue with your argument that applies to your main point. You clearly don’t like or agree with it, but that doesn’t make the vote insufficient under the voting standards. Agreeing with one side’s argument doesn’t make it insufficient, either.
Also, consider this your final warning. Your account will be banned if you continue with these insults.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Public-Choice // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 5 points to Con
>Reason for Decision:
See Voting Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter is allowed leeway for reasonable interpretation of the debate and the rules therein, particularly as stated in the description. So long as that voter equally applies that interpretation to both sides and considers specific arguments presented by both debaters, that is sufficient. Regarding sources, while number of sources alone is not a sufficient criteria, the voter considers specific criteria for assessing the strength of those and provides specifics about the contents of those sources in that assessment. As such, it is sufficient.
**************************************************
Consider this a formal warning. There are limits to what a debater can say in response to a vote, and you crossed that line several times by directly insulting Public-Choice. Discussing the vote and even disagreeing with it is fine, but insulting his intelligence is not. Additionally, spamming PMs to a voter to express your distaste for their vote, particularly in a hateful manner, is also out of bounds. Continuing this type of behavior will require that I take action to prevent further posts.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: vici // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 points to Pro
>Reason for Decision:
con doesn't get the case - he argues for legality but as novice said it should be about whether we SHOULD commit rape
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter must assess specific arguments presented by both debaters when awarding points. In this case, the voter says that one side of the debate did not argue on topic, but does not assess the topicality or strength of the other side's argument. That is not sufficient.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Undefeatable // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 points to Pro
>Reason for Decision:
Con doesn’t really give any convincing arguments why rape the action should be legal. Instead, he talks about the law being passed concerning rape being legal, which side steps the topic. Commentary: To be fair, con did entrap himself with the debate set up. Pro though should really stop accepting malls debates…
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter must assess specific arguments presented by both debaters when awarding points. In this case, the voter only covers a point made by Con and ignores Pro’s arguments while giving the latter the point without addressing BoP. That is not sufficient.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Oromagi // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 points to Con
>Reason for Decision:
YOU PICK the TOPIC. I SHALL do my BEST with IT.
This conversation doesn't really qualify as any kind of debate according to any objective debate standard. Essentially, every possible advantage is given to the contender for entirely shock (comedic) effect. This voter considers a debate under these terms non-moderated and essentially subjective. Basically, the instigator has ceded the stage and so it up to the contender to knock our socks of with full license. PRO chooses "THBT rape should be illegal in the United States" which is not only fails to knock the socks but is doubles down on the subjective nature of this discourse by choosing generic, totally non-controversial public policy. On comedic or subjective stylings, PRO scores a zero.
PRO seems to agree with this voter's thinking by arguing that the topic is irrelevant to victory in this debate.
" However, all the resolution entails is that to win, I must choose a topic alone. Consequently, all voters need to do is vote for pro based on the proposition of any topic at all."
This statement of thesis excludes the relevancy of topic and on this we agree but PRO badly misses there was a second condition to the instigation: " I (the instigator) shall do my best with it."
So it not true that PRO wins " based on the proposition of any topic at all," rather the winner is determined bywhether CON did "his best with it."
Given that CON has one round and no ground to argue with, I set the standard for best at an extremely low bar. CON's first argument is nearly unintelligible but something along the lines of "rape is already illegal everywhere, so there's no "should" about it"
CON's second argument that rape should be legal in fiction, fantasy, and the imagination is easier to understand and I point I strongly agree with.
So- did CON do his best? Regrettably, neither defines the standard for "best" giving this voter a third reason to treat this debate subjectively. To the extent that I was able to understand both of CON's arguments (which is itself far above CON's usual standard) and CON made more objective effort than PRO - 2886 characters vs 1906 characters, this voter is willing to view CON's effort as "his best" and by this standard, awards arguments to CON.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Contrary to the voter's view, voting on this debate is moderated, as it doesn't clearly fall into any camp of unmoderated votes - the subjective interpretation of "shock (comedic) effect" does not make this an a troll debate or render it too subjective to assess meaningfully. This vote is borderline, given that it does assess specific arguments given in the debate, but largely focuses his attention on a peculiar view of what is sufficient to win the debate by emphasizing something that neither debater considers. However, given that 1) the voter also posted largely copy-pasted versions of this same vote to two other debates, 2) two of those instances were posted just before the end of the voting period, precluding any attempt at moderation, and 3) all three votes focused on debates between these two debaters, specifically (even though not all votes favor the same debater), suggesting the possibility of grudge voting, the borderline nature of the vote renders it insufficient.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Vici // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro
>Reason for Decision:
There is no problem of evil in an atheist’s universe because there is no evil in an atheist’s universe. Since there is no God, there is no absolute moral standard, and nothing is wrong. The torture of little children is not wrong in an atheist’s universe. It may be painful, but it is not wrong. It is morally wrong in a theistic universe, and therefore, there is a problem of evil of perhaps the psychological or emotional sort, but philosophically the answer to the problem of evil is you don’t have an absolute standard of good by which to measure evil in an atheist’s universe. You can only have that in a theistic universe, and therefore, the very posing of the problem presupposes my world view, rather than his own. God has a good reason for the evil that He plans or allows.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter never assesses specific arguments given by either side, instead giving their own perspective on the debate and awarding points on that basis. In order to award argument points, the voter must assess points given by the debaters, and not use their own perspective on the topic as a means to award points.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Undefeatable // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro
