whiteflame

I'll keep this brief and leave it to the debaters to ask for clarification where desired.

So much of this debate is about perception of the poor (e.g. what are the best ways to help the poor and how to go about it) and how that affects action (e.g. charity, government intervention). I think these are the most important aspects of the debate in the end, so I'll come back to and focus in on these shortly.

The actual financial benefits (whether it's to the poor in the area or to those working in the tourism industry) appear small or relatively unimportant to this debate. For all of Pro's efforts to emphasize the boosts to the area economically, he does scant little to actually quantify it, and I see more reason from Con to believe that that money isn't going to the poor in the area. There's the point about employing slum dwellers, which could have been good if Pro had spent more time digging down into how this gets at least some people out of poverty, but Pro never elaborates on the impact of this argument. As for benefitting those working in the tourism industry and the economic bottom line of these companies, while it's clear that they do benefit, I don't really see a reason to weigh that substantially in the debate because I'm not sure how much I should favor their circumstances. Again, it's up to Pro to establish why these matter, and they only appear to function as minor points from my perception.

Similarly, while Con has many good points about objectifying and dehumanizing (seriously, that word only appeared once in this debate?) the poor in these areas, Con doesn't do a whole lot to establish the impacts of this and really fails to emphasize anything meaningful from it by the end. How am I supposed to weigh this against more concrete impacts? It's an intriguing line of reasoning, but you have to establish why it matters. You can't just stop after saying that dehumanization exists - compare it to the other impacts and explain why it's worthy of further attention.

That just leaves the issues of perception by tourists and the realities that come from those perceptions. Con's entirely argument is built on masking (a word that really should have come up in your arguments), i.e. that it presents the problem of poverty in a way that leads tourists and governments to respond to it without actually addressing it. If they think that funding the tourism industry in these areas is more effective than actually lifting people out of poverty (and it seems like the tourism industry has a reason to push for that to happen), then poverty remains a problem and people continue to suffer. Pro's main response to all this is to argue that any attention is better than none, but he's not really engaging with the argument that the skewed reality is entrenching the very issues he's trying to address. In particular, to me, this line stands out from Pro's argument:

"The tendency of making the tour look like a vacation has to be stopped. Show-off culture has to be deleted. Interestingly, all these subjective measures completely destroy Con's premise. Because once the awareness is ensured, all the issues of exploitation and voyeurism will be resolved."

The problem is that the method of increasing awareness is exploitation and voyeurism. You can argue for changes to that method (and probably should have done so in R1), but saying that they'll simply disappear if we do them enough doesn't make sense to me. If exploitation masks awareness, then there's no opportunity to get out from under it. The tourists come out with skewed views, those they speak to (being affluent, many of these have a lot of clout) come away with the same impressions. I can see arguments for changing the industry, but I can't see how you produce substantially beneficial awareness when you're not addressing the methods these companies are using. Because the effects on government action are (at least potentially - these impacts really should have been better established) far bigger than the effects of individual charity/the financial benefits to the poor from the tourism directly, since I'm buying Con's framing of this argument, I end up voting for him.

Given in comments.

While there are potentially many arguments to cover in this debate, in actuality, each side is dependent on one by the end.

In Pro’s world, the most important issue is taking the fight back to those groups that are already using cyber operations offensively with a focus on punishing bad actors, whether that’s criminal groups or whole countries. His argument largely rests upon two distinct points under this heading: 1) that these groups are regularly advancing and utilizing cyber technologies and, thus, that we must intercede in their machinations to prevent them from getting out of hand, and 2) that these parties recognizing that they could be the targets of offensive cyber operations yields a deterrent effect by putting them on notice.

Both of these points are hampered by a lack of empirical evidence, though the same holds true for Con’s case, so it doesn’t really give him a leg up. The deterrent effect, however, is more difficult to buy when it’s pretty clear that actors like Iran and Russia are still engaging in the same behaviors. Maybe that will change some point down the line, but the existing evidence suggests that any such deterrence is more aspirational than anything else. Still, I end up buying a lot of what Pro is selling from the first point, especially as it relates to criminal groups, since that aspect of the argument goes largely dropped. Con does try to cut the legs out from under this by arguing that we’re better able to retaliate against governments under his case, but this looks to me like trying to have his cake and eat it, too. I don’t doubt that there are benefits to defensive operations and harms to escalation, but it seems like the issue of advancing cyber technologies doesn’t really favor a side, and defenses can (and by both sides’ arguments, always do) become predictable. Maybe defensive operations would be better early on, but I’m not convinced this is a long term solution, whereas interceding, particularly in efforts going on within the US but also outside of it, is likelier to yield longer term compliance by keeping bad actors on their toes.

In Con’s world, escalation rules the day. This is broken down to three distinct points: 1) that offensive operations are also limited by advancing cyber technologies and thus are consistently limited in their effectiveness to punish bad actors, 2) that said offensive cyber operations also tend to increase the degree to which other actors feel threatened and, thus, result in those actors lashing out in response, and 3) that defensive operations do not incur the same harms while offering a unique opportunity to better address attacks while simultaneously providing improved opportunities to hit back.

I largely buy the point that a good defense can be very strategic, particularly if you can draw bad actors to attack places of strength, though I see that as a short-term benefit, as I said above. If being outstripped technologically is a problem for offensive operations, then the same is true for defensive ones, particularly if I’m unclear (as I am by the end) what placing more resources into defensive operations actually does to advance them. That largely just leaves the escalation point, which is a stronger argument that is somewhat hampered by the very arguments Con is making about these bad actors engaging in the same activities before offensive operations went into effect. The threat of offensive cyber operations from other countries exists regardless, so it’s really a question of how much that threat increases with the US pushing for more of its own operations, and whether Con’s case also results in escalation. That’s another mitigating factor for this point, as while defensive operations may indeed bring down the temperature, the continued existence of some offensive operations may still keep the pot simmering. We may be better prepared to do those offensives, which increases their effectiveness, but therein lies the problem: if I fully buy that, then the effectiveness of cyber operations doesn’t go down with Con’s case, which means escalation still happens to the same degree because they feel just as (if not more) threatened; meanwhile, if I don’t buy that, then escalation goes down, but so does the effectiveness of defensive operations, making Con entirely reliant on escalations as an impact.

I can see what both sides were trying to do here, but I think Pro is more consistent and effective with his points than Con is. Maybe if it was clearer precisely how defensive operations give the US a greater technological advantage in the long term, or perhaps if Con had steered entirely clear of offensive operations and simply argued that our offensive capacities should be kept entirely outside of the cyber realm, refusing to play into a game of tit-for-tat with Russia, China and Iran, I could have seen this swinging differently. As it is, though, the benefits of Pro’s case appear more durable and less mitigated, so I vote Pro.

Forfeit from Con automatically grants Pro conduct.

Regarding arguments, I'll mention two issues that contributed to this outcome. The first is that it's unclear precisely where the split is in this debate, and Pro muddies it a lot in R3. He basically says that it's the difference between having any upholding of privacy and having none, which may have been accurate to the debate if it had been brought up in R1, but comes across as an effort to shift the burdens last minute to favor himself. It's all the more strange since the description includes a change from Pro (i.e. Google should stop tracking people, which is also distinct from the scenarios of tracking but providing information to users, and as such that should be Con ground) and no necessary change from Con. Con can uphold status quo. Pro cannot. Con can basically take any position that doesn't substantially reduce tracking efforts. So, Pro, either start off by clarifying your case, or uphold what's in the description. Either way, it could have improved upon this because it made your position slippery in the end.

