I heard something about that, don't know the details.
I'd just generally disagree that taking away further impetus for negative blowback in the future (and I'd stress that simply abandoning the Middle East would have its own blowback, since it, too, is an action with consequences for the region) necessarily stops all future desire to cause harm. The US has been in the region for a long time. Saying that we made a mistake and leaving doesn't make the pain of that prolonged presence go away. It might give them less impetus to attack us, but it certainly doesn't suddenly reduce it to zero.
Nukes have their own set of principles that everyone plays by in order to prevent them from being used. Mutually assured destruction is certainly a motivator, but the actions it motivates often have nothing to do with actually using nukes.
My strategy would have changed as well if that was the case. The argument just would have been focused on more current and probable future problems.
It affects the availability of global resources, leads to refugee crises and generally causes massive humanitarian concerns that we cannot just ignore.
And if someone else is willing, you're welcome to argue it with them.
I disagree with how you think things would play out if Israel and the US functionally removed themselves as players in the Middle East. I think it would be more complicated than that, and old tensions would die hard if at all.
Now, if you want to argue that the Middle East would just become peaceful if Israel was disbanded, we can do that. I don't think your position would be possible to win, but you're welcome to try.
I didn't argue that it was ethical. You asked if them spying on us was worse than us spying on them. I said no. It's bad both ways. And no, I'm not interested in debating that.
And no, I haven't claimed that there is something as bad done by American spies in Israel, though I think determining what is the worst act of spies depends entirely on the party that was harmed in the process. Determining who got harmed and to what degree by spy activities that may still largely remain confidential is not the kind of debate I want to have.
I fully expect the latter. That is most debating, even between very good debaters. Anyone who thinks it's the first probably hasn't been in enough debates.
Dude, if I was so nervous about losing rating, I don’t know why I would have accepted any of the anime-related “debates” I have. On top of that, as Oro already indicated, he and I decided to have a debate together ages ago and, much as this is not the topic I’d prefer to debate, I have stated outright that I am willing to do it.
So I’m not sure why you think I’m skulking, but I’m neither afraid of losing rating nor of this debate.
I just noticed the series of posts between you and Supa before I posted this (I've had the page up and just reloaded). I haven't read any of your back and forth, so this is just my response to the challenge and engages with the first few responses you received in the comments.
Honestly... this is the kind of debate I dislike the most.
Looking at the wording of it, we're going to be discussing what "duty" and "fairly" mean in this context for most of each round. Hell, I'd be surprised if we spend more than a single round discussing what actually happened, who did it and why, so this debate is going to be almost entirely semantic. Even with all the definitions accepted as is, the terminology is vague enough that we're going to be spending the vast majority of our time addressing what actions demonstrate responsibility or lack thereof and what constitutes what is proper.
Beyond that, as RM has already suggested in the comments, people have already made up their minds about how they view our duties and whether we met them. I had hoped that our debate would be more of an opportunity for us to engage on an issue that would be more than just a referendum on mod behaviors and would allow us to dig deep into a topic where the arguments weren't already blatantly obvious and the sides not pre-drawn.
All that being said, if you want to have this, we can do it, even if it isn't what I'd like to do. I won't be able to start yet (thanks for the 2 week acceptance period), but I should be able to accept next week. If you have ideas on ways to reduce how much of this debate will be semantic, I would be happy to discuss them.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ramshutu // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 points to con.
>Reason for Decision: See Voting Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
While there may be substantive issues with the interpretation that the voter brings to this debate, the vote still sufficient to meet the voting standards of the site. The voter does not have to exhaustively cover everything said by both debaters, even when some points state the absence of certain arguments that may be present in some form within the debate, and at least in the cases of alleged misinterpretation, I can see how the voter came to view the arguments in this light. With regards to the conduct point, the voter's interpretation of the rules of the debate appear reasonable, and while there may be differing interpretations of said rules, the voter does have leeway to interpret in the way he did here.
**************************************************
Establishing restrictions on the use of antibiotics for medical use (either side)
Environmental movements should support climate engineering that fundamentally alters the environment in an attempt to combat global warming (Con)
Government agencies that regulate drugs should only test whether a drug is safe, not whether it is effective, before approving it for public use (Con)
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: 949havoc // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 to con.
>Reason for Decision:
I must first comment that in posting comment #5 I misunderstood the thrust of the topic, which I took to mean voting on. a debate, but the instigator did say in description that while debate is one of the options Pro indicated, it also included elections of issues and candidates. Others also had this impression.