>Reason for Decision:
Sadly, Con did not address the heart of Pro's argument telling us that the minority of the persons can vote for a president, and the president will still win. Con has only offered the possibility of the law making and the checks and balances, which don't really tell us how they outweigh the people having little to no effect on the Senate Laws or perhaps even the Presidential election. Feel free to ask for more details in the comments.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Though the voter does address some arguments presented by both sides, they left aside the central issue of the debate, which is the definitional debate. It's fine if the voter sees certain parts of the given definitions as paramount, but the voter must at least address that portion of the debate, as it appears crucial to the arguments from both sides.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Undefeatable // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con
>Reason for Decision:
I’m not even sure what mall was trying to argue. He compares his agreement to a green light on a machine where he agrees as a side connotation and the nothing wrong with it has no justification beyond the self defense. Thus the premise falls. I am confused, and con wins.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter appears to acknowledge that there is a justification in Pro's argument, albeit one that he finds isn't clearly articulated within the bounds of the resolution. That weak link between Pro's justification and his argument may not be sufficient to uphold the resolution, but the voter has to show where Con demonstrated that to be true, rather than just saying that it's unclear and saying that that lack of clarity automatically defaults to a Con vote.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Undefeatable // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con
>Reason for Decision:
Pro gives two simple crimes: That the votes were mis cast due to missing information, and that there was illegal support from the public for lobbying. However, through out the rounds his argument wanders all over the place, and Con sufficiently displays that the Mis-cast votes missed an incredibly small amount of information. And supported that this was understandable due to ambiguity of the Street code information, as well as missing simply zip code, which was not essential for the crime. Pro misses out on supplying a critical quote from Time Magazine and instead simply claims this lobbying was a crime, while Time had not stated anything about its illegality. Thus, due to his own sources being self-contradictory and cherry picking without sufficient backing for the arguments, I give sources to Con. The two spend a needlessly long time bickering about the Fallacies and the rules of the debate, which I shall not listen to as this debate concerns the topic alone. Pro pretty much committed every fallacy first before con, which causes a conflict with the rules.
Whether USFG *can* decertify, I feel has very little effect, and Pro largely implies that the severe crime would allow them to take extreme action, so I feel that argument is really not worth much here. Still, I vote for CON due to sufficiently conveying that the persons had not committed fraud/crime.
>Reason for Mod Action:
To award sources, the voter must assess specific sources presented by both sides. While the voter does do this for Pro, the voter does not do so for Con. The voter must also provide a reason to award conduct. There is some explanation here with regards to who used fallacies first, though the voter acknowledges that both sides did use fallacious points, so it's unclear why he is favoring Con with regards to conduct under these rules.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Undefeatable // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con
>Reason for Decision:
I am terribly sorry pro but I cannot understand a word of what his argument is saying. Conis straightforward with issues of poverty and disability. Mall might have been arguing for anti abortion but it’s horribly unclear.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter must assess specific points made by both debaters and determine how well they support their positions. Even if one side's argument is borderline indecipherable, there still must be some assessment of individual points made or, at minimum, examples of what made the debater's argument so difficult to parse. Even with Con, the voter just says that Con had two issues that were straightforward, which doesn't assess how well they functioned under this resolution. Stating that they were straightforward alone is insufficient.
**************************************************
I'm not going to take a side on a vote removal that another moderator executed and justified. Given that only Supa could make this call without being biased by his own vote, I'm not sure why you want me to take a position. It was his call. It wasn't mine to make during the debate and it's not mine to make now.
I'm telling you why he did it at this point instead of a different one prior to this - I talk to Supa often enough to know that his schedule is hectic. You're the one who is assuming an insidious reason is behind it. If you call it defensive of him to point out that there's nothing insidious about being busy, then yeah, I guess I defended his actions, though he is perfectly capable of defending himself.
I’d like to see that change as well. As for imposing the two-day period, I think that might yield its own complications since a lot of people tend to wait until near the end of the voting period to vote. Maybe it’s worth the cost of losing those votes that happen in the last 48 hours, but I’d need to think on it.
Why are you asking me to apologize for this when I was neither able to remove the vote as a voter on this debate nor had anything to do with Supa’s decision?
I’m more than willing to apologize if I’ve made a mistake, though you seem to think otherwise.
Supa’s been busy, so whatever you may think of the timing of his removal, it wasn’t “dirty play”.
Both of those last minute votes would have been removed if possible, though their decisions to cast them likely would have happened regardless, since this debate has regularly been on the front page of recent debates. Both of them knew what they were doing.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Shila // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con
>Reason for Decision:
Pro was denying his position more than he was rebutting Con.
Over a billion Hindus believe in reincarnation.
2 billion Christian’s believe in resurrection. Which is simply the reincarnation of the soul.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter has to assess specific arguments presented by both sides in the debate. Generalizing about what one of the debaters did or didn't do in this debate is not sufficient, nor is detailing some background on perceptions of reincarnation.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Shila // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Pro
>Reason for Decision:
The hypocrisy in the American system of government has been fully exposed. The organized lies behind all its foreign policy resulted in unnecessary wars. The American system sustained black slavery for 300 years. The founding fathers were themselves slave owners.
10 percentage of the rich own 89% of America’s wealth. Democracy is not supposed to function this way. But America did since its creation.
