**************************************************
>Reported Vote: WyIted // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to con
>Reason for Decision: See Votes tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voting period on this debate has ended and thus the vote can no longer be removed. If this had been reported during the voting period, it would have been removed because the voter does not explain how or why the instigator has some greater conduct demerit for having forfeited than the challenger who did the same. For future reference, weighing forfeits differently like this would not pass moderation.
**************************************************
Alright, though that decision was recently overturned, at least in large part. That aside, I think this debate explores other facets of the issue. Would appreciate your voting on it if you're interested.
Meant to respond to you earlier. I get it, only a week and a half left so probably not enough time to get those things. In any case, appreciate the interest and any feedback on the debate, whether it's in vote form or otherwise.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: zing_book // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to pro, 1 to con
>Reason for Decision:
I see that the participants have swapped roles as..."debater.it
08.22.22 08:07PM
Pro
#1
An abortion is a medicalprocedure that ends a pregnancy. These are only a few of the reasons that itshould be illegal
1- Why shouldnt an expecting mother decide what she should get to do with her body, including abortion?
2- What happens if a person getsraped and remains pregnant, even worse if a little girl gets raped (Which hashappened many times in the past, including a few weeks ago)
3. What if an expecting motherfinds out that she will 100 percent die if she brings the baby to term? Or whatif that same expecting mother finds out that she will survive but her babywould only survive for about 2 hours and that the baby would suffer all twohours of his short life"
and"Abortion being legal in the first trimester is a necessary evil."
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter doesn’t explain why they chose to award these points, instead merely citing the an arguments given by Pro without evaluation. The voter also appears to believe that the debaters swapped roles, when in reality one side argued for the wrong side in the debate and the other side simply pointed that out. The voter also fails to note the concession.
**************************************************
I often have a good deal of respect for votes that go against me, and you can feel free to look back at my previous debates - I have no interest in starting or continuing a set of comments about a vote, whether I like or dislike it. That being said, expressing some degree of frustration with a vote is sometimes warranted. You don’t have to agree that that’s the case here, though I’d be willing to discuss it via PM if you want.
Well, I appreciate your taking the time to vote, though I have several problems with it. I won’t discuss those here as I don’t wish to influence other voters.
Again, I don’t think that I granted him anything he didn’t say in one form or another, even though I agree that he could have been clearer. I grant you that I’ve made the mistake of giving one side more than they actually argued within the confines of the debate, but I’m honestly not sure that happened here. I do encourage you to get more voters on this because, and I want to emphasize this, I should not be the sole voice when it comes to decisions on this or any debate. If I’m incorrect in my assessment, then other voters would hopefully correct for my errors.
I think we’re closer to the same page, but not quite on it. Pro’s argument wasn’t that the DSM itself is the problem (though I get the impression that that is closer to his actual opinion), but rather that it can be weaponized to cause harm and that the ODD as defined in the DSM could be (or is being, though Pro didn’t demonstrate that) similarly weaponized to cause harm. So yes, his focus was on how the DSM could be used to cause harm and not just what constitutes ODD in a vacuum divorced from that context.
I wouldn’t say that that is affording Pro any new links between his case and the resolution, though I do think that said links could have been better framed and clarified. Maybe it’s just my perspective as someone external to the debate and it certainly wouldn’t be the first time that my mind filled in gaps I thought weren’t there, but I took this perspective as a given from Pro’s opening round.
I could completely understand if the argument was made that we should divorce the ODD definition in the DSM as an issue from the ways that the DSM is enforced, and even without a CP, I could see a case being made that Pro is putting a bandaid over an open would by solely seeking to resolve ODD via its removal. If the issue is that psychiatrists are weaponizing the ways we define certain disorders with vague checklists, then ODD is far from alone and I think you pointed that out, just not enough to knock down Pro’s solvency of the broader issues he was suggesting make this so harmful to those diagnosed with ODD.
Pro’s argument was that it shouldn’t be part of the DSM because it becomes a tool that the psychiatric establishment wields to cause the various harms that he discussed, i.e. it’s exclusion from the DSM disempowers these psychiatrists and therefore prevents those harms that are caused to those diagnosed with ODD. That’s relevant. You argued that that is more an issue of application than it is an issue of what should be in the DSM, and I agree, but as you couldn’t present a CP, this is an argument that your opponent effectively required be treated as relevant since there was no way to delink the DSM from its application by altering said application.