Pro's topic is a blanket need to replace FPTP. The supporting Pro argument is that AV voting is preferable because in a condition where there are more than two choices, AV offers the better representative vote. However, Pro's thrust ignores, which Con successfully rebuts, that AV fails to have advantage in a two-choice vote, using the debate format, in fact, this debate, as example. Pro claims in the last two rounds that Con never rebuts the pro argument, but this 2-choice example is used by Con in all three rounds, and Con's 2-choice argument is the logical conclusion with either FPTP or AV voting, so Pro's argument is successfully defeated.
Pro presents supporting sources in the first round, and abandons further sourcing in the following rounds. Con offers no sources at all. one might be inclined to give the points to Pro for sourcing, but those sources fail to support Pro's argument. Results: tie.
Pro's first round was very organized, but that organization disappeared in the following rounds. Large blocks of text made Pro's organization difficult to follow. Whereas, Con's arguments and rebuttals were short and concise and much easier to follow. Pro was just too verbose. Poi t to Con
Both opponents displays good conduct to one another. Tie.
>Reason for Mod Action:
While the voter provides sufficient analysis of the arguments in the debate to warrant the allocation of those points, the S&G point is not sufficient. Legibility is an optional award as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, wherein sections of the debate become illegible or at least comparatively burdensome to decipher. While this may include the use of large blocks of text, as they can make reading more difficult, none of those are on display in Pro's arguments, and both sides utilize paragraphs of a reasonable size. Other examples provided, including being verbose or eschewing some forms of organization as the debate went on, are not sufficient reasons to award this point.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: gugigor // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 points to con.
>Reason for Decision: See Voting Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
While the voter could stand to be more detailed, but it is sufficient in that it addresses the core arguments from both sides. Voters are allowed to state that they do not understand certain points as part of their RFDs, even if the debater(s) feel that these arguments are comprehensible.
**************************************************
I'm not suggesting you use a million words. I'm not suggesting that you didn't read and judge appropriately. I am saying that you have to show how you evaluated some individual arguments in the debate and give some attention to specific points made by each side. That's part of the Voting Policy on this site. You don't have to like it, but if you want to vote, you must abide by it.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: zedvictor4 // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 0 points.
>Reason for Decision: Neither debater actually addressed the issue in question...."Proof of COVID vaccination" and the requirement thereof.
>Reason for Mod Action:
As a general rule, votes that do not impact the debate are given greater leeway than votes that award points. Even a vote like this that lacks substantial analysis is not moderated so long as it's a tied vote. As this vote lacks any impact on the outcome of the debate, it stands as written.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: zedvictor4 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to pro.
>Reason for Decision: Con failed to utilise the word Verwirken.
Thus proving that they are reliant on English precision.
>Reason for Mod Action:
In a debate where both sides forfeit all rounds, the failure of one side to perform a specific task that the voter imposes on them for no particular reason isn't sufficient to meet the voting standards. Neither side relied on either English nor German because neither side posted. The voter is both arbitrarily imposing a standard and dismissing the obvious forfeits to award one side the win.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: zedvictor4 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to con.
>Reason for Decision: As one might of expected, technicality exceeded the necessity of "ought".
Though in the end stoicism triumphed over emotion anyway.
In all honesty, Pro shouldn't expect to win this particular contest. Hoisted by their own petard, as it were.
>Reason for Mod Action:
This is a vague justification for a vote. The voter simply says that certain general points won out over other points and claims that one side was "[h]oisted by their own petard," which doesn't sufficiently explain the decision. This can be avoided in future by just commenting on the core contention (and the main counterpoint or the lack thereof).
**************************************************
I didn't say that I didn't understand your reasoning. I said that your reasoning clearly brought in your own opinions and neglected to address any specific arguments from Pro, which is a requirement for posting votes based on arguments on this site. Being explicit about your praise for his overall argument doesn't mean that the target of that praise, the specific points he made that you viewed as valid, were clear.
**************************************************
>Reported Votes: RationalMadman, sigmaphil, Intelligence_06 // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 6:0, points to Pro
>Reason for Decision: See Voting Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
A debate may have special rules specified within the description. These are not strictly enforced by moderation, but a voter may choose to abide. If a voter is choosing to and there was a challenge to said rules within the debate, some analysis of that challenge is highly suggested, though all of these votes meet the basic standard for voting on this basis.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: BrotherDThomas // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 6:0, points to Pro
>Reason for Decision: "I VOTE PRO, hands down!
The total Bible inept FAUXLAW, as I have shown ad infinitum within this forum, struck out when he accepts that Christians have "Free Will," which if FAUXLAW actually "read" his bible, WE DO NOT have Free Will! This alone strikes out FAUXLAW, along with his other circular reasoning statements and coming up with more lame excuses to run, where the rules were set, but he refused to follow them.