Therefore one is forced to conclude: The United States has never been a democracy.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Awarding arguments requires that the voter assess points made in the debate, not select a side that they see as agreeing with their perspective. The voter does not justify any of their other point allocations.
**************************************************
Thank you for voting! I will admit that I’ve always felt my approach on this topic is a bit scattershot, doesn’t help that I’m still pretty mediocre at presenting and talking up frameworks that aren’t extremely basic. Appreciate the concrete feedback.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Shila // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Pro
>Reason for Decision:
Con’s in-ought rebuttal reinforces the saying. If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem appears to be a nail.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Awarding arguments requires that the voter assess points made in the debate by both debaters. Instead, the voter appears to award points based on a minimally explained problem with Con’s argument and a personal perspective. The voter does not justify any of their other point allocations.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Shila // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Pro
>Reason for Decision:
Communism is a better ideology than capitalism but it has been poorly implemented. Considering the state of global affairs and human greed that capitalism feeds. Socialism is the better choice.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Awarding arguments requires that the voter assess points made in the debate, not select a side that they see as agreeing with their perspective. The voter does not justify any of their other point allocations.
**************************************************
One, really beef up that opening round. Part of the reason Tej won this debate is because he had a big, fleshed out case that dominated the debate by forcing you to engage with many of its smaller pieces. You need to bring the focus back to your case, and that's hard to do when your argument is so short and lacks evidence to support it. It's not bad to keep things simple, but you should still make sure to have enough content that your opponent can't address it all in a few lines of text. If you want to start with a shorter round like this, make sure you're prepared to beef it up in R2 when your opponent hits at issues regarding a lack of warrants or evidence.
Two, I think it's important to change things up for the final round. Treating it like another rebuttal round ends up limiting your capacity to reframe the debate in a way that favors you. Tej spent a lot of his final round focusing in on those issues that he felt were most important, which tells me where I should be focused as a judge. Without a similar perspective from you, I'm forced to try and figure out what points you want me on without direction, which means I might not focus on the issues you actually think matter most.
I liked the increased usage of "even if" statements, which is something I think we've discussed before, especially with regards to the two different frameworks and how you'd do on each. That worked in your favor. The only real feedback I'd give you is just try to consolidate things a little bit more by the end. I know it can be tough picking through your points and trying to determine what matters enough to keep making it a big deal, but by the end, some of the discussion just seemed unnecessary and dispensable, which distracted from your main points, particularly focusing in on the issue of how public spaces are treated. Felt like that issue had run its course before the final round and only warranted a brief mention.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Undefeatable // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con (note: this and any future references to sides refers to the assigned position rather than the reversed position given by the instigator)
>Reason for Decision:
This debate was super confusing but it looks like Mall is trolling and not really trying to fight, hence “helping pro gain rating” (mall was pro for this resolution). Weird premise.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The basis for the voter's decision appears to be an interpretation of Con's argument that isn't directly justified using what was stated by the debaters. To be clear, this might be a reasonable interpretation, but the voter has to do more to show that the interpretation is valid.
**************************************************
First off, don't appreciate your taking a jab at the intellects of those who vote against you, even if you're solely focused on reasoning. Believe it or not, people can disagree with your perception of how debates go without having intellectual dysfunctions.
Second, I think I'm beginning to see where the problem was here and why we're disagreeing on this, so first let me amend what I said: you did not propose an ETHICAL framework. That's an important distinction because an ethical framework is required to compete directly with Pro's framework on the topic. Losing that option loses you an important means of offense for this debate, and I still think that was a problem. Still, absent that, you had two options: argue that it is unethical on Pro's framework, or argue that Pro's framework doesn't work. You did the latter.
So, why is that a problem? Two reasons.
One, you didn't argue Pro's burdens analysis. That's a problem for this strategy, since he clearly said that an indeterminate conclusion on the ethical tenability of PSA yields a vote for him. When your strategy is to simply knock out your opponent's offense and you don't present any, you would normally render the debate a tie or default to Con, but Pro told me to default to him. You didn't tell me otherwise.
Two, your argument largely functions as a Kritik that's overfocused on links (it's 90-95% of your argument) and lacking an alternative and voters, since the rest is impacts. You're challenging PSA and everything connected to it as illogical. You have to tell me what it means if I buy that analysis. The closest you get is arguing that it's effectively impossible to evaluate whether or not PSA is ethical, which is fine, but again, that makes me default to indeterminate, which favors your opponent. If you're going to make it about PSA being utterly impossible, then tell me why my take-away is that I should vote for you. What is a better alternative to engaging with PSA? What should I do instead? Why should I refuse to play the game of determining whether it's ethical in favor of that alternative? All you left me with is "it's all absurd," which doesn't tell me why you deserve a vote for pointing it out. You may not like doing it, but part of debating is earning a vote, and that means giving some direction to your voters. Leaving us with a big shrug over the issue of how we would determine the ethics of PSA doesn't help with that, and getting that far and stopping kind of hamstrings any effectiveness a Kritik can have. I can agree with you 100% and still end up pulling the trigger for Pro because he told me that's what I should do if I don't know the answer. Maybe you think that just winning this argument is enough to net you the debate, but I don't see it.
