The Outlaw Star OP, Through the Night by Masahiko Arimatsu, is a 90s classic that is so good, I could barely stand to leave it out of my R2. It's an incredible series and an action-packed OP full of great character moments with a catchy rock song that leans heavily on the drums in the best of ways.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3gI-E_vqVA
The second season of Re:Zero starts with one of my all-time favorites, Realize by Konomi Suzuki. This would absolutely have made the list (R4) if Supa hadn't already hit the series in the first round, and I still considered doing it, if not for my promise to make these rounds as diverse as possible. While it may be more difficult to grasp just how great this OP is without seeing the first season, you can feel the weight of it throughout. This OP is practically dripping with sentiment, mostly of the dark variety the series is known for, but always with an eye towards moving past the worst and, hopefully, achieving something great on the other side. It's practically a self-contained summary of both the first season and of the main character's mindset in the first half of S2, which I've never seen any other OP do so well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-RUTZBbGwM
I understand that you're trying to justify your perspective, and I'd be happy to engage with you on this via DM, but all I'll say here is that I still disagree with how you're portraying what happened in this debate, even with these additional specifications.
I appreciate the feedback, though this is one case when we're on pretty different pages about what happened in this debate. Maybe that's just because it's my argument, though as I do not wish to influence any potential voters, I'll abstain from providing specifics.
Yeah, I'd say this is one of those times when digging down into a source could've helped. Like I said in my RFD, I don't think the specificity of the case was the bigger problem, though making it a little more specific might have helped. It's mainly an issue of just finding the impact and beating it into us. I think the framework could absolutely have functioned that way, and if there had been a little more impact analysis and some statements regarding Disney's particular role and responsibility, I would've found it a lot harder to buy the argument that their financial incentives should always outweigh.
Yeah, I'm of a similar mind to Ragnar. I've argued for the other side before, but my thoughts about gun control have changed since then, and I find the position of pushing for increased gun control to be a little too weak for me to argue right now.
First, you should be spending a good deal of time hitting at your opponent's framework. He's spending a lot of time arguing that we need to uphold the value of freedom because it's somehow the most important value in the US. I can see a lot of reasons why that's wrong, and I think challenging that assumption would have been a good place to start.
Second, I did give an alternative impact in the RFD that I think would work better than the ones you presented, since it challenges the notion that everything is fundamentally a personal choice. I think as long as you push back on the freedom argument, you bolster your own point. Trying to stress human dignity really doesn't do a lot for you unless you can argue that these people aren't actually choosing to sacrifice it.
Third, you might just go with the notion that not everyone understands the risks. It's not terribly uncommon for people to enter into something without full understanding of what they're actually seeking, and particularly if they're entering into this league, they might feel that it's the only place they stand a chance and be assured of minimal risks when there are many to concern them. Especially as doping advances, I could see the risks being uncertain going forward, so even if there's no reason for people not to understand it now, there's lots of reason to believe that people won't be able to provide informed consent to pursue this (similar to my argument from our debate). That's where the dignity argument comes into it.
No worries. Honestly, just happy you re-voted. Would hate to dissuade you from voting due to something like this, and I know we all appreciate seeing more votes on debates.
You are correct, Undefeatable. For future reference, Benjamin, appealing to emotion is a basis for questioning a debater's logic, but it's not a basis for awarding a conduct point. The conduct point is only awarded in cases where one side forfeited or was clearly acting rudely within the debate.
I'd like to reiterate that I really appreciate your having this debate with me, and that you're pushing for more live debating like this. I think it does a great deal to expand what makes this site great.
You'd need to get up on your soapbox to do it and basically argue that pet ownership is the equivalent of slavery, but it's possible. Still, you'd have an uphill battle, since short-term pragmatic concerns make it somewhat difficult to argue (e.g. what are we going to do with all the cats and dogs, how will they handle reintegration into the wild, should we jail pet owners who refuse to give up their animals, what should we do about pets who refuse to leave or even return after leaving, etc.), though you could win on the bigger picture.
"Best interest" doesn't tend to imply that this is the most pressing or important issue, just that it's better than mutually exclusive alternatives (e.g. continuing to eat meat, transitioning to vegetarianism, etc.), so I probably wouldn't buy a Kritik on that. That being said, I'd say take the "attempt to" out of the resolution. It is in the best interest to transition, not to attempt to transition. That's not to say that you can't switch to a net benefits resolution, but doing so does make it more about general utility than any other view of morality.