Unfortunately for the pseudo-christian crowd, of which FAUXLAW represents bar none, PRO came forth with some very astute propositions that make me question my faith of being the only TRUE Christian upon this esteemed forum.
In closing, and as literally shown, FAUXLAW was present in the debate, but he was just along for the ride and thinking to himself, "Why did I debate Bones, remind me to never do this again to save what modicum of face I have left upon this forum!""
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content. The vote contains no analysis of Pro's argument aside from vague praise, and his analysis of Con's argument is restricted to providing his own response to a point Con made and chiding him personally. Neither of these are sufficient analysis to warrant a vote for arguments, and the voter provides no reasoning for sources or conduct apart from personal disagreement and frustration.
I tried to keep this brief, though brief for me is still pretty long for many.
I think it's important to have some clarity when it comes to what, exactly, Pro's burden is in this debate. Both sides try to define it, and in doing so, both sides apparently skew it unnecessarily. Pro claims that his burden is simply to show that Hitler contributed to the fall of the Third Reich, which doesn't really fit my reading of the resolution, as this resolution suggests a much more absolute scenario than a contribution would manage. Con more correctly orients it as placing Hitler as the predominant cause, though that swings a little more harshly than is necessary. It seems straightforward to me: Pro must prove that Hitler took actions that played a key role in the Third Reich losing the war. Other factors could contribute and perhaps even exceed him in importance, but his decisions have to have done more than just contribute. These have to be lynchpin factors, without which there was at least substantial uncertainty that the Third Reich would lose the war. Maybe this is just me imposing my views on the debate, but as there is no agreement with regards to the burdens and as those are not defined until the first round (where they are fair game to receive criticism from the opponent), I think the best alternative is to find a reasonable middle ground, one which I think best fits the topic you're debating.
However, that's only a start, and this leads me into the biggest problem with this debate: what would have happened in the absence of Hitler's decision-making during WWII? I feel like this question is left on the table throughout this debate. There's an underlying assumption to everything Pro says about Hitler and the decisions he makes that, if those decisions hadn't been made by him, something better would have happened. I don't know what those scenarios would look like. I think you need to play a bit with alternate history to make a debate like this work, and I don't see either side engaging in that, which is a pity. I'm left with a lot of questions, like what would have happened if Germany had not declared war on the US? I get some indication that there were alternate reasons for Germany to declare war from Con besides backing Japan, but nothing about how a shift in decision-making could have affected the war overall. What would have happened if Hitler hadn't invaded the Soviet Union? Beyond that, in the absence of Hitler making these decisions, who would be making the decisions for the Third Reich? Why should I trust that they would win the war effort? I know this is all speculation and somewhat difficult to define, but so much of Pro's argument is predicated on the notion that you just take these decisions away and things go better for Germany. Even if we don't assume they make alternate choices and every decision is just nullified, I'm not so sure that you can assume everything from that point on plays out well for Germany.
Essentially, I think what's missing from this debate, and what affects Con the most, is a basis for determining whether the Third Reich would have lost the war if you took these decisions out of the picture or replaced them with alternate choices. In the absence of that, what I have is some arguments about the training, capabilities and economic circumstances. What these all tell me is that there were other factors affecting whether the Third Reich could win the war at all, which is a start, but it's not enough by itself. I'm getting too much information about why the decisions of Hitler clearly did affect the Third Reich's status in meaningful ways, particularly in terms of splitting its efforts and increasing the strain on its resources. Con never tells me why these things weren't instrumental in their loss, just that there are other elements that likely did contribute to that loss as well. If I had a better picture of what the world looks like in the absence of these choices beyond the scope of a single battle like the Battle of Britain, this might have been more meaningful. If I acknowledge that losing the Battle of Britain was always guaranteed, it doesn't tell me that the Third Reich would have lost the war. If I acknowledge that they had financial and training difficulties, that gives me some inkling that they couldn't sustain the war effort and may lose some battles, but it doesn't tell me they will fail regardless of their leader's decisions. I need a look at the bigger picture, not just plausible weaknesses that could impact the outcome of the war. And yes, that requires playing with the theoretical, but it requires it of both sides. I don't think Pro could have gotten away from having to explain what fills the voids he's leaving behind by saying that these decisions shouldn't have been made. If there's reason to believe that Hitler's absence from the decision-making would have led to the same outcome because other people in the Third Reich's leadership also made bad decisions, that's pretty important to determining how this plays out.
But in the absence of that bigger picture, I'm forced to reckon with the fact that Hitler did a lot to stress his forces and take away any possible advantage they might have had. Would that have been enough by itself to wreck their war machine? Maybe not, but it satisfies as a lynchpin to me, and thus reason enough to vote Pro.