I'm sure you won't agree with any of this. Chances are you'll read through half or less of this, dismiss it out of hand, and assume that I just didn't get your perfect argument. Believe it or not, I'm honestly trying to provide you with actionable feedback. Your points have merit, but they have clear ways to make them winning points. If you don't want that advice, feel free to just ignore all this I guess.
I’ll note again: the lack of a clear framework meant that the best you could do with the whole “theatre” argument was render PSA indeterminate, since you weren’t arguing on the threshold deontology framework that it was actually harmful, just that it was meaningless. You could have argued that that kind of theater is damaging, but I would need a framework through which to relate that harm to an ethical failing of PSA.
As for whether you proved it, I’d say that the best case scenario is that you proved that there are logical holes in our understanding of how deontology and PSA interrelate. On that front, you hit some good points, though accomplishing that alone doesn’t net you the debate telling us that there are problems with our understanding of PSA doesn’t tell us that PSA itself is ethically untenable. It also doesn’t engage with the threshold, which is Pro’s argument from the start. You can argue that the threshold doesn’t matter either, but I don’t see you doing that.
That’s an odd response when you are outright claiming that it’s obvious you have presented an alternate framework and even directed me to a portion of your argument where, I’ll say, I still cannot find it.
Considering Pro’s framework was threshold deontology, and considering that you did not ever address the existence of said threshold, I’d say my answer speaks for itself. If you think his threshold was purely Christian, that might be part of the problem here, because I don’t view challenging Christianity as a whole or in part as a response to his framework.
Not sure if you actually meant to send that first comment truncated, but it's also not particularly clear what point you're making. None of what I said included any problems with your not presenting something in R1. I didn't see it in any of your constructives. You briefly mentioned in R2 that you "cast doubt on Pro claiming that anything deontological is made clearer by PSA," though a) that's not specific to threshold deontology, b) simply saying you did it doesn't mean you accomplished the task, c) casting doubt on it logically doesn't mean that mean that it's ethically untenable, and d) I did point out how I would evaluate this debate if I assumed that you had rebutted his framework without presenting a competing framework.
I’m happy to reconsider my vote if you can point out to me where you presented an alternative framework. Hell, if you want to explain specific points you feel I’ve missed, we can discuss them in detail.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ehyeh // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 points to Con
>Reason for Decision:
"Pro has the burden of proof, yet has not provided a single argument for his side of the debate. This reads to me as peculiar. The voters have no reason to believe his position.
Burundi is not the best country in the world because it is the worlds poorest country, thus living there would be a nightmare and their citizens experience poor quality of life. "
>Reason for Mod Action:
This isn’t an RFD, just a direct quote of Pro’s final round. That is not sufficient.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ehyeh // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 points to Con
>Reason for Decision:
"None of con's arguments provide any reason to nuke India. My argument is pretty simple: India is not involved in any war that makes it necessary to use nuclear weapons. India is a country that has overwhelmingly positive relations with the US, and they have not caused any major global issues, therefore, we should not destroy millions of innocent people. "
>Reason for Mod Action:
This isn’t an RFD, just a direct quote of Pro’s final round. That is not sufficient.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ehyeh // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 points to Pro
>Reason for Decision:
"You can legally pass something that should be illegal, but we are debating whether or not this should be legal, not whether making laws should be legal. Mall has thus not made a case for his position."
>Reason for Mod Action:
This isn’t an RFD, just a direct quote of Pro’s final round. That is not sufficient.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ehyeh // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 points to Pro
>Reason for Decision:
"Mexico is an innocent country, and a trade ally of the US, thus, they have done nothing to deserve being wiped out. The level of devastation this will cause is critical, and Mexico has not wronged the US nor is in any conflict with them.
Mexico is close enough to the US, that American citizens will also be impacted by this (those closer to the southern border) thus we would be unnecessarily harming our own citizens.
This action will set dangerous international precedents on the use of nuclear weapons for convenience. "
>Reason for Mod Action:
This isn’t an RFD, just a direct quote of Pro’s final round. That is not sufficient.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: K_Michael // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 5 points to Con
>Reason for Decision:
Debate description reads: "we only consider debateart because debate.org is gone and we don't know about it"
All of Con's arguments are based on statistics gathered on the DART site. They unambiguously demonstrate that Barney is well above the average user in terms of being able to win debates (which is if not definitionally, the most commonly accepted goal of a "good" debater.) Pro's only counter to this evidence is the argument that this metric means nothing because no one on this site is a "good" debater. Con rebuts this based on the debate description. Arguments to Con
Con provides the most valuable sources, as well as an impressive amount of BTS math on his own rankings. Sources to Con
S&G are equal. I had no difficulty reading/understanding either argument, nor did I notice any egregious errors. Tied.
I was tempted to take conduct points from Pro as I find the premise of the argument itself disrespectful, but I suspect that it violates the voting policy somehow, and anyway, he was civil during the debate itself.
As a critical note I wish someone had taken the time to define "good" in this debate. It was danced around very loosely and while I feel the arguments themselves were unambiguous, it was left to the voter to decide how they should evaluate the arguments in terms of the claim itself. RM or Intelligence (as well as myself) would almost definitely not have left this unaddressed, and I personally feel the debate suffers for it.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter does sufficiently analyze arguments insofar as he covers points presented by both debaters and considers their context with regards to the description. The voter is not required to cover all points made by the debaters, particularly when they set a standard for evaluating those points that applies more broadly to other points. This appears to be the case with this vote.