I understand why you framed it the way you did, but in doing so, you effectively made this a fact debate, which would fit better if the resolution was “Oppositional Defiant Disorder does not qualify to be in the DSM.” As written, that “should” makes me focus on the impact of the decision to include it and not just the fact that its inclusion does or does not makes sense. If it’s net harmful to include it, then it should not be in the DSM even if it qualifies as something that fits the criteria for what is included in the DSM. The comparison to other disorders could have helped you here since you could have called into question whether the selective removal of ODD has adverse effects on the perception of those other disorders and spun out the harms well beyond those of ignoring clear-cut cases of ODD, but regardless, I think your case was hampered by focusing on the fact element to the exclusion of others.
The lengths to which you are responding to me (see your last post) shows a rather excessive interest in addressing me. I posted a couple of sentences to you. Apparently, you didn't think that was enough, but that's fine.
I never said I wasn't receptive to criticism. If you want to criticize my vote, feel free. I'm happy to address it. I'm just not going to tell you that your vote is wrong. I wouldn't call what I've done "frantic," though, again, see your last post. Pot, meet kettle.
Talking to someone and talking about someone are two very different things. You were talking about me and my decision. I responded to your claim about it and, as it is clearly directed at the "competence" of "the other 2 voters", it seemed appropriate to say something. Directing that comment at someone else doesn't mean that it has nothing to do with me or, for that matter, with BearMan.
You're welcome to your opinion, as usual. Doesn't mean you're correct in your assessment, but I'm really not willing to argue your perspective with you.
It wasn’t unwinnable by any means, though I’ll note that when you present a critique that utilizes a plan that your opponent can permutate and incorporate into their own, you’re setting yourself up for trouble. You might think I’m just being “simple-minded”, but I think it’s pretty self-explanatory. As for tenses, over-reliance on what you viewed as a clear distinction between your positions is not what I would call “creative”.
All I’ll say here while voting is ongoing (because we could get into territory of what was actually said and why) is that I had anticipated that kind of response and that he does at least allude to that point in R3. We can discuss it via PM if you’re interested since you already have a vote posted.
The voting period is one month, and with the argument period being so long, I don’t want to lose track of arguments while I wait for the next arguments to be posted. I’ll wait until it’s all posted before I start reading.
I'll only say that I had a reason for not taking either of those routes, though I won't discuss it here since that would require discussing my arguments in some detail.
Had something else written, but I'll go with Bones on this one. I'd rather not provide more insight than I already have into my views of the topic, burdens and rules. It's your call.
Alright, good to finally have that finished - was a particularly busy week. It was honestly a pleasure debating this. Been a long while since I really put together my thoughts on abortion into some cohesive argument (last time was way back in the DDO days, and my opinions have changed since then, even though my position has been consistent), so this was a good time to work on. I think I'd rather have gone for shorter rounds since these ended up feeling pretty long to me, but no matter the outcome, I'm happy to have done it.
I appreciate you inviting me to debate this as well. Always interested to get some new perspectives on abortion, and I find that I’ll often get some interesting takes on the pro-life position by doing these debates. This is no exception, and needless to say, I always enjoy a good challenge. Been a while since I’ve debated before this, so it’s nice to shake off the rust.
Sounds like an issue between the two of you, so I won't weigh in on that.
As for AMVs, I'm always happy to share some of my favorites, though a lot of them are in that debate with RM. Might have lost, but I enjoyed combing through them and getting some recommendations from RM.
I'll avoid addressing anything that might be pertinent to a decision on this, but... seriously, you think half of my wins come from anime music video battles? I've done one of those. I've done two others related to music in anime, and I'll note that the one time I did anime music videos, I lost. I've done 23 debates, dude, so that represents a tenth of my wins.
As for Bones, he's a legitimately good debater. In general, I think focusing too much on win records is just not a legitimate way to measure if someone's likely to win any given debate, but he's won his share of good debates and he's putting up a good fight here.