The second issue is that Con got away with a scenario that sets up his whole case: namely, that any ground that Google cedes in tracking users will be picked up by some other company. I don't see any response to this from Pro (I would have easily bought that Google will still remain the major player in the field and that no one can pirate their search engine or other sources of data, meaning that Google essentially walls off a large portion of the Internet from data tracking). This is big problem because it makes almost all of his harms scenarios non-unique. I guess you could argue that Google is a uniquely worse actor, but the only point that Pro has on that seems to stem from their size, for which Con gives me a strong reason to be grateful: they have little reason to sell data, they use it judiciously to help in criminal cases, and they are far better at protecting data. I don't know how much I buy each of these personally, but I don't get any strong reasons not to believe them within the debate. Pro tells me that governments can misuse the data, but doesn't give me examples beyond China's unwillingness to provide access to Google, which isn't really applicable. Pro tells that it can still be hacked, but doesn't tell me why Google's protections wont be effective or why (and I was surprised this is missing) it's so bad to have a giant pile of information in one place, meaning that even fewer instances of hacking could be more damaging. It also really doesn't help that I don't have a response to Google's having to get this information to keep their bottom line, a point Con made several times. So, that just leaves me with Pro's impacts regarding privacy, almost all of which appear to be slippery slopes rather than well-articulated scenarios. Why does the right to privacy and informed consent affect a person's every day? I can think of more than a few reasons, but I need to see them play out in the debate. These bigger impacts might look more alluring, but they're harder to prove and easy to undermine, as Con did several times.

So, based on these factors, I end up voting Con on arguments.

RFD: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Mwm2H2_XuvvJYNGV-TtUyfbdRUs3m7CW8NhBKdM14R4/edit?usp=sharing

Took a while, but while I found that Con had the stronger arguments at his disposal, I think Pro used his to better effect in the context of the debate. Even a little more discussion on burdens or impact analysis could have changed this.

This was an intriguing debate topic, one with a very specific aim: to assess whether it can be logical or practical to engage in opposition to that which does not exist. While I look at that and could see ways to potentially apply arguments about what should be done, to do that, there must be some clarity with regards to how "should" applies to this resolution. I might argue that it is logical to oppose something if opposition pushes people to reexamine their views or shoves what was something that does not exist but is believed (say, a flat earth) into crackpot territory. Similar statements could be made about practicality. However, to do so, one has to engage with the resolution and the terms used therein. As I see it, Pro spent his entire first round talking about nothing else, focusing entirely on how no one, at least in the abstract, can truly engage with something that does not exist without giving into illogic and being impractical. I don't see that as necessarily absolute, but I also don't see Con engaging with the topic in a similarly meaningful way. Con's arguments point to the merits of greater understanding, but fail to link up with the terms in the resolution. This isn't the kind of debate that relies on impact - it's a very yes/no kind of situation, and Pro actually gave himself a pretty large burden to uphold by arguing that it is both illogical AND impractical to do this. It also doesn't help that, while I can understand where Con was going with his second and third points, I can see the same or similar value coming out of engaging with things that do exist. Essentially, while these absolutes may be interesting points of debate, they aren't so completely set apart from what exists as to make them unique in the benefits that Con cites for engaging on them.

So my vote goes to Pro. While I personally find points like wasting energy to be kind of weak, they were also dropped, as were his evaluations of the burden of proof, distinctions between fiction and non-reality. His rebuttals in general were also solid enough to net him this debate. Also, given the many sources he used to support his points and the lack of sourcing by Con, I award source points to Pro as well.

I'll keep this one short.

The resolution is: U.S. K-12 Public Schools Should Incorporate More Video Games in Their Curriculum

It doesn't say that video games must be proven to be necessary to the curriculum. It doesn't insinuate that there should be any kind of legal change. It says what should happen, without any clear means of implementation. While I would have appreciated Pro directly addressing these claims from Con, and while I think Pro should have absolutely specified what he means by "should" in this instance, neither of Con's attempts to frame this debate apply to the resolution, nor to any position that Pro took. I might have been willing to at least consider these claims if they came up in R1, but Con waits til R2 to try to frame the debate this way. That leaves me with little choice but to dismiss this characterization.

That leaves a lot of Con's points in limbo. His arguments about what is necessary have me scratching my head because he basically just asserts that other methods are more effective as teaching tools without providing any sources that directly compare them. This mostly strikes me as mitigation because games being boring just reduces potential benefits and games not covering the whole curriculum does the same. Meanwhile, Pro has a number of sources pointing to the benefits of video games used in school. You need to either challenge those sources or provide competing evidence to the contrary. The only real negative impact here just seems blatantly non-unique: competition- and completion-focused concerns in classrooms is an issue whether video games are there or not. Pro doesn't give that response, so I'm forced to accept that that is a factor, but Pro does point out that there are multiple ways in which video game play can be evaluated. That tells me that it's a matter of application, not method, and that makes it hard to buy that video games as a tool are ineffective or harmful.

Really, the only point that Con presents that has any heft is the price factor, and I'm not really sure what that issue means. Does it mean that teachers are going to apply video games to their lesson plans and poorer students are basically just going to be left out in the cold? How does that affect their educations? Why does that kind of classism matter? I need to see reasons to care a lot about this, but Con doesn't give me much to work with. Without it, I have Pro pointing out that Con's own source says that controlling for socioeconomic status still yields the same beneficial impacts.

And I have a lot from Pro that just goes straight dropped in terms of academic benefit. You can't just quibble about what's a game and what isn't and hope to get much of anywhere. It also really doesn't help when Con decides to throw out two new arguments in his final round, including the Project-Based Learning alternative and reducing social skills. Setting aside that the alternative isn't mutually exclusive, presenting brand new arguments like this in the final round makes me seriously consider giving Pro a conduct point, though I end up just dismissing all those points instead, largely because I don't like giving this point out unless the problems are egregious.

Anyway, arguments to Pro. Much as I do think Pro better utilized sources, I don't think the difference was so dramatic that I'd award those points, either.

Pro: 69/90
Con: 71/90

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R_wzHrI1ZkMcVHecwKF1AfRHUcmMS05hx2i8hbWHr54/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UtjAL094HxlA9_q3WAWO1ZUc_h6x1txdavnQhDh_QGs/edit?usp=sharing

I'll keep this one brief.

Pro's arguments that this reduces the effects of PTSD on the soldiers sent from the US (and other countries using drones), as well as puts them at less physical risk, are generally not addressed meaningfully by Con. Apart from that, there's the point that drones are used for more targeted strikes, and are better than available alternatives. Saying that they don't end wars doesn't really do anything to this point, and the absence of an argument for why a different form of combat is better from Con makes it difficult to see why his world is necessarily better, since he doesn't give much reason to believe that the absence of drones ends wars faster or more efficiently.