However, the voter does not sufficiently justify sources. The voter must evaluate sources presented by both debaters to award this point, but only covers sourcing given by Con.
**************************************************
Have to get to bed early tonight, I'll aim to get to this tomorrow.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Undefeatable // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con
>Reason for Decision:
Commentary: This debate might actually be a difficult one for Barney since his only real evidence would be his RFD’s and defeating Oromagi previously on DDO.
RFD: pro gives a few good arguments about Con failing to defeat any one significant and lists examples of Whiteflame, Bones, etc. as truly good debaters. However con manages to barely win out thanks to showing that his debate analysis is relatively thorough in his votes. He tried to show his enemy was serious and good in the fetus USD debate, but there is a mere assertion so I can’t really buy it just like that. The other debates also seemed like weak assertions since he’s just tossing out assertions with very little refutation on how his enemies usually forfeit or have no good win record. Still, I do agree he’s shown insightful analysis from the bit of evidence he’s given, but his source of welcoming noobs to the site seems irrelevant to noob sniping. So I do not accept that argument.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter does assess arguments given by both debaters, but the decision itself hinges on an argument the voter says Con made that isn't present in the debate:
"However con manages to barely win out thanks to showing that his debate analysis is relatively thorough in his votes"
Unless it is clarified within the RFD where Con made this argument, the voter cannot base his decision on an argument not given in the debate.
**************************************************
I’ll take a look at it when I get a chance.
It’s a legitimate way of reading the debate going into it, one based in the text of the description. You can chalk that up to “predisposed belief” if you like, but that doesn’t change the fact that his vote meets the required standards.
I haven't been through the entire debate yet, so I can't know what arguments you emphasized, but just looking back at those two points, it does appear as though Public-Choice addressed those issues, at minimum in response to you in the comments. He seems to be straight up telling you that any response doesn't suffice to get around what was in the description. That's dismissive, but it's not ignoring your arguments. He's telling you why those arguments don't work based on his perception of the debate's setup. Not really sure what more you wanted him to do here in order to justify a vote that clearly runs contrary to your central thesis, since, based on the back-and-forth I'm seeing here in the comments, it would have just been extensions of the same point he has already made in the RFD.
I don't see him copy-pasting any rhetoric from Con in his RFD. He found this view of the debate and what the description confines it to persuasive. He explained how that view of the debate affects how he views your arguments. He doesn't have to look at them all individually in order to express that there is a problem with them under this framing of the debate. That looks like reasonable analysis to me, it's certainly not akin to "copy and pasting the side which I agree withs conclusion, and submitting it as a vote."
He addressed an issue with your argument that applies to your main point. You clearly don’t like or agree with it, but that doesn’t make the vote insufficient under the voting standards. Agreeing with one side’s argument doesn’t make it insufficient, either.
Also, consider this your final warning. Your account will be banned if you continue with these insults.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Public-Choice // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 5 points to Con
>Reason for Decision:
See Voting Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter is allowed leeway for reasonable interpretation of the debate and the rules therein, particularly as stated in the description. So long as that voter equally applies that interpretation to both sides and considers specific arguments presented by both debaters, that is sufficient. Regarding sources, while number of sources alone is not a sufficient criteria, the voter considers specific criteria for assessing the strength of those and provides specifics about the contents of those sources in that assessment. As such, it is sufficient.
**************************************************
Consider this a formal warning. There are limits to what a debater can say in response to a vote, and you crossed that line several times by directly insulting Public-Choice. Discussing the vote and even disagreeing with it is fine, but insulting his intelligence is not. Additionally, spamming PMs to a voter to express your distaste for their vote, particularly in a hateful manner, is also out of bounds. Continuing this type of behavior will require that I take action to prevent further posts.
Yeah, will do. Same as Barney said, just let me know when the round ends.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: vici // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 points to Pro
>Reason for Decision:
con doesn't get the case - he argues for legality but as novice said it should be about whether we SHOULD commit rape
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter must assess specific arguments presented by both debaters when awarding points. In this case, the voter says that one side of the debate did not argue on topic, but does not assess the topicality or strength of the other side's argument. That is not sufficient.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Undefeatable // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 points to Pro
>Reason for Decision:
Con doesn’t really give any convincing arguments why rape the action should be legal. Instead, he talks about the law being passed concerning rape being legal, which side steps the topic. Commentary: To be fair, con did entrap himself with the debate set up. Pro though should really stop accepting malls debates…
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter must assess specific arguments presented by both debaters when awarding points. In this case, the voter only covers a point made by Con and ignores Pro’s arguments while giving the latter the point without addressing BoP. That is not sufficient.
**************************************************
I think he’s talking more about personality and how he fits in with the other heroes. In those respects, I can see how the two speedsters differ.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Oromagi // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 points to Con
>Reason for Decision:
YOU PICK the TOPIC. I SHALL do my BEST with IT.
This conversation doesn't really qualify as any kind of debate according to any objective debate standard. Essentially, every possible advantage is given to the contender for entirely shock (comedic) effect. This voter considers a debate under these terms non-moderated and essentially subjective. Basically, the instigator has ceded the stage and so it up to the contender to knock our socks of with full license. PRO chooses "THBT rape should be illegal in the United States" which is not only fails to knock the socks but is doubles down on the subjective nature of this discourse by choosing generic, totally non-controversial public policy. On comedic or subjective stylings, PRO scores a zero.