Yep, I’m pretty slow about posting these, a combination of limited time and being overly verbose (requires some trimming). Bones gave the best options for keeping an argument in progress, though I’ll often save to Word as well.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Novice_II // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter covers arguments given by both debaters and which arguments factored into his decision, as well as the reasons why others did not. That is sufficient to meet the voting standards on arguments. Conduct seems largely justified by pointing to the invectives against those who follow Islam, rather than the focus on the belief system specifically that the topic requires.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Barney // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 to pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Under normal circumstances, this type of vote would not meet the voting standards as the voter does not specifically evaluate arguments given by either debater, but awards arguments regardless. This, however, is not a normal debate. Con clearly does engage in an extended invective against Pro that is also more broadly targeted at his religion and those who follow it. While the topic does invite criticism of Islam, Con clearly pushes it beyond that. The voter is allowed to award conduct on that basis regardless, but given that the insults take up the entirety of Con's argument, a direct comparison of points made in the debate is unnecessary to justify arguments as well. The voter could explain this in more detail, but he does not have to do so.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter covers arguments given by both debaters and how the debaters engaged with one another, factoring those elements into his vote. That is sufficient to meet the voting standards.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: christianm // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to con.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter covers points from both sides in his analysis and decides a winner based on that analysis. The vote is sufficient to meet the voting standards.
**************************************************
No need to explain. You’re welcome to take all the time you need. These days I’m rather limited myself (moved into a house a few weeks ago, on top of it everything) so I completely understand.
Out of curiosity, what would the justification have been?
Didn’t see it until yesterday, so unfortunately it came up too late on my end. I apologize for the delay.
Realized I tagged your old account here, so I'm tagging the correct one here.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: WyIted // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to con
>Reason for Decision: See Votes tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voting period on this debate has ended and thus the vote can no longer be removed. If this had been reported during the voting period, it would have been removed because the voter does not explain how or why the instigator has some greater conduct demerit for having forfeited than the challenger who did the same. For future reference, weighing forfeits differently like this would not pass moderation.
**************************************************
Alright, though that decision was recently overturned, at least in large part. That aside, I think this debate explores other facets of the issue. Would appreciate your voting on it if you're interested.
I do plan to vote on this one, received a request to do so from Intelligence. Should have it up by the end of the weekend.
Meant to respond to you earlier. I get it, only a week and a half left so probably not enough time to get those things. In any case, appreciate the interest and any feedback on the debate, whether it's in vote form or otherwise.
See below, forgot to tag you.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: zing_book // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to pro, 1 to con
>Reason for Decision:
I see that the participants have swapped roles as..."debater.it
08.22.22 08:07PM
Pro
#1
An abortion is a medicalprocedure that ends a pregnancy. These are only a few of the reasons that itshould be illegal
1- Why shouldnt an expecting mother decide what she should get to do with her body, including abortion?
2- What happens if a person getsraped and remains pregnant, even worse if a little girl gets raped (Which hashappened many times in the past, including a few weeks ago)
3. What if an expecting motherfinds out that she will 100 percent die if she brings the baby to term? Or whatif that same expecting mother finds out that she will survive but her babywould only survive for about 2 hours and that the baby would suffer all twohours of his short life"
and"Abortion being legal in the first trimester is a necessary evil."
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter doesn’t explain why they chose to award these points, instead merely citing the an arguments given by Pro without evaluation. The voter also appears to believe that the debaters swapped roles, when in reality one side argued for the wrong side in the debate and the other side simply pointed that out. The voter also fails to note the concession.
**************************************************
Understood.
Yeah, I always end up feeling strange writing that at the end of a debate for that very reason.
Would appreciate your voting on the debate of course.
I often have a good deal of respect for votes that go against me, and you can feel free to look back at my previous debates - I have no interest in starting or continuing a set of comments about a vote, whether I like or dislike it. That being said, expressing some degree of frustration with a vote is sometimes warranted. You don’t have to agree that that’s the case here, though I’d be willing to discuss it via PM if you want.
Well, I appreciate your taking the time to vote, though I have several problems with it. I won’t discuss those here as I don’t wish to influence other voters.
Done.
The problem is the duration of the voting period. No one feels particularly rushed to get to this one. Just have to be patient.
Again, I don’t think that I granted him anything he didn’t say in one form or another, even though I agree that he could have been clearer. I grant you that I’ve made the mistake of giving one side more than they actually argued within the confines of the debate, but I’m honestly not sure that happened here. I do encourage you to get more voters on this because, and I want to emphasize this, I should not be the sole voice when it comes to decisions on this or any debate. If I’m incorrect in my assessment, then other voters would hopefully correct for my errors.