Appreciate the vote and the feedback. Not to influence future voters, but I saw the point about white-collar criminals as an impact of the court clog argument rather than an independent contention. I can understand that I didn't show any obvious link between that and autonomy, though, so the point is well-taken. Haven't done enough LD debate to be all that effective at stringing everything through the value and criterion like I should be.
Eh, it's fine. My impression was that Intelligence realized his strategy in the opening round wasn't going to work, so he downshifted to a largely semantic argument. I think he would have been much better off if he just dug into examples of where proof should be required like his hospitals point, though even then, it's pretty clear he left pretty much all of your argument unaddressed, which meant he had to do a lot more on the weighing analysis front. Without that, all he had was the desperation play.
I’d say it’s weakly implied, but only in retrospect. Without seeing his R3, it wouldn’t have been clear at all that he was suggesting a shift in who furnished that proof.
I will point out that it also muddles the resolution a bit. Proof of vaccination is required by whom? It sounds like you’re talking about the need for some external agency (likely the FDA) to verify distinct populations in the research (i.e. those who got the vaccine and those who didn’t) rather than a requirement of the company conducting the research, since we’re talking about who would approve the study when we discuss “proof.” So I guess you could have argued that study validation requires proof, rather than saying that companies running the study need to be able to track vaccinated individuals, which seems off from the definition of proof. All of that being said, the implication here is that companies would get sloppy or even falsify evidence in the absence of a mandate like this, and it’s incumbent on you to show that that’s likely to happen. Otherwise, the point has no impact because, yes, it’s plausible that they can still track people and claim accurate results without a requirement.
I wouldn’t call that “proof of vaccination” so much as tracking of who received what shot during a clinical trial. Considering as well that Pro had an implied definition of persons furnishing proof themselves up to that point, I found it problematic that you tried to establish a new definition so late in the debate (you hinted at it in R2, but only clarified in R3). If you want to make the debate semantic like this, present the point in R1, don’t bury the lead.
I've read through it, and honestly, I'm still not sure what to think by the end. I agree with Ragnar that not defining the BoP of the two sides off the bat and examining what is necessary for each side to win the debate makes the whole thing more difficult to judge. I'll need to chew it over awhile and see if I can come to some kind of decision.
I guess I shouldn't be concerned with this, but given that I'm debating FT on this same topic, I do want to make sure you're both good with having me post a vote on this one. I'll post an RFD regardless (haven't written anything yet), but if you want me to void out the points due to concerns over bias, I'd be fine doing that.
Like I said, it has less to do with the content of the sources than it does with their application to the debate. I rarely award source points, but I feel it's justified in this instance.
I’ll also note that none of my RFD is based in the interpretation that censorship must encompass more than what already is censored. Not sure where you’re getting that.
Well, now you’ve blocked me, not sure why. If you disagree, then so be it. I’m not here to court your favor. I’ve voted on four debates between you and Undefeatable, and voted for you on two of them. You’re welcome to think it should be more, but I have a very clear voting record and I’ve voted on a similar basis multiple times before. Undefeatable, of all people on this site, knows I’m not biased in his favor.
But hey, you do you. Guessing I’ll see a post in the forums about this at some stage.
Been working my way through the debate, but probably won't get an RFD up tonight, unfortunately. That just means I won't be influencing the decision - I'll still post a decision over the next couple of days to throw in on this.
Appreciate that, though just recognize that this is pretty perfectly in my wheelhouse. I'm a virologist (mostly involving plants, but still) and policy debates are my jam.
Not that I'm on his side with this particular topic, Undefeatable, but I think Benjamin's argument is that the pro-choice position involves selecting a point at which the unborn should be treated as a human and that, therefore, every stage before that point should not be treated as human. He's arguing that there's a dividing line that is being placed arbitrarily. You can argue that that point does not take place at any stage that can be defined as a fetus, but presumably, you set that line somewhere. Not going to take this opportunity to make an argument of my own about how this argument affects the pro-life position (largely because I don't want to interfere with the debate), but I felt it should be clarified.
...Would the Third Reich even have existed in the form it did if not for Hitler’s arrogance and impatience? Historical “what ifs” like this get a little troublesome when you’re talking about a personality - strip that away and a lot can change in multiple directions.
I heard something about that, don't know the details.
I'd just generally disagree that taking away further impetus for negative blowback in the future (and I'd stress that simply abandoning the Middle East would have its own blowback, since it, too, is an action with consequences for the region) necessarily stops all future desire to cause harm. The US has been in the region for a long time. Saying that we made a mistake and leaving doesn't make the pain of that prolonged presence go away. It might give them less impetus to attack us, but it certainly doesn't suddenly reduce it to zero.