PRO seems to agree with this voter's thinking by arguing that the topic is irrelevant to victory in this debate.
" However, all the resolution entails is that to win, I must choose a topic alone. Consequently, all voters need to do is vote for pro based on the proposition of any topic at all."
This statement of thesis excludes the relevancy of topic and on this we agree but PRO badly misses there was a second condition to the instigation: " I (the instigator) shall do my best with it."
So it not true that PRO wins " based on the proposition of any topic at all," rather the winner is determined bywhether CON did "his best with it."
Given that CON has one round and no ground to argue with, I set the standard for best at an extremely low bar. CON's first argument is nearly unintelligible but something along the lines of "rape is already illegal everywhere, so there's no "should" about it"
CON's second argument that rape should be legal in fiction, fantasy, and the imagination is easier to understand and I point I strongly agree with.
So- did CON do his best? Regrettably, neither defines the standard for "best" giving this voter a third reason to treat this debate subjectively. To the extent that I was able to understand both of CON's arguments (which is itself far above CON's usual standard) and CON made more objective effort than PRO - 2886 characters vs 1906 characters, this voter is willing to view CON's effort as "his best" and by this standard, awards arguments to CON.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Contrary to the voter's view, voting on this debate is moderated, as it doesn't clearly fall into any camp of unmoderated votes - the subjective interpretation of "shock (comedic) effect" does not make this an a troll debate or render it too subjective to assess meaningfully. This vote is borderline, given that it does assess specific arguments given in the debate, but largely focuses his attention on a peculiar view of what is sufficient to win the debate by emphasizing something that neither debater considers. However, given that 1) the voter also posted largely copy-pasted versions of this same vote to two other debates, 2) two of those instances were posted just before the end of the voting period, precluding any attempt at moderation, and 3) all three votes focused on debates between these two debaters, specifically (even though not all votes favor the same debater), suggesting the possibility of grudge voting, the borderline nature of the vote renders it insufficient.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Vici // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro
>Reason for Decision:
There is no problem of evil in an atheist’s universe because there is no evil in an atheist’s universe. Since there is no God, there is no absolute moral standard, and nothing is wrong. The torture of little children is not wrong in an atheist’s universe. It may be painful, but it is not wrong. It is morally wrong in a theistic universe, and therefore, there is a problem of evil of perhaps the psychological or emotional sort, but philosophically the answer to the problem of evil is you don’t have an absolute standard of good by which to measure evil in an atheist’s universe. You can only have that in a theistic universe, and therefore, the very posing of the problem presupposes my world view, rather than his own. God has a good reason for the evil that He plans or allows.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter never assesses specific arguments given by either side, instead giving their own perspective on the debate and awarding points on that basis. In order to award argument points, the voter must assess points given by the debaters, and not use their own perspective on the topic as a means to award points.
**************************************************
I've read through this so I'll try to get a vote up this weekend.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Undefeatable // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro
>Reason for Decision:
Sadly, Con did not address the heart of Pro's argument telling us that the minority of the persons can vote for a president, and the president will still win. Con has only offered the possibility of the law making and the checks and balances, which don't really tell us how they outweigh the people having little to no effect on the Senate Laws or perhaps even the Presidential election. Feel free to ask for more details in the comments.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Though the voter does address some arguments presented by both sides, they left aside the central issue of the debate, which is the definitional debate. It's fine if the voter sees certain parts of the given definitions as paramount, but the voter must at least address that portion of the debate, as it appears crucial to the arguments from both sides.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Undefeatable // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con
>Reason for Decision:
I’m not even sure what mall was trying to argue. He compares his agreement to a green light on a machine where he agrees as a side connotation and the nothing wrong with it has no justification beyond the self defense. Thus the premise falls. I am confused, and con wins.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter appears to acknowledge that there is a justification in Pro's argument, albeit one that he finds isn't clearly articulated within the bounds of the resolution. That weak link between Pro's justification and his argument may not be sufficient to uphold the resolution, but the voter has to show where Con demonstrated that to be true, rather than just saying that it's unclear and saying that that lack of clarity automatically defaults to a Con vote.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Undefeatable // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con
>Reason for Decision:
Pro gives two simple crimes: That the votes were mis cast due to missing information, and that there was illegal support from the public for lobbying. However, through out the rounds his argument wanders all over the place, and Con sufficiently displays that the Mis-cast votes missed an incredibly small amount of information. And supported that this was understandable due to ambiguity of the Street code information, as well as missing simply zip code, which was not essential for the crime. Pro misses out on supplying a critical quote from Time Magazine and instead simply claims this lobbying was a crime, while Time had not stated anything about its illegality. Thus, due to his own sources being self-contradictory and cherry picking without sufficient backing for the arguments, I give sources to Con. The two spend a needlessly long time bickering about the Fallacies and the rules of the debate, which I shall not listen to as this debate concerns the topic alone. Pro pretty much committed every fallacy first before con, which causes a conflict with the rules.
Whether USFG *can* decertify, I feel has very little effect, and Pro largely implies that the severe crime would allow them to take extreme action, so I feel that argument is really not worth much here. Still, I vote for CON due to sufficiently conveying that the persons had not committed fraud/crime.