Con's arguments are largely based on allowing for a rise in corruption, which is a very vague impact. I'd like to know what that means, and while Con hints at it several times, he never directly tells me why this matters. Part of the problem here is just the general lack of sources and support for his arguments, but the other part is that he spends a lot of time on warrants, but rarely examines why any of his points matter. He's right that detachment may lead people to view combat in a different light, but does that mean that soldiers piloting drones would be more likely to hit targets, not thinking of the humanity of their foes? Con himself says that, at least on the battlefield, a soldier's job is to just kill and set aside those concerns, so I don't see what he gains by pointing this out. Con does also argue that soldiers will come home and protest wars because of what they saw, and that "natural backlash and revulsion" are good checks against corruption, but he doesn't ever connect this to outcomes. It's a lot harder to sustain a war if the public is seeing soldiers coming home in body bags. It's a lot harder to start a war when it means committing friends and loved ones to the fray. Pro may have more efficient warfare, but Con, you should be arguing that you'll have less warfare by ending wars sooner and preventing them wholesale. I need to see those arguments spelled out, but I don't see them in the debate, and even if I did, I don't see the evidence to support them. You have to give me data that shows how effective protests are. Without that, this is just a claim of what you think happens in the absence of drone warfare, which is valid, but it doesn't stand up against evidence-based points like those made by your opponent. Challenging his sources is good, but it's not enough when you don't have sources of your own.

I vote Pro because his arguments have clear impacts and go largely conceded. I also afford him source points for the reasons mentioned above.

RFD given here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dT7q7KYLA-rwGxuJ-egNN0WUu55HhA3AQno_90JcwqM/edit?usp=sharing

RFD given here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vyngE4VX_o4sCog-rKreYc3uC9dsCBUHvZdctek5HFA/edit

Yep, easily the longest RFD I've ever written. Very different style, goes round by round.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FxYPfKjaA787Yh8TC4ZXWJagPPA3G7fgHuxPOip1tkw/edit?usp=sharing

TL;DR: Both sides had impressive arguments, it could have swung either way going into the final round, but, in the words of the Highlander, there can only be one. I end up finding that there's more weight to the arguments given for what we know (that there is oppression in the world that requires a violent response to address, and that the absence/dismissal of said response as unjust fundamentally harms their ability to commit to such actions and remove said oppression) than there is to the harms of acting with violence in the face of uncertainty.

So, in general, I think this debate went a little off the rails after the first round. For Con, it became more about pointing out things that don't quite jive with Pro's arguments, which just... aren't particularly important. The difference between markets and compensation is never given any salient reason why it factors into the debate. If you want to spend the time rephrasing the debate, then examine how the individual arguments fail to meet that rephrasing. Show why Pro's points stop mattering the moment we redefine markets. Without that, this accomplishes nothing. Similarly, if you want to make the point that hair is an organ (I have problems with both assertions, but let's assume they're true) tell me why that matters. Simply saying "in Pro's world, people can't donate hair" isn't enough. It doesn't tell me why that's terrible. Examine what that loss means. Tell me why it outweighs Pro's points. Don't just stop at "he's being hypocritical" - hypocrisy doesn't have an impact! In general, it felt like Con was just giving up with these points, which is a shame because, unlike the statement in his final round, this is not a Pro-biased topic. It's actually pretty balanced, but you need to make the points that show that.

...So, that just leaves the arguments presented in the first round because Pro doesn't really expand on his points and Con just goes off on these tangents. Con argues that we should have the right to do whatever we want with our body parts because of it's essentially our God-given right to use our bodies to earn some money. That would have been better put if you'd responded to Pro's rebuttals regarding pornography, but in general, I'm just not sure what this means. What do we lose by not having this liberty? You hint at it in the final round - that this is an option that people should have access to if they're desperate enough - but it's never clearly stated, nor is it clear what the alternative world that Pro is arguing for looks like. You get a sliver of impact from vague "liberty", but it doesn't do much. Con also argues that it would be better in the vein of utilitarianism for the poor and infirm to give their organs to people who could use them to do a lot of good, which just generally seems poorly linked to his position because it sounds like he's arguing that we have a moral obligation to GIVE our organs to the rich, rather than that we have a moral obligation to SELL them. I honestly don't know what this does for Con beyond pointing out that more organs on the market means more rich people buying them, which I guess is a point for him, but it's really unclear what the actual impact of that is. Saying "we get utility" isn't very clear.

Meanwhile, while Pro makes some missteps himself, I do have some clear arguments and impacts from him, most of which are either dropped or mishandled. He argues that this won't give the poor a way out of poverty, which is a decent argument, but it's really more prerebuttal than actual offense. It's income. It may not be enough income, but it's income. That's basically granting your opponent offense before he even has a chance to say anything. Human dignity is a better point, though I would have liked a better challenge to the notion Con presents that some lives (particularly poor lives) just don't really matter. Honestly, I kind of expected you to blow up over that. Instead, your response was to say that he was inaccurately representing what value means, which... I mean, it kinda works, but not very well. There's points about a black market and organ sellers who are not actively making the choice, which is the low-hanging fruit of this debate. Generally, exploitation of the poor makes a lot of sense as an argument, it just doesn't get the kind of impact analysis that it really should have here. As for the opt out system... I guess this counters Con's argument that sales are the only way to get numbers of donations up, but I felt like I never really understood how this system works. It never gets rebutted, though, so that alone would nearly be sufficient to beat back Con's case.

I end up voting Pro, largely based on the exploitation arguments, though they are muddier than they should be.

Tight one guys. RFD in comments.

RFD in comments

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gVL4Du57QjtsfoSVpEstaAy5xtRQ4Im98Kf01XgEHJU/edit?usp=sharing

Having a clear definition of pornography in the description would have done a lot to reduce much of the “what is pornography anyway” sidebar of the debate, though I do think Pro could have done that in R1 without any major issues. I understand the definition provided, but while it does clearly delineate between different kinds of nudity in media to some extent, the point at which media becomes “too graphic” isn’t all that clear aside from saying it gets a rating above R (the rating system and its application have changed over time) and may have appeared on PornHub (can’t tell if that’s casting too wide or too narrow a net). Regardless, I do feel like it was clear early on that Pro was arguing against obscene pornography, despite Con’s protestations. There’s room to argue, as Con did, that leaving some of what’s deemed “not pornography” on the table could allow many of the problems created by pornography to persist, but that’s only mitigation. Unless you can show that a dramatic reduction in the sheer volume of pornography will have no effect, the argument doesn’t do enough by itself.

Similarly, while Con goes very hard in R2 on the subject of links between criminality and pornography, the trouble is that almost all his sources (with one exception – the Hawaii paper) only claim a non-significant correlation. That’s all mitigation, and it’s only going to reduce the link to Pro’s impacts, not remove it entirely; there’s simply too much evidence coming from Pro to be ignored because you presented a few pieces of research. The Hawaii paper is the one example that shows a potential link to decreasing sex crimes, which would be great if Con had chosen to dig down into the reasons why it could have decreased sex crimes. But he didn’t and given the opportunity in his final round to respond to Pro’s rebuttals, he chose not to do so.