After voting is done, I will post my thoughts on a good Pro stance here, especially as I think I've had a pretty productive discussion with Undefeatable about it. I find this to be a strong topic with decent balance, but I do think it skews Pro just a tad. Not that that changes my mind.
Keeping it simple is the strategy for Pro (though no, I don't think that a free market system improves your case), while heaping loads of complicated on Con. We can get into how that works, but with people set to vote on this, I don't really want to influence their thinking by providing other potential strategies you could have used and how I would have tried to address them. How about we do this via DM?
While I appreciate that, if you choose to cast a vote (and I hope you do), I hope your focus is on the strength of the presented arguments rather than how well it personally convinced you. I know the two often overlap, but not always.
I don't want to influence your vote, though some of this is starting to spin a little away from the debate we had. The "what if" scenario might have been interesting if it had been presented. I have responses, but I don't want to give them here as it's outside of what we discussed directly. I personally think my impact analysis is pretty good, though you're welcome to disagree. Appreciate your vote regardless.
We can talk strategy after this is over for sure, if you're interested. Suffice it to say (at least for now) that while I side with Con personally, I think this is actually a Pro-slanted topic. If I was at a debate tournament and got this, I'd rather be Pro, though I'd certainly be happy to run Con and stand on my soapbox.
Also, just to be clear, I didn’t quote the article as saying “inherently coercive.” There were not quotes around those words, the article did mention coercion in the quote I used in R2, and I explained why it’s inherent. That’s not a mistake, nor was the Brookings quote. You’ll have to wait to see that one, though.
Difficult to say. If we're talking about whether it gets the job done most effectively, then I have stronger opinions, but whether it should be condemned is a different story. I'm not going to feed arguments to your potential opponent, but being effective doesn't necessarily preclude any condemnation.
It's a really well-trod topic, so there are a lot of good points to be brought up for both sides. That being said, I took the side on this that I felt more closely aligned with. If I had been Pro, I probably would have gone heavy on environmental arguments and spent more time addressing the need for international efforts, but I knew from the moment we selected this that I would go for poverty. Strangely enough, I considered the Social Contract value for my side as well, did not expect that.
Blamonkey's argument about propping up corrupt regimes was not where I expected him to go, but I think that was tactical. The arguments on environmentalism run into their own problems, and if he had gone for more traditional arguments, that would have been a risk as well since I had prepared some rebuttals for those.
I've found my own path towards belief, though it's probably pretty distinct from most. I'd probably be more akin to a deist than I am to most Jews, but I'm culturally Jewish, and my belief in God doesn't put any strain on that. Can't say I've really considered polytheistic religions (though the mythology is often intriguing). Same with Buddhism.
Note that the resolution species the Christian God, not all gods. I agree with you that this argument isn't a compelling reason to disbelieve in any god, but I believe his point is that, at least in his opinion, the Problem of Evil doesn't jive with the existence of an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient being, specifically. At least personally, I don't think the Problem of Evil has much to do with polytheistic religions that generally lack such a being and usually include conflict between gods, which is bound to have consequences for humans. Not that I'm saying that polytheistic religions are more reasonable as a result, just saying that there's a more specific focus to this debate.
I clearly lost track of this one. I will be flying for a bit here, should give me time to read through it. Hopefully get up an RFD sometime later.
I’ll see what I can do.
Thank you for the thorough RFD! Glad someone got a vote up!
Done reading it, should have an RFD up sometime over the next day or so.
A couple of honorable mentions:
The Outlaw Star OP, Through the Night by Masahiko Arimatsu, is a 90s classic that is so good, I could barely stand to leave it out of my R2. It's an incredible series and an action-packed OP full of great character moments with a catchy rock song that leans heavily on the drums in the best of ways.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3gI-E_vqVA
The second season of Re:Zero starts with one of my all-time favorites, Realize by Konomi Suzuki. This would absolutely have made the list (R4) if Supa hadn't already hit the series in the first round, and I still considered doing it, if not for my promise to make these rounds as diverse as possible. While it may be more difficult to grasp just how great this OP is without seeing the first season, you can feel the weight of it throughout. This OP is practically dripping with sentiment, mostly of the dark variety the series is known for, but always with an eye towards moving past the worst and, hopefully, achieving something great on the other side. It's practically a self-contained summary of both the first season and of the main character's mindset in the first half of S2, which I've never seen any other OP do so well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-RUTZBbGwM
Got it, should start on this this weekend.