Nukes have their own set of principles that everyone plays by in order to prevent them from being used. Mutually assured destruction is certainly a motivator, but the actions it motivates often have nothing to do with actually using nukes.
My strategy would have changed as well if that was the case. The argument just would have been focused on more current and probable future problems.
It affects the availability of global resources, leads to refugee crises and generally causes massive humanitarian concerns that we cannot just ignore.
And if someone else is willing, you're welcome to argue it with them.
I disagree with how you think things would play out if Israel and the US functionally removed themselves as players in the Middle East. I think it would be more complicated than that, and old tensions would die hard if at all.
Now, if you want to argue that the Middle East would just become peaceful if Israel was disbanded, we can do that. I don't think your position would be possible to win, but you're welcome to try.
I didn't argue that it was ethical. You asked if them spying on us was worse than us spying on them. I said no. It's bad both ways. And no, I'm not interested in debating that.
And no, I haven't claimed that there is something as bad done by American spies in Israel, though I think determining what is the worst act of spies depends entirely on the party that was harmed in the process. Determining who got harmed and to what degree by spy activities that may still largely remain confidential is not the kind of debate I want to have.
No to both questions.
That's the plan.
Alright. Accepted.
I fully expect the latter. That is most debating, even between very good debaters. Anyone who thinks it's the first probably hasn't been in enough debates.
Dude, if I was so nervous about losing rating, I don’t know why I would have accepted any of the anime-related “debates” I have. On top of that, as Oro already indicated, he and I decided to have a debate together ages ago and, much as this is not the topic I’d prefer to debate, I have stated outright that I am willing to do it.
So I’m not sure why you think I’m skulking, but I’m neither afraid of losing rating nor of this debate.
I just noticed the series of posts between you and Supa before I posted this (I've had the page up and just reloaded). I haven't read any of your back and forth, so this is just my response to the challenge and engages with the first few responses you received in the comments.
Honestly... this is the kind of debate I dislike the most.
Looking at the wording of it, we're going to be discussing what "duty" and "fairly" mean in this context for most of each round. Hell, I'd be surprised if we spend more than a single round discussing what actually happened, who did it and why, so this debate is going to be almost entirely semantic. Even with all the definitions accepted as is, the terminology is vague enough that we're going to be spending the vast majority of our time addressing what actions demonstrate responsibility or lack thereof and what constitutes what is proper.
Beyond that, as RM has already suggested in the comments, people have already made up their minds about how they view our duties and whether we met them. I had hoped that our debate would be more of an opportunity for us to engage on an issue that would be more than just a referendum on mod behaviors and would allow us to dig deep into a topic where the arguments weren't already blatantly obvious and the sides not pre-drawn.
All that being said, if you want to have this, we can do it, even if it isn't what I'd like to do. I won't be able to start yet (thanks for the 2 week acceptance period), but I should be able to accept next week. If you have ideas on ways to reduce how much of this debate will be semantic, I would be happy to discuss them.
Actually, never mind. It's a vote based on a concession, so I'll just remove it. You're welcome to re-post anytime.
Just confirm that that is what you want to do and I will go forward with it.
I can remove it and you can re-post.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ramshutu // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 points to con.
>Reason for Decision: See Voting Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
While there may be substantive issues with the interpretation that the voter brings to this debate, the vote still sufficient to meet the voting standards of the site. The voter does not have to exhaustively cover everything said by both debaters, even when some points state the absence of certain arguments that may be present in some form within the debate, and at least in the cases of alleged misinterpretation, I can see how the voter came to view the arguments in this light. With regards to the conduct point, the voter's interpretation of the rules of the debate appear reasonable, and while there may be differing interpretations of said rules, the voter does have leeway to interpret in the way he did here.
**************************************************
It'll have to wait a bit, likely won't be able to start this until the weekend, so I'll accept a little before then.
In the meantime, I would like to clarify what definitions we are using.
My use of the words "Establishing restrictions" implies the government actively imposing limitations on antibiotic usage. Are we agreed on that?
I'd be up for variations on any of the following:
Establishing restrictions on the use of antibiotics for medical use (either side)
Environmental movements should support climate engineering that fundamentally alters the environment in an attempt to combat global warming (Con)
Government agencies that regulate drugs should only test whether a drug is safe, not whether it is effective, before approving it for public use (Con)
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: 949havoc // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 to con.
>Reason for Decision:
I must first comment that in posting comment #5 I misunderstood the thrust of the topic, which I took to mean voting on. a debate, but the instigator did say in description that while debate is one of the options Pro indicated, it also included elections of issues and candidates. Others also had this impression.