>Reason for Mod Action:
To award sources, the voter must assess specific sources presented by both sides. While the voter does do this for Pro, the voter does not do so for Con. The voter must also provide a reason to award conduct. There is some explanation here with regards to who used fallacies first, though the voter acknowledges that both sides did use fallacious points, so it's unclear why he is favoring Con with regards to conduct under these rules.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Undefeatable // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con
>Reason for Decision:
I am terribly sorry pro but I cannot understand a word of what his argument is saying. Conis straightforward with issues of poverty and disability. Mall might have been arguing for anti abortion but it’s horribly unclear.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter must assess specific points made by both debaters and determine how well they support their positions. Even if one side's argument is borderline indecipherable, there still must be some assessment of individual points made or, at minimum, examples of what made the debater's argument so difficult to parse. Even with Con, the voter just says that Con had two issues that were straightforward, which doesn't assess how well they functioned under this resolution. Stating that they were straightforward alone is insufficient.
**************************************************
Hey, good debate, appreciated the opportunity.
I'll see what I can do.
I'm not going to take a side on a vote removal that another moderator executed and justified. Given that only Supa could make this call without being biased by his own vote, I'm not sure why you want me to take a position. It was his call. It wasn't mine to make during the debate and it's not mine to make now.
I'm telling you why he did it at this point instead of a different one prior to this - I talk to Supa often enough to know that his schedule is hectic. You're the one who is assuming an insidious reason is behind it. If you call it defensive of him to point out that there's nothing insidious about being busy, then yeah, I guess I defended his actions, though he is perfectly capable of defending himself.
I’d like to see that change as well. As for imposing the two-day period, I think that might yield its own complications since a lot of people tend to wait until near the end of the voting period to vote. Maybe it’s worth the cost of losing those votes that happen in the last 48 hours, but I’d need to think on it.
Why are you asking me to apologize for this when I was neither able to remove the vote as a voter on this debate nor had anything to do with Supa’s decision?
I’m more than willing to apologize if I’ve made a mistake, though you seem to think otherwise.
Supa’s been busy, so whatever you may think of the timing of his removal, it wasn’t “dirty play”.
Both of those last minute votes would have been removed if possible, though their decisions to cast them likely would have happened regardless, since this debate has regularly been on the front page of recent debates. Both of them knew what they were doing.
I’ll get to it.
Alright, deleted per your request.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Shila // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con
>Reason for Decision:
Pro was denying his position more than he was rebutting Con.
Over a billion Hindus believe in reincarnation.
2 billion Christian’s believe in resurrection. Which is simply the reincarnation of the soul.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter has to assess specific arguments presented by both sides in the debate. Generalizing about what one of the debaters did or didn't do in this debate is not sufficient, nor is detailing some background on perceptions of reincarnation.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Shila // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Pro
>Reason for Decision:
The hypocrisy in the American system of government has been fully exposed. The organized lies behind all its foreign policy resulted in unnecessary wars. The American system sustained black slavery for 300 years. The founding fathers were themselves slave owners.
10 percentage of the rich own 89% of America’s wealth. Democracy is not supposed to function this way. But America did since its creation.
Therefore one is forced to conclude: The United States has never been a democracy.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Awarding arguments requires that the voter assess points made in the debate, not select a side that they see as agreeing with their perspective. The voter does not justify any of their other point allocations.
**************************************************
Thank you for voting! I will admit that I’ve always felt my approach on this topic is a bit scattershot, doesn’t help that I’m still pretty mediocre at presenting and talking up frameworks that aren’t extremely basic. Appreciate the concrete feedback.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Shila // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Pro
>Reason for Decision:
Con’s in-ought rebuttal reinforces the saying. If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem appears to be a nail.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Awarding arguments requires that the voter assess points made in the debate by both debaters. Instead, the voter appears to award points based on a minimally explained problem with Con’s argument and a personal perspective. The voter does not justify any of their other point allocations.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Shila // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Pro
>Reason for Decision:
Communism is a better ideology than capitalism but it has been poorly implemented. Considering the state of global affairs and human greed that capitalism feeds. Socialism is the better choice.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Awarding arguments requires that the voter assess points made in the debate, not select a side that they see as agreeing with their perspective. The voter does not justify any of their other point allocations.
**************************************************
As for you, a couple of things.
One, really beef up that opening round. Part of the reason Tej won this debate is because he had a big, fleshed out case that dominated the debate by forcing you to engage with many of its smaller pieces. You need to bring the focus back to your case, and that's hard to do when your argument is so short and lacks evidence to support it. It's not bad to keep things simple, but you should still make sure to have enough content that your opponent can't address it all in a few lines of text. If you want to start with a shorter round like this, make sure you're prepared to beef it up in R2 when your opponent hits at issues regarding a lack of warrants or evidence.
Two, I think it's important to change things up for the final round. Treating it like another rebuttal round ends up limiting your capacity to reframe the debate in a way that favors you. Tej spent a lot of his final round focusing in on those issues that he felt were most important, which tells me where I should be focused as a judge. Without a similar perspective from you, I'm forced to try and figure out what points you want me on without direction, which means I might not focus on the issues you actually think matter most.