So that doesn’t leave me with a lot to weigh for Con because he gave me two choices: either partially mitigate Pro’s case by allowing that some pornography would survive the purge (the option that makes the most sense to me and which Pro seems to buy into anyway, which only results in mitigation of Pro’s impacts), or have Pro remove some media that is not pornography in an effort to get it all. Assuming I go with the latter, I’m not sure what that means. Con gives me a couple of vague answers, arguing that we’ll lose something very important in getting rid of these works of art, but I have two problems with that. One, Pro basically says we can just censor those elements (e.g. sex scenes in movies) without getting rid of anything substantial. Con provides no response. Two, simply saying we’re destroying large swaths of art and leaving it at that doesn’t give me an impact. What do we lose by getting rid of these works? Why is it so terrible to get rid of this creativity, specifically? Con just says that it’s “a potential slippery slope for also censoring violence”, which might be a decent argument if I knew what the harm of censoring violence was and had a good link to that slope. Lost creativity is a linear impact, and I don’t know what harm it causes. I need to see a clear set of harms from the loss. I can think of many, but Con doesn’t tell me any of them, so I can’t do much with this argument. All of this just leaves Con’s arguments regarding education, which are clearly not mutually exclusive (both sides could educate, though Con does at one point does state that movies can be educational, which implies that porn could be educational… though he just got done saying earlier that it’s doing a poor job of educating… so I can’t do anything with that) and Pro basically permutes that argument into his case later in the debate.

That leaves me with a lack of offense for Con. Meanwhile, all of Pro’s arguments are still on the table. Objectification is never addressed. Pro’s point about abuse to actors gets a half-hearted “but we can fix that with regulations” response that’s never fleshed out. Con drops that it’s bad for relationships, even buying into this a bit in his R2, and fails to address the links to crime and health. He drops sex trade, drops gray matter, and drops access for children. Even if I’m wholly dismissing Pro’s direct benefits for crime, there’s too much left on his side of the flow afterwards to leave alone. That’s not to mention that he has a mountain of sources that Con never addresses, while Pro carefully picked apart each source Con provided. That leaves me awarding Pro both arguments and sources.

This debate was a bit messy, largely because I feel that large sections of it could have been collapsed when points were being repeated. Despite those issues, I do feel that there’s a clear outcome to the debate, and it plays out largely in Con’s first contention. As per usual with abortion debates, the biggest arguments on the table are those regarding access to basic human rights, namely life and liberty. Economic impacts, while stated to be large, get a little murky because it’s unclear where that money is being yanked from or how it would be used. I buy that it exists, but as Pro points out in R4 and Con stated previously, it’s difficult to compare these economic impacts with those affecting life and liberty more directly. I could see points being made for how economics could affect life and liberty, but they go unstated in the debate, so I drop this impact out. I also do drop Pro’s economic impacts, despite his claims within R4 (not sure why you’d do this) that his economic impacts matter more because it affects quality of life due to coming directly out of the pockets of these new families. I guess I see that, but while the personal scale of the problem definitely makes the impacts clearer, I’m not sure how that automatically weighs in a debate about more fundamental rights. If it doesn’t matter that governments don’t have the resources to help these people because there aren’t enough people to generate those resources, then it doesn’t matter if individuals lack those resources. You can’t have your cake and eat it, too.

That doesn’t really hurt Con, though. The preservation of life argument holds up pretty strongly throughout the debate, and though I have personal misgivings with the framing of both the burdens in the debate (I don’t think Pro was required to take on the burden of proof that Con put on him simply because he is the instigator) and of some aspects of the uncertainty principle, these largely go uncontested. Pro just doesn’t do all that much on this argument beyond stating that Con must prove certain aspects without engaging on the BoP reasoning that Con gives, and providing an argument for why liberty shouldn’t be infringed upon that is, at best, tangential to the point being made. The point is that uncertainty in the question of whether a fetus is a person should favor the fetus being a person, otherwise abortion becomes a means to end a terribly huge number of lives solely on the basis that we don’t know. He points out connections to those in comas and those who are sedated as examples: we need to recognize that, no matter whether someone feels pain or is conscious, their life is precious. Pro’s responses, particularly on the comatose, miss the mark. Euthanasia is a very different issue because there is at least the capacity for an active choice in that person’s life. Any choice made by someone else would also have been designated by that person. I can see where you were trying to go with this, but it’s a weird point and it doesn’t get at the basic argument Con is making: that life doesn’t gain or lose value (at least not in the eyes of the community at large) simply because one is unconscious or not capable of feeling pain. Pro does make a point about suffering and how these children may be subject to terrible lives, and while that has merit, he doesn’t do enough with it and allows Con to easily outweigh it by simply saying that that loss of life is the greater harm.

So Con is winning this point, and there’s not a lot left to be done with the debate. Con repeatedly argues that life precedes any even substantial loss of liberty for the women carrying these children, which Pro never substantially disputes. There are some loss of life arguments presented by Pro regarding illegal abortions, but the numbers are unclear by the end and they come nowhere near Con’s numbers. There’s also this point about overpopulation, which just becomes a bit of an unclear mess by the end. It’s an issue, it’s important, but it’s unclear that banning abortions would trigger a massive rise in the population or that any resulting rise would put us over the brink. It’s a linear impact at best, enhancing existing problems rather than putting us in dangerous new territory, and while that may be a valuable impact in most debates, it’s not going to do much against Con’s main impact of life loss.

Con clearly takes this debate. He pushes a strong narrative from the outset, focusing heavily on the link between human beings and personhood, and remains largely unchallenged on that narrative throughout the debate, practically granting him his biggest impact without substantial mitigation. I don’t think it’s possible to win an abortion debate where that happens, regardless of how good the opposing arguments are.

Unfortunate concession, but good on Con for not dragging it out.

I'll keep this short.

This is one of those cases where one side presents a substantial amount of analysis regarding BoP and what's most important in the debate up front where that actually matters. Con talks a lot about how he only has to disprove one of Pro's points, which Pro drops. Con also discusses the importance of education to this debate, which sets him up nicely for his Kritik and which, once again, Pro drops. The BoP analysis may be the most glaring of these drops, but both of them are key to the outcome.

The easy vote for me is just to point out that Pro drops much of the analysis regarding how countries do more harm to their people than other elements. I think this could have been outweighed and I thought that was where Pro was going, but Con's analysis goes through without being directly addressed. Instead, Pro continuously argues that there are threats that government protects us from, which would be fine if Pro spent the time comparing the damage caused by governments to those caused by entities governments counteract. Pro doesn't engage in that weighing analysis, and thus lets Con walk away with this point.

The only slightly harder vote would be to focus on the Kritik. As Pro doesn't challenge the importance of education to this debate, everything else pretty much vanishes behind this argument, as it's the only one to push an impact of education as its chief outcome. There's also not a lot to do here because Pro isn't really engaging with the violation: his case inherently pushes the mindset that government is necessary to stop or contain some "other" that's coming to get us. The logical extension of this (and Pro buys into this with some of his arguments) is to expand that protection to other countries, justifying imperialist tendencies. Con's responses largely dismiss these outcomes, but he's not attacking the warrants, so much of this comes off as weak. Attacking a Kritik requires doing more than just saying that something won't happen and focusing on a single example, but even that one only works against xenophobia, which isn't the only impact on this Kritik. Colonialism still looms large at the end, and the kinds of proxy wars discussed throughout the debate stand as problematic as well. I think Pro actually had the right idea when he mentioned Con's lack of viable alternatives, as a Kritik is only as good as the alternatives that the debater suggests. Con doesn't really offer an alternative, but Pro has to take direct advantage of that. He has to point out how Con's arguments bite the Kritik, which I see them doing several times. Without doing that, though it is tenuous, I would have to buy the Kritik and vote there before I looked at any of the rest of the debate because education is all that matters and this point deals in the mindsets of the debaters rather than the specific arguments proposed.