Pro's topic is a blanket need to replace FPTP. The supporting Pro argument is that AV voting is preferable because in a condition where there are more than two choices, AV offers the better representative vote. However, Pro's thrust ignores, which Con successfully rebuts, that AV fails to have advantage in a two-choice vote, using the debate format, in fact, this debate, as example. Pro claims in the last two rounds that Con never rebuts the pro argument, but this 2-choice example is used by Con in all three rounds, and Con's 2-choice argument is the logical conclusion with either FPTP or AV voting, so Pro's argument is successfully defeated.
Pro presents supporting sources in the first round, and abandons further sourcing in the following rounds. Con offers no sources at all. one might be inclined to give the points to Pro for sourcing, but those sources fail to support Pro's argument. Results: tie.
Pro's first round was very organized, but that organization disappeared in the following rounds. Large blocks of text made Pro's organization difficult to follow. Whereas, Con's arguments and rebuttals were short and concise and much easier to follow. Pro was just too verbose. Poi t to Con
Both opponents displays good conduct to one another. Tie.
>Reason for Mod Action:
While the voter provides sufficient analysis of the arguments in the debate to warrant the allocation of those points, the S&G point is not sufficient. Legibility is an optional award as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, wherein sections of the debate become illegible or at least comparatively burdensome to decipher. While this may include the use of large blocks of text, as they can make reading more difficult, none of those are on display in Pro's arguments, and both sides utilize paragraphs of a reasonable size. Other examples provided, including being verbose or eschewing some forms of organization as the debate went on, are not sufficient reasons to award this point.
Remind me, shouldn't be a problem.
Still the plan
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: gugigor // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 points to con.
>Reason for Decision: See Voting Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
While the voter could stand to be more detailed, but it is sufficient in that it addresses the core arguments from both sides. Voters are allowed to state that they do not understand certain points as part of their RFDs, even if the debater(s) feel that these arguments are comprehensible.
**************************************************
I'm not suggesting you use a million words. I'm not suggesting that you didn't read and judge appropriately. I am saying that you have to show how you evaluated some individual arguments in the debate and give some attention to specific points made by each side. That's part of the Voting Policy on this site. You don't have to like it, but if you want to vote, you must abide by it.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: zedvictor4 // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 0 points.
>Reason for Decision: Neither debater actually addressed the issue in question...."Proof of COVID vaccination" and the requirement thereof.
>Reason for Mod Action:
As a general rule, votes that do not impact the debate are given greater leeway than votes that award points. Even a vote like this that lacks substantial analysis is not moderated so long as it's a tied vote. As this vote lacks any impact on the outcome of the debate, it stands as written.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: zedvictor4 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to pro.
>Reason for Decision: Con failed to utilise the word Verwirken.
Thus proving that they are reliant on English precision.
>Reason for Mod Action:
In a debate where both sides forfeit all rounds, the failure of one side to perform a specific task that the voter imposes on them for no particular reason isn't sufficient to meet the voting standards. Neither side relied on either English nor German because neither side posted. The voter is both arbitrarily imposing a standard and dismissing the obvious forfeits to award one side the win.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: zedvictor4 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to con.
>Reason for Decision: As one might of expected, technicality exceeded the necessity of "ought".
Though in the end stoicism triumphed over emotion anyway.
In all honesty, Pro shouldn't expect to win this particular contest. Hoisted by their own petard, as it were.
>Reason for Mod Action:
This is a vague justification for a vote. The voter simply says that certain general points won out over other points and claims that one side was "[h]oisted by their own petard," which doesn't sufficiently explain the decision. This can be avoided in future by just commenting on the core contention (and the main counterpoint or the lack thereof).
**************************************************
You're welcome to your opinions, but this is part of the standard for voting on this site.
I didn't say that I didn't understand your reasoning. I said that your reasoning clearly brought in your own opinions and neglected to address any specific arguments from Pro, which is a requirement for posting votes based on arguments on this site. Being explicit about your praise for his overall argument doesn't mean that the target of that praise, the specific points he made that you viewed as valid, were clear.
**************************************************
>Reported Votes: RationalMadman, sigmaphil, Intelligence_06 // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 6:0, points to Pro
>Reason for Decision: See Voting Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
A debate may have special rules specified within the description. These are not strictly enforced by moderation, but a voter may choose to abide. If a voter is choosing to and there was a challenge to said rules within the debate, some analysis of that challenge is highly suggested, though all of these votes meet the basic standard for voting on this basis.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: BrotherDThomas // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 6:0, points to Pro
>Reason for Decision: "I VOTE PRO, hands down!
The total Bible inept FAUXLAW, as I have shown ad infinitum within this forum, struck out when he accepts that Christians have "Free Will," which if FAUXLAW actually "read" his bible, WE DO NOT have Free Will! This alone strikes out FAUXLAW, along with his other circular reasoning statements and coming up with more lame excuses to run, where the rules were set, but he refused to follow them.