I think we’re closer to the same page, but not quite on it. Pro’s argument wasn’t that the DSM itself is the problem (though I get the impression that that is closer to his actual opinion), but rather that it can be weaponized to cause harm and that the ODD as defined in the DSM could be (or is being, though Pro didn’t demonstrate that) similarly weaponized to cause harm. So yes, his focus was on how the DSM could be used to cause harm and not just what constitutes ODD in a vacuum divorced from that context.
I wouldn’t say that that is affording Pro any new links between his case and the resolution, though I do think that said links could have been better framed and clarified. Maybe it’s just my perspective as someone external to the debate and it certainly wouldn’t be the first time that my mind filled in gaps I thought weren’t there, but I took this perspective as a given from Pro’s opening round.
I could completely understand if the argument was made that we should divorce the ODD definition in the DSM as an issue from the ways that the DSM is enforced, and even without a CP, I could see a case being made that Pro is putting a bandaid over an open would by solely seeking to resolve ODD via its removal. If the issue is that psychiatrists are weaponizing the ways we define certain disorders with vague checklists, then ODD is far from alone and I think you pointed that out, just not enough to knock down Pro’s solvency of the broader issues he was suggesting make this so harmful to those diagnosed with ODD.
Pro’s argument was that it shouldn’t be part of the DSM because it becomes a tool that the psychiatric establishment wields to cause the various harms that he discussed, i.e. it’s exclusion from the DSM disempowers these psychiatrists and therefore prevents those harms that are caused to those diagnosed with ODD. That’s relevant. You argued that that is more an issue of application than it is an issue of what should be in the DSM, and I agree, but as you couldn’t present a CP, this is an argument that your opponent effectively required be treated as relevant since there was no way to delink the DSM from its application by altering said application.
I understand why you framed it the way you did, but in doing so, you effectively made this a fact debate, which would fit better if the resolution was “Oppositional Defiant Disorder does not qualify to be in the DSM.” As written, that “should” makes me focus on the impact of the decision to include it and not just the fact that its inclusion does or does not makes sense. If it’s net harmful to include it, then it should not be in the DSM even if it qualifies as something that fits the criteria for what is included in the DSM. The comparison to other disorders could have helped you here since you could have called into question whether the selective removal of ODD has adverse effects on the perception of those other disorders and spun out the harms well beyond those of ignoring clear-cut cases of ODD, but regardless, I think your case was hampered by focusing on the fact element to the exclusion of others.
The lengths to which you are responding to me (see your last post) shows a rather excessive interest in addressing me. I posted a couple of sentences to you. Apparently, you didn't think that was enough, but that's fine.
I never said I wasn't receptive to criticism. If you want to criticize my vote, feel free. I'm happy to address it. I'm just not going to tell you that your vote is wrong. I wouldn't call what I've done "frantic," though, again, see your last post. Pot, meet kettle.
Talking to someone and talking about someone are two very different things. You were talking about me and my decision. I responded to your claim about it and, as it is clearly directed at the "competence" of "the other 2 voters", it seemed appropriate to say something. Directing that comment at someone else doesn't mean that it has nothing to do with me or, for that matter, with BearMan.
You're welcome to your opinion, as usual. Doesn't mean you're correct in your assessment, but I'm really not willing to argue your perspective with you.
I’ll vote, seems like I have a while.
It wasn’t unwinnable by any means, though I’ll note that when you present a critique that utilizes a plan that your opponent can permutate and incorporate into their own, you’re setting yourself up for trouble. You might think I’m just being “simple-minded”, but I think it’s pretty self-explanatory. As for tenses, over-reliance on what you viewed as a clear distinction between your positions is not what I would call “creative”.
Hey, glad you appreciate the vote.
All I’ll say here while voting is ongoing (because we could get into territory of what was actually said and why) is that I had anticipated that kind of response and that he does at least allude to that point in R3. We can discuss it via PM if you’re interested since you already have a vote posted.
Thank you for voting!
I'll aim to get a vote up over the weekend.
Much obliged for the debate. Appreciated your arguments and had a good time revisiting and building on mine.