So, either way, I'm voting Con. Pro just doesn't get enough engagement on these points, and the responses to his case at least keep the rest of his points in limbo.

Having the "by 2040" in the resolution really makes this impossible for Pro, and Con clearly recognizes that. Too much of the tech that Pro uses to justify this happening in 20 years is untested or theoretical, and while the potential gains are massive, they all require an established colony with no catastrophic problems. That could have been outweighed by the need to leave Earth in order to preserve life after some catastrophic event here, but Pro can't win by just establishing that such a problem is likely; he had to show that it is also imminent. I don't see evidence of that in his arguments. So, why not wait until past the year 2040? Do we lose something by not accomplishing this beforehand? I don't see any reason not to wait and get this technology where it needs to be to make the mission safe. That's enough to warrant a Con win.

There's very little to say here. Pro levies a lot of points about the basic failings of logic and argumentation that pervade Con's points in other debates, and Con's responses largely double down on those strategies. Basically, Con's doubling down on the strategy that Pro is using against him, and his only arguments for why it is effective deal in the "but it works for discussion" and disengage from debate entirely. This is a debate, and much as Con dismisses the importance of that venue, debate includes certain elements that his arguments lack. Pro points that out at length, Con has no responses, Pro wins the debate. Pro's points are well sourced, and he presents better conduct by actually engaging on the points his opponent provides and not flipping over the table at the end because he's upset. I'll end with what I saw as the most effective analogy that Pro provided:

CON says "I feel terrible, what's the problem?"
PRO points that CON smokes 2 packs a day, eats only doritos and coke, never exercises, has stage4 cancer, advanced diabetes and a javelin in his eye.
CON replies, "Fancy words like diabetes confuse me. Don't you want to know what I think my problem is?"

This shows very well how Con's points, both in this debate and elsewhere, fail to engage with the analysis of his opponent. That failure has cost him this debate, as it has cost him so many others.

I don't want to repeat myself from my previous RFDs too much, so I'll keep this short. Pro presents a case. Con largely does nothing to assail that case, aside from questioning the validity of points Pro made. He doesn't give us an alternate lens through which to view those points, nor does he provide information that runs contrary to the points that Pro made. Apart from that, the entire basis for the debate is so vague that it's unclear what the burden of proof even was, providing Pro with any number of avenues to win this debate and, in the absence of challenge, providing Con with little opportunity to challenge him. Con put himself on trial, and lost.

This became the obvious decision after Pro's second round because as soon as the debate became more about whether abortion is bad, Pro's main offense in this debate vanished into the periphery. It comes back somewhat in the final round, but by then, Pro has tied his own hands by allowing Con to dictate the definitions in a way that basically forces him to argue based on current harms rather than future harms. There was an opportunity to argue this back, but Pro didn't take it, so we're stuck with current degrees of impact.

What makes this worse is that I don't get any significant weighing analysis from either side between points with different impacts, which is a bigger problem for Pro. How do the economic impacts both sides discuss weigh against loss of life? Honestly, I have no clue, and since both sides largely shift focus to loss of life as an impact and it's generally hard to weigh lives against dollars and cents, I'm going with loss of life as the automatically greater impact. Pro also has this point about environmental impact, but I'm unclear throughout how much I should weigh the loss of other lives against human lives, and impacts of unrest and diseases are either too vague or downplayed too much to matter in the scope of the remainder of the debate.

Which, of course, just leaves me with the lives lost. Pro gives me a very clear number for his side. Con's is a little less clear, but what is clear enough is that it's bigger than 150,000. Late term abortions alone worldwide would get close to that number if not exceed it, and there's just a lot of uncertainty regarding the value of lives lost due to abortions. Con loses a lot of ground by missing out on arguing the Uncertainty Principle, which would have put the weight on his side for this, but I can still afford him some weight due to losses incurred via abortion. How much it weighs against losses of those we would consider persons is unclear, but it's a large enough number that it would feature in some fashion. Overall, there's just too much actual and potential weight on Con's side, and he ends up clinching this debate.

I'll keep this one short.

While I do think both sides put up a decent effort, each side has their problems in this debate. Pro starts off with three advantages, the last of which is basically just pre-rebuttal without any offensive substance. While that does hinder his case a bit, the bigger problem is that there is no specificity regarding how this artificial memories would work, and that allows Con to drag Pro down a rabbit hole. Pro, really all you had to do here was say that they make memories with all the various sensations associated, and that we should assume this is a science fiction version of our world with the tools to generate memories with all the associated facets (like all 5 senses). I got from the outset that that was where you should have been going, but since you didn't define it that way in your opening round and your responses were focused on single senses, you got lost on this one, and it made your second contention virtually disappear. So your only offense going into the final round was your first contention.

Con, I get how your strategy works, but I don't see you doing the requisite weighing analyses that could have made this an easy win for you. You include substantial discussion of how important it is to learn from our past pains, but it's pretty vague. It's unclear how I should weigh this against the possibility that people can manage past pains and move past them, and while you do mitigate that argument, it's hard to tell how well this weighs against that. Pro also had the opportunity to argue that this capability to craft artificial memories could further your cause, since not all memories have to paper over past events. He could even argue that introducing past trauma through memories can similarly help us to improve without the added risks of actually experiencing those traumas, a point that would have turned what I consider to be the main argument against his case.

Nonetheless, I do think the debate swings towards Con. Pro largely allows his argument to be directed by Con, and efforts to paper over past events with poor facsimiles are going to make it difficult for Pro to achieve any of his advantages. The ability to gain skills is effectively mitigated into oblivion by uncertainty, and the morality side is challenged pretty harshly with the reality that, unlike just forgetting a memory, someone is imposing this loss on you. I'm not clear that doctors/scientists have an absolute adherence to truth as part of their doctrine, but Pro doesn't provide adequate responses to show that this isn't the case, so Con is winning on this point as well. Much as it is unclear just how much Con is garnering from his side of the debate, Pro's benefits are obfuscated enough that I have more trouble nailing down what he actually gets. That nets Con the win.

Needless to say, this one will be getting an HoF nomination from me for the next round. Both debaters did very well, and this was a very tough decision.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WrGlu9qoj5uy75sxlwVgJkOhypZkiQwX3vjs4ucDY_E/edit

I went back and checked, and I could just copy-paste my RFD from Con's last debate and have it apply just as well here. I can't fault either side for consistency, but Con, if you're losing your debates with tactics like these, you might want to change things up a bit. This just makes it look like you don't care.

However, as this is a debate that finished without forfeits and as I'd like to provide some feedback, I'll endeavor to provide a unique RFD.

Pro largely sets up a pretty simple argument, building his case on some pretty simple standards for what makes a racist, how rhetoric reflects racist tendencies, and how the defenses of racism simply don't hold up. It's a straightforward case with obvious links that require direct attacks. Without directly addressing those links, Pro's argument automatically wins this debate, because his burden of proof is simply show that there is evidence that Adolf Hitler was racist. Everything else, including distractions about Donald Trump.