Unfortunately for the pseudo-christian crowd, of which FAUXLAW represents bar none, PRO came forth with some very astute propositions that make me question my faith of being the only TRUE Christian upon this esteemed forum.
In closing, and as literally shown, FAUXLAW was present in the debate, but he was just along for the ride and thinking to himself, "Why did I debate Bones, remind me to never do this again to save what modicum of face I have left upon this forum!""
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content. The vote contains no analysis of Pro's argument aside from vague praise, and his analysis of Con's argument is restricted to providing his own response to a point Con made and chiding him personally. Neither of these are sufficient analysis to warrant a vote for arguments, and the voter provides no reasoning for sources or conduct apart from personal disagreement and frustration.
RFD, Pt. 1
I tried to keep this brief, though brief for me is still pretty long for many.
I think it's important to have some clarity when it comes to what, exactly, Pro's burden is in this debate. Both sides try to define it, and in doing so, both sides apparently skew it unnecessarily. Pro claims that his burden is simply to show that Hitler contributed to the fall of the Third Reich, which doesn't really fit my reading of the resolution, as this resolution suggests a much more absolute scenario than a contribution would manage. Con more correctly orients it as placing Hitler as the predominant cause, though that swings a little more harshly than is necessary. It seems straightforward to me: Pro must prove that Hitler took actions that played a key role in the Third Reich losing the war. Other factors could contribute and perhaps even exceed him in importance, but his decisions have to have done more than just contribute. These have to be lynchpin factors, without which there was at least substantial uncertainty that the Third Reich would lose the war. Maybe this is just me imposing my views on the debate, but as there is no agreement with regards to the burdens and as those are not defined until the first round (where they are fair game to receive criticism from the opponent), I think the best alternative is to find a reasonable middle ground, one which I think best fits the topic you're debating.
However, that's only a start, and this leads me into the biggest problem with this debate: what would have happened in the absence of Hitler's decision-making during WWII? I feel like this question is left on the table throughout this debate. There's an underlying assumption to everything Pro says about Hitler and the decisions he makes that, if those decisions hadn't been made by him, something better would have happened. I don't know what those scenarios would look like. I think you need to play a bit with alternate history to make a debate like this work, and I don't see either side engaging in that, which is a pity. I'm left with a lot of questions, like what would have happened if Germany had not declared war on the US? I get some indication that there were alternate reasons for Germany to declare war from Con besides backing Japan, but nothing about how a shift in decision-making could have affected the war overall. What would have happened if Hitler hadn't invaded the Soviet Union? Beyond that, in the absence of Hitler making these decisions, who would be making the decisions for the Third Reich? Why should I trust that they would win the war effort? I know this is all speculation and somewhat difficult to define, but so much of Pro's argument is predicated on the notion that you just take these decisions away and things go better for Germany. Even if we don't assume they make alternate choices and every decision is just nullified, I'm not so sure that you can assume everything from that point on plays out well for Germany.
RFD, Pt. 2
Essentially, I think what's missing from this debate, and what affects Con the most, is a basis for determining whether the Third Reich would have lost the war if you took these decisions out of the picture or replaced them with alternate choices. In the absence of that, what I have is some arguments about the training, capabilities and economic circumstances. What these all tell me is that there were other factors affecting whether the Third Reich could win the war at all, which is a start, but it's not enough by itself. I'm getting too much information about why the decisions of Hitler clearly did affect the Third Reich's status in meaningful ways, particularly in terms of splitting its efforts and increasing the strain on its resources. Con never tells me why these things weren't instrumental in their loss, just that there are other elements that likely did contribute to that loss as well. If I had a better picture of what the world looks like in the absence of these choices beyond the scope of a single battle like the Battle of Britain, this might have been more meaningful. If I acknowledge that losing the Battle of Britain was always guaranteed, it doesn't tell me that the Third Reich would have lost the war. If I acknowledge that they had financial and training difficulties, that gives me some inkling that they couldn't sustain the war effort and may lose some battles, but it doesn't tell me they will fail regardless of their leader's decisions. I need a look at the bigger picture, not just plausible weaknesses that could impact the outcome of the war. And yes, that requires playing with the theoretical, but it requires it of both sides. I don't think Pro could have gotten away from having to explain what fills the voids he's leaving behind by saying that these decisions shouldn't have been made. If there's reason to believe that Hitler's absence from the decision-making would have led to the same outcome because other people in the Third Reich's leadership also made bad decisions, that's pretty important to determining how this plays out.