I liked the increased usage of "even if" statements, which is something I think we've discussed before, especially with regards to the two different frameworks and how you'd do on each. That worked in your favor. The only real feedback I'd give you is just try to consolidate things a little bit more by the end. I know it can be tough picking through your points and trying to determine what matters enough to keep making it a big deal, but by the end, some of the discussion just seemed unnecessary and dispensable, which distracted from your main points, particularly focusing in on the issue of how public spaces are treated. Felt like that issue had run its course before the final round and only warranted a brief mention.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Undefeatable // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con (note: this and any future references to sides refers to the assigned position rather than the reversed position given by the instigator)
>Reason for Decision:
This debate was super confusing but it looks like Mall is trolling and not really trying to fight, hence “helping pro gain rating” (mall was pro for this resolution). Weird premise.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The basis for the voter's decision appears to be an interpretation of Con's argument that isn't directly justified using what was stated by the debaters. To be clear, this might be a reasonable interpretation, but the voter has to do more to show that the interpretation is valid.
**************************************************
Alright then. Have fun with that. Guess I shouldn’t have bothered after all.
First off, don't appreciate your taking a jab at the intellects of those who vote against you, even if you're solely focused on reasoning. Believe it or not, people can disagree with your perception of how debates go without having intellectual dysfunctions.
Second, I think I'm beginning to see where the problem was here and why we're disagreeing on this, so first let me amend what I said: you did not propose an ETHICAL framework. That's an important distinction because an ethical framework is required to compete directly with Pro's framework on the topic. Losing that option loses you an important means of offense for this debate, and I still think that was a problem. Still, absent that, you had two options: argue that it is unethical on Pro's framework, or argue that Pro's framework doesn't work. You did the latter.
So, why is that a problem? Two reasons.
One, you didn't argue Pro's burdens analysis. That's a problem for this strategy, since he clearly said that an indeterminate conclusion on the ethical tenability of PSA yields a vote for him. When your strategy is to simply knock out your opponent's offense and you don't present any, you would normally render the debate a tie or default to Con, but Pro told me to default to him. You didn't tell me otherwise.
Two, your argument largely functions as a Kritik that's overfocused on links (it's 90-95% of your argument) and lacking an alternative and voters, since the rest is impacts. You're challenging PSA and everything connected to it as illogical. You have to tell me what it means if I buy that analysis. The closest you get is arguing that it's effectively impossible to evaluate whether or not PSA is ethical, which is fine, but again, that makes me default to indeterminate, which favors your opponent. If you're going to make it about PSA being utterly impossible, then tell me why my take-away is that I should vote for you. What is a better alternative to engaging with PSA? What should I do instead? Why should I refuse to play the game of determining whether it's ethical in favor of that alternative? All you left me with is "it's all absurd," which doesn't tell me why you deserve a vote for pointing it out. You may not like doing it, but part of debating is earning a vote, and that means giving some direction to your voters. Leaving us with a big shrug over the issue of how we would determine the ethics of PSA doesn't help with that, and getting that far and stopping kind of hamstrings any effectiveness a Kritik can have. I can agree with you 100% and still end up pulling the trigger for Pro because he told me that's what I should do if I don't know the answer. Maybe you think that just winning this argument is enough to net you the debate, but I don't see it.
I'm sure you won't agree with any of this. Chances are you'll read through half or less of this, dismiss it out of hand, and assume that I just didn't get your perfect argument. Believe it or not, I'm honestly trying to provide you with actionable feedback. Your points have merit, but they have clear ways to make them winning points. If you don't want that advice, feel free to just ignore all this I guess.
I’ll note again: the lack of a clear framework meant that the best you could do with the whole “theatre” argument was render PSA indeterminate, since you weren’t arguing on the threshold deontology framework that it was actually harmful, just that it was meaningless. You could have argued that that kind of theater is damaging, but I would need a framework through which to relate that harm to an ethical failing of PSA.
As for whether you proved it, I’d say that the best case scenario is that you proved that there are logical holes in our understanding of how deontology and PSA interrelate. On that front, you hit some good points, though accomplishing that alone doesn’t net you the debate telling us that there are problems with our understanding of PSA doesn’t tell us that PSA itself is ethically untenable. It also doesn’t engage with the threshold, which is Pro’s argument from the start. You can argue that the threshold doesn’t matter either, but I don’t see you doing that.
That’s an odd response when you are outright claiming that it’s obvious you have presented an alternate framework and even directed me to a portion of your argument where, I’ll say, I still cannot find it.
Considering Pro’s framework was threshold deontology, and considering that you did not ever address the existence of said threshold, I’d say my answer speaks for itself. If you think his threshold was purely Christian, that might be part of the problem here, because I don’t view challenging Christianity as a whole or in part as a response to his framework.
Alright, then quote where you stated what your framework is.
Not sure if you actually meant to send that first comment truncated, but it's also not particularly clear what point you're making. None of what I said included any problems with your not presenting something in R1. I didn't see it in any of your constructives. You briefly mentioned in R2 that you "cast doubt on Pro claiming that anything deontological is made clearer by PSA," though a) that's not specific to threshold deontology, b) simply saying you did it doesn't mean you accomplished the task, c) casting doubt on it logically doesn't mean that mean that it's ethically untenable, and d) I did point out how I would evaluate this debate if I assumed that you had rebutted his framework without presenting a competing framework.
I’m happy to reconsider my vote if you can point out to me where you presented an alternative framework. Hell, if you want to explain specific points you feel I’ve missed, we can discuss them in detail.
Hey, as usual, you’re welcome.
That may be the reason (I agree that it is), but I think his point is that it’s harmful to do so. Financial incentive shouldn’t trump potential harm.