Con's response is largely to pose questions. Those questions introduce some doubt, but they only weakly mitigate Pro's arguments, even if I buy the points Con is making outright. They are still supporting Pro's case, and Con doesn't give me reason to believe that they do not rise to the level of proof. Instead, he seems more focused on presenting doubt that there's anything wrong with these actions. I could buy that someone is racist and that there's nothing wrong with that, so I don't understand why this line of argument does anything for Con's side. The rest is largely about questioning guilt by association (which only tells me that he might not be a racist, not that he isn't), lack of other evidence (which only works if you address the evidence you've been presented with, which Con ignores), and trying to call attention to vagaries in Pro's points (none of which are integral to Pro's arguments, and all of which seem more focused on semantics than actual analysis). Con's case, once again, lacks any substance and fails to introduce any substantial doubts in Pro's arguments. All he accomplishes is showing that there are some potential problems, but since most of his doubts are introduced as questions and the remainder fail to fully mitigate or turn arguments from Pro, they don't do anything to shift the debate in his favor.

Arguments go to Pro, along with sources, as Pro was the only one to present them and Con leaves them all unaddressed.

Just two other things I need to say:

Con, if you don't understand points as clear as the ones made in this debate and that's why you need to ask questions, then you really need to take the time to understand what the debate is about. Debates are not discussions, and introducing niggling doubts is not powerful in any context. Know what you have to do to succeed and go along that path. Understand your opponent's arguments or not, you won't get anywhere giving these kinds of responses in any debate.

And finally... "Mr. Hitler"... really?

Ignoring the forfeit, Pro still dominates this debate. He presents a number of substantial pieces of evidence to support the resolution. The responses that Con gives are largely a big "nuh-uh" rather than direct rebuttals, and even if some of them were effective, Con gives himself no ways to win this. He doesn't provide any substantial threshold for determining when someone has demonstrated their racism (he allows Pro to set both the standard for racism and the threshold he has to meet), and as he has no offense of his own to show that Trump is not a racist, he has to either disprove or mitigate everything Pro says into oblivion. These rebuttals only present niggling doubts at best; none of them outright defeat any of the points Pro presents. Pro clearly did present evidence and explain what was in said evidence, and Con's responses all trend towards either questioning the validity of his conclusions without presenting his own, or requesting that he present more facts without addressing the ones he's presented with in the first place. Sources to Pro, largely because he was the only one who presented any and they were entirely dismissed without reason.

There's honestly just not a lot to do with this debate, so I'll make this quick. Pro, you really need to make sure you define your burdens from the outset and all your terms. You let your opponent string you along with responses on that front that could have been confronted straight up in R2, but which you largely responded to by just saying he was wrong. I buy that you have to show that there are at least 2 powers that are facilitating this process, which isn't good for your arguments because that does mean I need two distinct groups. You can't just throw out a bunch of possible suspects; these had to be very clear at some point in the debate.

Meanwhile, much of Pro's arguments in support of his side have more to do with physical harm than dumbing down, so much of his case is just off topic. That just leaves the cell phone argument and the vaccines cause autism point. The cell phone point seems divisive, but it probably could have held some weight if it was clear what powers are involved in this plot. Pro seems set on arguing that it's more than just a single guy, but he never provides any support for that, relying on sources that may not be accurate enough to stand alone. As for the vaccine point, this is better linked to powers (mainly corporations), but lacks the links to prove it. Pro almost entirely focuses on a claim that DNA found in these vaccines can cause cancer (off topic) and autism, but provides no support for those arguments, and Con provides sources that both run counter to those claims and address the issue more thoroughly.

Pro's entire case amounts to a series of claims with threadbare evidence to support them, and with most of them off topic and the remainder failing to check all the necessary boxes to meet his burdens, Pro's case just doesn't have any teeth to it. As Con doesn't have these burdens, he wins the debate by default. I also award sources to Con, as Pro's sources largely devolved as the debate went on, including several YouTube videos and highly suspect (read: biased) websites. Finally, I take the rare step of awarding S&G. Seriously, Pro, work on your spacing between sentences. It's jarring to read through your argument when there's no space between your period and your next sentence. Also, at least occasionally, it would be nice to see some proofreading. All these misspelled words make it so much harder to read through.

Technically not supposed to vote on this one, so I’ll leave mine neutral, despite the forfeit.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/13Y5u86afon1csFXa9zKAV65nbGmf1cdSnqYR6JkxFJU/edit?usp=sharing

Additionally, I'm awarding sources to Pro. While Con did provide good sources, his analysis of them was light, while Pro often delved down into not only his sources, but those of his opponent.

RFD given here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zgZgFzmpf4S4eGK-QpZgShmv2iFh_9nqXeX5Pj9nHe4/edit

Note: My best judgement of the debate is that citing Like a Boss automatically makes Con the winner of this debate. Best part of the whole thing, perfect comparison, deserves all the points. That being said, I'll give a brief RFD that involves less... awesome... analysis.

I could pick virtually any point Con makes and vote based on it, so I'll go through three.

On Israel... wow. Just... wow. Pro, you need to seriously rethink your opinions regarding Jews and Judaism. However, even if I bought your argument, your points only dig you deeper into troubled territory. The whole point was that living separately from the Arab cultures surrounding them proved impossible and resulted in clear and evident conflict. Your responses bite other arguments, but never really address that central reasoning. Hence, your argument that separation would result in some kind of utopia where terrible things don't happen is problematic.

I really don't get Pro's response to logistics. I understand that "should" can allow us to bypass questions of whether something is feasible, but it doesn't erase the harms of implementation, and Pro's unwillingness to address that his system would require a mass, forced export of people from innumerable countries back to other countries where they a) may have never lived, b) that may not have any opportunities for them, c) that may speak a different language than the one(s) they speak, and d) be required to shed themselves of and acquire brand new citizenship (this is a short list - there are so many other problems to overcome) is problematic at best. It looks as though this would cause incredible harm to make it possible. You can't just handwave that way. Even if you could, Con has a point: if we're talking about magical worlds where anything is possible, his solves all the problems better.

Finally, the mixed ethnicity problem stands. Either people get to identify as a portion of their racial profile based entirely on preference, which invalidates much of Pro's solvency, or people with mixed ethnicity get assorted by some unknown body, resulting in a system that allows the assortment itself to bias what is and is not a person of a given race.

Meanwhile, Pro's arguments are largely built on the following principle: things are bad with mixed race cultures, so let's separate them in the hopes that things will get better. He doesn't examine any circumstances where this worked out, Con analyzes many (Rwanda, Neanderthals) where it doesn't. The whole point falls apart quickly.

All this leaves me with little choice but to vote Con. Pro's implementation makes no sense, his understanding of his own case seems incredibly flawed, and he has not at any point behaved Like a Boss. I also award sources to Con for aforementioned reasons and because he simply understands and cites his history.

I’m going to be unusual with this RFD and keep it brief.