But in the absence of that bigger picture, I'm forced to reckon with the fact that Hitler did a lot to stress his forces and take away any possible advantage they might have had. Would that have been enough by itself to wreck their war machine? Maybe not, but it satisfies as a lynchpin to me, and thus reason enough to vote Pro.
Appreciate the vote and the feedback. Not to influence future voters, but I saw the point about white-collar criminals as an impact of the court clog argument rather than an independent contention. I can understand that I didn't show any obvious link between that and autonomy, though, so the point is well-taken. Haven't done enough LD debate to be all that effective at stringing everything through the value and criterion like I should be.
Eh, it's fine. My impression was that Intelligence realized his strategy in the opening round wasn't going to work, so he downshifted to a largely semantic argument. I think he would have been much better off if he just dug into examples of where proof should be required like his hospitals point, though even then, it's pretty clear he left pretty much all of your argument unaddressed, which meant he had to do a lot more on the weighing analysis front. Without that, all he had was the desperation play.
I’d say it’s weakly implied, but only in retrospect. Without seeing his R3, it wouldn’t have been clear at all that he was suggesting a shift in who furnished that proof.
I will point out that it also muddles the resolution a bit. Proof of vaccination is required by whom? It sounds like you’re talking about the need for some external agency (likely the FDA) to verify distinct populations in the research (i.e. those who got the vaccine and those who didn’t) rather than a requirement of the company conducting the research, since we’re talking about who would approve the study when we discuss “proof.” So I guess you could have argued that study validation requires proof, rather than saying that companies running the study need to be able to track vaccinated individuals, which seems off from the definition of proof. All of that being said, the implication here is that companies would get sloppy or even falsify evidence in the absence of a mandate like this, and it’s incumbent on you to show that that’s likely to happen. Otherwise, the point has no impact because, yes, it’s plausible that they can still track people and claim accurate results without a requirement.
I wouldn’t call that “proof of vaccination” so much as tracking of who received what shot during a clinical trial. Considering as well that Pro had an implied definition of persons furnishing proof themselves up to that point, I found it problematic that you tried to establish a new definition so late in the debate (you hinted at it in R2, but only clarified in R3). If you want to make the debate semantic like this, present the point in R1, don’t bury the lead.
One way or another, I’ll get one up, just may not feel comfortable with it.
I've read through it, and honestly, I'm still not sure what to think by the end. I agree with Ragnar that not defining the BoP of the two sides off the bat and examining what is necessary for each side to win the debate makes the whole thing more difficult to judge. I'll need to chew it over awhile and see if I can come to some kind of decision.
I guess I shouldn't be concerned with this, but given that I'm debating FT on this same topic, I do want to make sure you're both good with having me post a vote on this one. I'll post an RFD regardless (haven't written anything yet), but if you want me to void out the points due to concerns over bias, I'd be fine doing that.
No promises, but I will try.
Like I said, it has less to do with the content of the sources than it does with their application to the debate. I rarely award source points, but I feel it's justified in this instance.
I’ll also note that none of my RFD is based in the interpretation that censorship must encompass more than what already is censored. Not sure where you’re getting that.
Well, now you’ve blocked me, not sure why. If you disagree, then so be it. I’m not here to court your favor. I’ve voted on four debates between you and Undefeatable, and voted for you on two of them. You’re welcome to think it should be more, but I have a very clear voting record and I’ve voted on a similar basis multiple times before. Undefeatable, of all people on this site, knows I’m not biased in his favor.
But hey, you do you. Guessing I’ll see a post in the forums about this at some stage.
Yes, because I’m so well known for posting insufficient reasoning for my notoriously short RFDs. I’m clearly afraid of having mods check my votes.
Been working my way through the debate, but probably won't get an RFD up tonight, unfortunately. That just means I won't be influencing the decision - I'll still post a decision over the next couple of days to throw in on this.
Appreciate that, though just recognize that this is pretty perfectly in my wheelhouse. I'm a virologist (mostly involving plants, but still) and policy debates are my jam.
Not that I'm on his side with this particular topic, Undefeatable, but I think Benjamin's argument is that the pro-choice position involves selecting a point at which the unborn should be treated as a human and that, therefore, every stage before that point should not be treated as human. He's arguing that there's a dividing line that is being placed arbitrarily. You can argue that that point does not take place at any stage that can be defined as a fetus, but presumably, you set that line somewhere. Not going to take this opportunity to make an argument of my own about how this argument affects the pro-life position (largely because I don't want to interfere with the debate), but I felt it should be clarified.
I know scant little about this.
...Would the Third Reich even have existed in the form it did if not for Hitler’s arrogance and impatience? Historical “what ifs” like this get a little troublesome when you’re talking about a personality - strip that away and a lot can change in multiple directions.
Appreciate your taking the time to vote!