I'll get to it.
I'd be game.
I understand that you're trying to justify your perspective, and I'd be happy to engage with you on this via DM, but all I'll say here is that I still disagree with how you're portraying what happened in this debate, even with these additional specifications.
I appreciate the feedback, though this is one case when we're on pretty different pages about what happened in this debate. Maybe that's just because it's my argument, though as I do not wish to influence any potential voters, I'll abstain from providing specifics.
Sure, should be able to get to this. Would you like me to prioritize this one or the Violent Revolution debate?
Yeah, I'd say this is one of those times when digging down into a source could've helped. Like I said in my RFD, I don't think the specificity of the case was the bigger problem, though making it a little more specific might have helped. It's mainly an issue of just finding the impact and beating it into us. I think the framework could absolutely have functioned that way, and if there had been a little more impact analysis and some statements regarding Disney's particular role and responsibility, I would've found it a lot harder to buy the argument that their financial incentives should always outweigh.
Someone remind me to finish my RFD for this tomorrow. I’m liable to forget.
Would appreciate the vote regardless!
Live debate's a different ballgame and I still felt pretty off my game on this one. Enjoyed doing it!
Should be able to get a vote up on this soon.
I'll consider it, though... am I wrong or are Pro and Con flipped in the description?
Yeah, I'm of a similar mind to Ragnar. I've argued for the other side before, but my thoughts about gun control have changed since then, and I find the position of pushing for increased gun control to be a little too weak for me to argue right now.
Oh well, I'll definitely judge this.
Just need confirmation that any music from anime flies. Also, by "brief", do you have a standard? Like, a paragraph at most?
So... just any songs from anime? I'd be down for this.
I'll give three bits of advice.
First, you should be spending a good deal of time hitting at your opponent's framework. He's spending a lot of time arguing that we need to uphold the value of freedom because it's somehow the most important value in the US. I can see a lot of reasons why that's wrong, and I think challenging that assumption would have been a good place to start.
Second, I did give an alternative impact in the RFD that I think would work better than the ones you presented, since it challenges the notion that everything is fundamentally a personal choice. I think as long as you push back on the freedom argument, you bolster your own point. Trying to stress human dignity really doesn't do a lot for you unless you can argue that these people aren't actually choosing to sacrifice it.
Third, you might just go with the notion that not everyone understands the risks. It's not terribly uncommon for people to enter into something without full understanding of what they're actually seeking, and particularly if they're entering into this league, they might feel that it's the only place they stand a chance and be assured of minimal risks when there are many to concern them. Especially as doping advances, I could see the risks being uncertain going forward, so even if there's no reason for people not to understand it now, there's lots of reason to believe that people won't be able to provide informed consent to pursue this (similar to my argument from our debate). That's where the dignity argument comes into it.
I'm working on this. Shouldn't take me terribly long.
No worries. Honestly, just happy you re-voted. Would hate to dissuade you from voting due to something like this, and I know we all appreciate seeing more votes on debates.
You are correct, Undefeatable. For future reference, Benjamin, appealing to emotion is a basis for questioning a debater's logic, but it's not a basis for awarding a conduct point. The conduct point is only awarded in cases where one side forfeited or was clearly acting rudely within the debate.
Would absolutely do another round with you.
I'd like to reiterate that I really appreciate your having this debate with me, and that you're pushing for more live debating like this. I think it does a great deal to expand what makes this site great.
You'd need to get up on your soapbox to do it and basically argue that pet ownership is the equivalent of slavery, but it's possible. Still, you'd have an uphill battle, since short-term pragmatic concerns make it somewhat difficult to argue (e.g. what are we going to do with all the cats and dogs, how will they handle reintegration into the wild, should we jail pet owners who refuse to give up their animals, what should we do about pets who refuse to leave or even return after leaving, etc.), though you could win on the bigger picture.
It's along the lines of "we only use 10% of our brains" - a line that sounds somewhat plausible, but doesn't match reality.
I'll get to this when I can, still got a while. Fruit_Inspector is a solid debater, so I'm sure he didn't make this easy for you.