What separates the two sides in this debate largely comes down to tactics. I can see (though it takes me sometime to get there) how Pro is approaching the debate: by arguing that every sin falls under those two central commandments (which he ends up saying are inextricable from one another, effectively making them one commandment with two parts). That’s an interesting tactic and Pro spends a lot of time defending it, but as Con points out, it’s difficult to link this 1:1 with the three sins Pro is supposed to be defending as all-encompassing from the get-go. I buy that following these commandments represents the core sins of the world and maybe even that they represent all sins, but that doesn’t meet Pro’s burdens. Pro does also spend a great deal of time arguing about what fits under each of the three sins represented by the three temptations, and I’ll get into that momentarily, but by doing so he implicitly acknowledges that, yes, he does have to fit all sins into these three categories. There may have been room to argue that this was unnecessary for Pro to win this debate, but I don’t see much on that front.

Con’s view is that the “all” in the resolution allows him to function based on any doubts that result from individual sins either not fully or not at all fitting under these three sin categories. Con immediately concedes a lot of ground by doing this, and in particular, I think it is an error to say that many of his examples could fit under them, largely because doing so provides Pro easy routes of response and forces Con to get more and more specific. I recognize that there are good reasons to do this to preempt some points from Pro, but Con, you need to be careful how much you concede up front to your opponent in your own arguments. Let him do the legwork, and build in responses rather than handing points to him. That being said, there are many of these points that, at minimum, provide reasons to believe that they might not fully fit under the three sins Pro ascribes them to, and while I could go back through each individual example, I’ll just focus on the two that made it all the way to the end.

Idolatry is probably the most difficult to assess. I can both see Con’s point about a lack of intention and Pro’s point about how intention doesn’t necessarily make a sin a sin. Possession, at least to some degree, does apply to idolatry and while intentions may be sufficient to show that someone was trying to sin, I have a hard time buying that it falls outside the realm of Possession that Pro describes. I don’t love the shifting on the definition, but he contorts it well enough that I have a hard time with it, so this would not be an easy point to vote on.

But Atheism is a lot easier for me, largely because Pro takes a couple of steps too far on this. His main justification for why this is Possession (how it falls under the other two is unclear) is that these people are possessed by nothingness. I thought this was an intriguing line of attack at first, but Con pointed out the error that was coming to my mind shortly thereafter: Pro is trying to use multiple definitions and perspectives of possession. If nothingness possesses you, are you guilty of possession? If you possess nothing (equating this to idolatry is weird when you’re talking about literally possessing nothing), are you guilty of said possession? I think Pro fell into a trap that he could have easily avoided here by pointing out that atheism is itself a form of belief, an argument that I believe Con himself made. Pro’s own language use does him in here by making it more and more difficult to understand where atheists, and not the supposed nothingness they believe in, are guilty of possession. I can’t give Pro points he didn’t make, and while I can see where possession may apply, Pro’s efforts to contort the definition here result in my voting against him.

This is... a bit frustrating. A lot of the debate just isn't all that relevant because both sides largely concede that they meet their definitions. Pro does spend some time challenging whether Herbalife meets the more specific definition forwarded by Con, but I can really only see it covering some of the bases, which means it is at best partly meeting the definition. I might have been willing to buy that partially meeting the definition is sufficient to at least call into question whether it is a pyramid scheme, but I don't really see that argument from Pro, so while I have some reason to believe that it meets part of the definition, I'm not really sure what that means.

What that leaves me with is the question of whose definition of a pyramid scheme is more accurate; so, basically, Merriam-Webster vs. Investopedia. And that's where it becomes tricky. Neither side provides a particularly good reason to dismiss the other. Con argues that his definition is more specific and distinct from a con. I agree with both statements, but each is only a possible reason to accept his definition. I need to see why the distinction from a con is necessary, or why specificity is necessary. To that end, if I had a clear example of a company that would meet Pro's definition and most certainly is not a pyramid scheme, then that likely would have swayed me. Pro's argument for his definition is pretty much solely based on the bounds of the debate laid out in the out in the description, where it does say that MWD is the source for definitions. Pro does later mention criteria based on that definition, but they don't really bolster the definition he gives.

That doesn't leave me with a lot to work into a decision. Con does give me more reason to favor his definition, but given that it was laid out in the description, I'm buying that MWD is the source for definitions unless I'm given a solid reason to disfavor it. That leaves me leaning Pro on the definition, and as long as I am, that means I'm also buying that Con had to challenge Pro's arguments based on that definition. I can see some of Con's points that kind of address it, but none of them do enough to ensure that Pro didn't meet his burdens. Hence, I vote Pro.

Not an easy decision. Let me know if you have trouble accessing the RFD.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Y0NfTGWDYrw4n2F4XHjmrpC9wCzZ4QtFhFpk4-l6cJU/edit?usp=sharing

Given in the comments.

This is pretty basic. Pro relies on arguments that are directly addressed and defeated by Con in the previous round in order to win the debate. He does introduce the concept of Con's burden of proof in the second round by arguing that Con had to show that rap battles should be on DART, but a) it's too late to do so, and b) Con disputes that burden and argues that Pro carries it (again, a little late, but understandable in this instance). All that remains is the point about rap battles not being debates, but Con points out that they follow to the letter the standards for the site. Even if they don't fit a definition of debate in the manner Pro describes, it's unclear why they should not be on the site as a result. Pro's failure to support his arguments sufficiently nets Con the debate.

What this debate comes down to, unfortunately, is a skewed definition of the word "may". The way that Pro frames it in R2 is as much actual argument as it gets, which is a big problem for Con. Pro puts the entire burden of proof on Con, claiming that it's up to Con to prove with absolute certainty that DTaP vaccines do not cause autism. Con does disagree with Pro's definition, saying it makes no sense, but provides no reason to support that... which is why this is so frustrating. Con could have said that science rarely proves absolutes. Con could have argued that proving a negative (in this case, that something under no circumstances has any association whatsoever with a possible side-effect) is virtually impossible. Con could have argued that there is also a burden on Pro - namely, to show that there is some evidence somewhere that supports the link. Generally, the phrase "may cause ______" tends not to be applied to a drug without any proof that the drug causes that side-effect.

Without a solid response to how Pro defines "may" within this debate, which comes with a cited definition, Con's case is an impossible uphill battle. Con would have had to present studies and analyze them deeply to show that they excluded any possibility of a link between DTaP vaccines and autism, but after the first round where he took a couple of sentences from each to use as proof, Con does little to support his own case. Pro puts forth some pretty basic challenges that, at least within the definitions he's winning on this debate, ensure that none of these papers is effective against his case. This is a solid spate of evidence, and it deserves its due, but a lack of analysis on Con's part and the key definition of "may" ruin any chance they had of being effective.

Regardless of any personal feelings I have on this topic, Pro clearly won this debate.

RFD given here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Qahk3ymdFQsyUq0pAEeFs8htdvRIv8O92vo_GZlr7io/edit?usp=sharing

Tougher choice this time around, though the tl:dr is that I feel Pro did a better job weighing his points with the given resolution, whereas Con was a little too focused on a single point to place it solidly in the broader context of the debate.

There's just not much to say on this. Much as the opening argument by Pro was intriguing, there's a lot of points there that either need further support or needed to be rebuilt after Con's responses. Technical virology like this needs a great deal of support, and much as this was a good start, it's really not enough to demonstrate the claim being made. Even if I'm not holding you to a higher standard for your scientific reasoning and I just treat this as a debate, Con's responses undercut every point Pro made, and the lack of counter rebuttal leaves Pro without a leg to stand on.