The voting period is one month, and with the argument period being so long, I don’t want to lose track of arguments while I wait for the next arguments to be posted. I’ll wait until it’s all posted before I start reading.
Not sure why you’re asking before the debate is finished, but I’ll aim to get to it after it’s done.
Can't promise anything with such a short amount of time left, but I'll try.
I didn't mean it that way. I appreciate the consideration, really.
I knew already, but I appreciate the reminder.
Agree to disagree for now.
I'll only say that I had a reason for not taking either of those routes, though I won't discuss it here since that would require discussing my arguments in some detail.
I appreciate the RFD and the feedback. Thanks for keeping up with the debate, I know this was a long one.
Had something else written, but I'll go with Bones on this one. I'd rather not provide more insight than I already have into my views of the topic, burdens and rules. It's your call.
Alright, good to finally have that finished - was a particularly busy week. It was honestly a pleasure debating this. Been a long while since I really put together my thoughts on abortion into some cohesive argument (last time was way back in the DDO days, and my opinions have changed since then, even though my position has been consistent), so this was a good time to work on. I think I'd rather have gone for shorter rounds since these ended up feeling pretty long to me, but no matter the outcome, I'm happy to have done it.
I appreciate you inviting me to debate this as well. Always interested to get some new perspectives on abortion, and I find that I’ll often get some interesting takes on the pro-life position by doing these debates. This is no exception, and needless to say, I always enjoy a good challenge. Been a while since I’ve debated before this, so it’s nice to shake off the rust.
Sounds like an issue between the two of you, so I won't weigh in on that.
As for AMVs, I'm always happy to share some of my favorites, though a lot of them are in that debate with RM. Might have lost, but I enjoyed combing through them and getting some recommendations from RM.
I'll avoid addressing anything that might be pertinent to a decision on this, but... seriously, you think half of my wins come from anime music video battles? I've done one of those. I've done two others related to music in anime, and I'll note that the one time I did anime music videos, I lost. I've done 23 debates, dude, so that represents a tenth of my wins.
As for Bones, he's a legitimately good debater. In general, I think focusing too much on win records is just not a legitimate way to measure if someone's likely to win any given debate, but he's won his share of good debates and he's putting up a good fight here.
Yep, I’m pretty slow about posting these, a combination of limited time and being overly verbose (requires some trimming). Bones gave the best options for keeping an argument in progress, though I’ll often save to Word as well.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Novice_II // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter covers arguments given by both debaters and which arguments factored into his decision, as well as the reasons why others did not. That is sufficient to meet the voting standards on arguments. Conduct seems largely justified by pointing to the invectives against those who follow Islam, rather than the focus on the belief system specifically that the topic requires.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Barney // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 to pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Under normal circumstances, this type of vote would not meet the voting standards as the voter does not specifically evaluate arguments given by either debater, but awards arguments regardless. This, however, is not a normal debate. Con clearly does engage in an extended invective against Pro that is also more broadly targeted at his religion and those who follow it. While the topic does invite criticism of Islam, Con clearly pushes it beyond that. The voter is allowed to award conduct on that basis regardless, but given that the insults take up the entirety of Con's argument, a direct comparison of points made in the debate is unnecessary to justify arguments as well. The voter could explain this in more detail, but he does not have to do so.
**************************************************
I'll only include additional sources from this round. Every other citation is either a repeat of my R1 or uses a source from Pro's R1.
1. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/on--balance
2. https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0140-6736%2811%2961786-8
3. https://gh.bmj.com/content/bmjgh/7/3/e007151.full.pdf
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law
5. https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2014/09/28/349890020/what-drives-abortion-the-law-or-income
6. https://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/our-history
7. https://www.shaheen.senate.gov/news/press/senators-shaheen-and-hassan-help-introduce-legislation-to-protect-funding-for-planned-parenthood-and-family-planning-centers-
I’ll bite: what rule do you believe this vote violates?
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter covers arguments given by both debaters and how the debaters engaged with one another, factoring those elements into his vote. That is sufficient to meet the voting standards.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: christianm // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to con.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter covers points from both sides in his analysis and decides a winner based on that analysis. The vote is sufficient to meet the voting standards.
**************************************************
Done.
No need to explain. You’re welcome to take all the time you need. These days I’m rather limited myself (moved into a house a few weeks ago, on top of it everything) so I completely understand.