"Best interest" doesn't tend to imply that this is the most pressing or important issue, just that it's better than mutually exclusive alternatives (e.g. continuing to eat meat, transitioning to vegetarianism, etc.), so I probably wouldn't buy a Kritik on that. That being said, I'd say take the "attempt to" out of the resolution. It is in the best interest to transition, not to attempt to transition. That's not to say that you can't switch to a net benefits resolution, but doing so does make it more about general utility than any other view of morality.
After voting is done, I will post my thoughts on a good Pro stance here, especially as I think I've had a pretty productive discussion with Undefeatable about it. I find this to be a strong topic with decent balance, but I do think it skews Pro just a tad. Not that that changes my mind.
Keeping it simple is the strategy for Pro (though no, I don't think that a free market system improves your case), while heaping loads of complicated on Con. We can get into how that works, but with people set to vote on this, I don't really want to influence their thinking by providing other potential strategies you could have used and how I would have tried to address them. How about we do this via DM?
I’ll get to it when I can, got plenty of time, thankfully.
Apologies, forgot to change the doc to be viewable by anyone with the link. Done now.
I know MisterChris is planning on it, and blamonkey's been asked.
While I appreciate that, if you choose to cast a vote (and I hope you do), I hope your focus is on the strength of the presented arguments rather than how well it personally convinced you. I know the two often overlap, but not always.
Thanks for voting, appreciate the breakdown as well.
I don't want to influence your vote, though some of this is starting to spin a little away from the debate we had. The "what if" scenario might have been interesting if it had been presented. I have responses, but I don't want to give them here as it's outside of what we discussed directly. I personally think my impact analysis is pretty good, though you're welcome to disagree. Appreciate your vote regardless.
We can talk strategy after this is over for sure, if you're interested. Suffice it to say (at least for now) that while I side with Con personally, I think this is actually a Pro-slanted topic. If I was at a debate tournament and got this, I'd rather be Pro, though I'd certainly be happy to run Con and stand on my soapbox.
Been caught up with our debate. I’ll try to get through the rest this weekend and get up an RFD.
Also, just to be clear, I didn’t quote the article as saying “inherently coercive.” There were not quotes around those words, the article did mention coercion in the quote I used in R2, and I explained why it’s inherent. That’s not a mistake, nor was the Brookings quote. You’ll have to wait to see that one, though.
All I’m going to say is that you’re not going to like my extensions on either one. I think you’re mishandling each.
Difficult to say. If we're talking about whether it gets the job done most effectively, then I have stronger opinions, but whether it should be condemned is a different story. I'm not going to feed arguments to your potential opponent, but being effective doesn't necessarily preclude any condemnation.
I can see how you'd take that perspective, though I won't give any specifics here, in case anyone else wants to vote.
I'll give it a vote, shouldn't be a problem.
It's a really well-trod topic, so there are a lot of good points to be brought up for both sides. That being said, I took the side on this that I felt more closely aligned with. If I had been Pro, I probably would have gone heavy on environmental arguments and spent more time addressing the need for international efforts, but I knew from the moment we selected this that I would go for poverty. Strangely enough, I considered the Social Contract value for my side as well, did not expect that.
Blamonkey's argument about propping up corrupt regimes was not where I expected him to go, but I think that was tactical. The arguments on environmentalism run into their own problems, and if he had gone for more traditional arguments, that would have been a risk as well since I had prepared some rebuttals for those.
Appreciate you watching and taking the time to write an RFD, seldiora! I know it must have been a tough call.
I've found my own path towards belief, though it's probably pretty distinct from most. I'd probably be more akin to a deist than I am to most Jews, but I'm culturally Jewish, and my belief in God doesn't put any strain on that. Can't say I've really considered polytheistic religions (though the mythology is often intriguing). Same with Buddhism.
Note that the resolution species the Christian God, not all gods. I agree with you that this argument isn't a compelling reason to disbelieve in any god, but I believe his point is that, at least in his opinion, the Problem of Evil doesn't jive with the existence of an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient being, specifically. At least personally, I don't think the Problem of Evil has much to do with polytheistic religions that generally lack such a being and usually include conflict between gods, which is bound to have consequences for humans. Not that I'm saying that polytheistic religions are more reasonable as a result, just saying that there's a more specific focus to this debate.