This is a simple decision. Pro’s argument functions as one large concession. Con’s argument that the subjectivity of his impacts fundamentally invalidates any attempt to affirm the resolution, and Pro drops that, instead focusing back on his appeals to emotion and some rather troubling ad hominem positions against the voters. Assuming I didn’t like that, though, I have a lot of other ways to make this vote simple. Con’s argument about individual identity not existing or being fluid if it does exist goes either fully dropped or mishandled by Pro, who equates the nonexistence of identity with nonexistence in general. That misunderstanding does nothing to bolster his case, nor does dropping the burdens debate that ascribes Pro a clear and unmet burden to meet a specific standard of support for his argument. In the end, Pro left too much on the table to justify voting for him, and his argument doesn’t do enough to sway a voter on this resolution. Hence, I vote Con.

The forfeits alone justify the vote, though the arguments do as well. Con addresses every argument Pro makes in the debate and retains the strength of his own arguments throughout the debate, as all of Pro's responses amount to a separate case with no real clash. I also award conduct, as Pro included a few personal jabs at Con in among the few arguments he posted, including calling Con "stupid" for taking on the devil's advocate position. I (and many others who see people like Con taking on and defending positions they may not personally agree with) applaud efforts to engage in debates like this where they stretch outside of their personal biases. It's not simple, particularly on an ideologically charged issue like this.

Con just isn't giving me enough to go on in this debate. I buy that there might be problems, but "might" isn't good enough to win a debate round. Pro does more than enough to show that the third step in his argument has merit, and Con's efforts to address those arguments largely avoid them altogether. Instead, Con keeps repeating the same general argument, to which I see several responses that get no attention. If Con built out his argument a little more and directly engaged with the responses he received, I think this could have had a different outcome, but as it stands, Con just didn't engage in the debate sufficiently to win it.

RFD given here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/17OcPPym3PUejS4ya-WYxdDjz4q__0_ByuCbdFQpvkhk/edit?usp=sharing
Very close one, guys. If you read to the end, you'll see that the final decision turned on how much weight I was giving a single point. Rare for me to do that.

Nearly full forfeit, certainly enough to justify a vote.

Pro conceded the debate. Con employed numerous effective sources to support his arguments.

I'll do this by rating each AMV in each round, adding up the ratings at the end, and awarding the win based on who got the highest total rating.

Round 1:
Pro: 9/10
One of the best examples of strong editing across all the rounds, it’s an incredibly solid AMV that’s incredibly well-synced the music. It mostly fits the song pretty well, though it lapses in a few places. On the whole, an excellent AMV with a lot to praise.
Con: 8/10
Well-timed with a strong link to the music. Not quite as crisp on the editing, but exceptional nonetheless. It ends up relying quite a bit on rapid flashes between scenes, which are a bit disorientating.

Round 2:
Pro: 8/10
The best of the character-focused AMVs across all the rounds, it’s very nicely edited with the camera roll aesthetic. It fits the song better early on, but it works well for the theme throughout. It’s well-paced, and tells a pretty clear story throughout.
Con: 6/10
It’s definitely one of the more innovative song choices, but while the song as a whole seems to match pretty well with the anime, the scene selection and sync timing could use some work. It’s a pretty well constructed AMV, but nothing particularly special.

Round 3:
Pro (1): 3/10
This is probably my least favorite of the bunch. It’s got a lot of problems: poorly synced to the music, sped up scenes (often without purpose), a linear presentation of material from the anime, not the best animation quality… in essence, it could use some work. Big fan of Whitebeard, but beyond picking a decent song to represent him, this lets him down.
Pro (2): 10/10
Interesting that my favorite AMV in this whole debate is paired with it. This is one of three AMVs in this debate I was familiar with before I started going through this debate, and it’s incredibly well done. It’s got some really innovative editing, it’s tightly synced to the music, and it’s an interesting song that it makes work for the anime.
Con (1): 5/10
It’s a pretty solid AMV with a really appropriate and interesting song choice, but it doesn’t have much that sets it apart. No clever or interesting edits, a lot of sped up scenes, largely linear storytelling, and while the scenes are cool, there’s little syncing to the song. It just doesn’t do much for me.
Con (2): 9/10
Ah, a classic (and another of the 3 I was familiar with ahead of time). I think this was among the first AMVs that really got me into watching them. Another great AMV with a ton of incredible editing, especially for the time it was produced, all set to an incredibly appropriate song. What sets this apart is that it’s telling a story with added elements that weren’t a part of the original show, and that comes through in the editing. Some of the later parts don’t quite fit the theme it was initially going for as well, particularly as it’s rushing through elements of Hueco Mundo, but it’s still a great entry.

Round 4:
Pro: 5/10
Much as I’m a fan of Lindsey Sterling, the choice of a song without lyrics means the animation has to do the heavy lifting when it comes to keeping it engaging. In that sense, it kind of manages, but it once again falls victim to linear storytelling and focuses solely on a movie with not the greatest animation. It’s well-synced, but doesn’t have much in the way of interesting edits. Overall, fun to watch the action and a great listen, but not memorable.
Con: 9/10
Picked this one up recently (the third of the 3), and just as floored by it as I was the first time I found it. It’s an incredibly well-selected song and matches the scenes well. It transitions a little quickly from arc to arc, which loses some of the strength of focusing on each, but the editing is on point and it’s built to impress.

Round 5:
Pro: 6/10
It’s a stronger entry than the previous round, but not by much. Those subtitles, which just distract from the scenes, drag down the store a bit, as does the inconsistent application of scenes for the purpose of following the song. It’s synced well to the song and for the most part, they use some pretty good scene choices, though I can’t ignore the missed opportunities.
Con: 7/10
Starting with some dialogue sets this one apart in a good way. The action scenes are great to watch, and the song complements them well. The editing suits the song, but it’s often more distracting than it is helpful. I’m not familiar with this series, but I’ll have to check it out.

Total:
Pro: 41
Con: 44
As a side-note, I would have given Con two extra points at the end, one for having a greater diversity of song choices, and one for the diversity of anime choices. I know One Piece has a ton of AMVs and there are a lot of great ones out there (my personal favorite isn’t in this), but I personally would reward the decision to go further afield. Regardless, the vote goes to Con.

R1: Love both of these songs, so this is a tight one. By a small margin, Pro's "Under Your Scars" takes it.
R2: Two great Disturbed songs, but an easier choice this round. Con's "Stricken" is one of my favorites of theirs, so it takes this round.
R3: I do view Fleetwood Mac as rock, including this song, though it certainly takes some influence from country. This is an easy choice; though I'm a big fan of both of these songs (Paramore rocks as well), Pro's "The Chain" is probably my favorite of the songs of any of those presented in this debate, so it takes this round.
R4: Another easy choice despite excellent band choices on both sides (personally wouldn't have picked this particular song from Foo Fighters, but that's just me). "Dream On" is another one of my absolute favorites, so Pro takes this round.
R5: This is another really tough one. "Sound of Silence" is absolutely beautifully covered by Disturbed here, and I listen to this one on repeat. However, I can't give them credit for those incredible lyrics, since it is a cover, so it loses some ground against Con's choice. I have to give it to Skillet's "The Resistance" here - it may not be my favorite song by the band, but it's damn good.

That's 3-2 in favor of Pro, so that's how the points will be awarded.