whiteflame

No worries. I'll try to explain this another way. The influenza virus is really prone to mutation, and most of those mutations happen in the proteins that our bodies target when they infect us. That's part of why it's so difficult to make a good vaccine that covers every influenza strain - they are very diverse and hard to target as a result. 

As for the latter part of that post, it's important to think about what the speed of your body's response to a virus means. If it's just responding to a virus that wants a response, e.g. a cold virus, then it does not matter how quickly it responds. The virus is getting the response it wants, and is getting coughed and sneezed into new victims. If the virus is trying to evade the immune system in order to establish a greater infection in the host, e.g. influenza and COVID-19, then a faster response can prevent that establishment. It will still spread regardless, but influenza and COVID-19 can't do a lot of damage if it can't get into your lungs and cause the pneumonia-like response.

The latter. I'm writing my dissertation, and I haven't had the time to spend on here that I did on DDO.

Alright, then I'm simply filling in the gap in his explanation because, at least based on this interview, it was unclear that there are any other viruses that cause the common cold. It may not be an assumption, but the omission is itself problematic.

That much I can certainly speak to. Think of RNA as you would DNA: 2 strands complementary to each other. If you separated those strands, one would be positive and one would be negative. The positive strand usually represents the strand that encodes protein, whereas the negative strand is merely its complement. So what this virologist means is that the virus has a genome that is composed of RNA that can be shuttled straight to the cell’s ribosomes and translated into proteins without any other steps in between. It’s equipped to work very quickly and relies on very little from its host as compared with other viruses. Does that make sense?

That does make things more difficult, though the flu virus is highly mutagenic, particularly in its surface proteins, which are usually the targets of the immune system. That's part of why it's so difficult to handle. Colds, at least in theory, could have associated vaccines, though the main problem is in how they infect you. A cold virus plants itself at the back of your throat and stimulates the immune response, whereas a flu virus gets deeper into the body, meaning that the rate of response may only be somewhat important for a cold because a rapid response doesn't really change disease progression, but very important for a flu because it can address the consequences of disease spread. COVID-19 behaves more like a flu virus than a cold virus.

The info you've provided is much appreciated, but I do feel the need to correct one of the statements you've quoted, which I know to be inaccurate. 

...."For instance, coronaviruses and influenzaviruses have a lipid envelope (membrane) around the capsid (protein shell) and rhinoviruses, which cause the common cold, do not."

Much as this person appears to be quite the expert of virology, this statement is problematic because it assumes that rhinoviruses are the only causes of the common cold.

"Other viruses that can cause colds include respiratory syncytial virus, human parainfluenza viruses, adenovirus, human coronaviruses, and human metapneumovirus."

This is because the common cold, unlike the flu, is not caused by a single virus. The symptoms are certainly not ubiquitous, but they are common to a variety of viruses, hence the term "common cold." Note that coronaviruses (in bold) are in that mix.

Ooh, good choice. Going up.

Sure. I'm down.

/in (maybe)

I can see where you're coming from, but I actually share Ramshutu's view on this. When it comes to an abortion debate, there are two things that we recognize without anything being said:

1. The unborn are being killed, and

2. The choice exists to do so

My view (and I think this is broadly shared by many in the debate community) is that bodies on the flow are a big problem for the side that is defending their continued existence. Those are lives lost, and it's very simple to make the argument that lives are important. That's automatically a big impact, whereas the impact of lost choice is a lot more nebulous and vague. We can all agree that choice is important, but weighing that value is not so simple. So, when one side comes into the debate with a very easily weighed impact of lives lost vs. another side that is advocating for choice (something we don't have infinite rights to access in all instances), I'd say the first side is in better shape from the outset. I'd go so far as to say that they're in a lot better shape. I'm personally pro-choice, and therefore I do find those arguments more convincing, but within the context of an objective debate, I think they start off in a weaker position.

Now, you talk about burden of proof, and while I'd say that's dependent on the resolution, even if we assume the pro-life side has it, I don't see that as a problem. At least from my perspective, the burden of proof in a net benefits debate is to show that your position is net beneficial. That's it. Since showing that it's net harmful automatically nets the other side the debate, regardless of the burdens, that means that burdens really only affect this debate in the really unlikely circumstance where it's unclear there's any net benefit or harm. I don't see that as a heavy burden. I've seen arguments made for why the burden needs to be higher than that, but the opponent would have to provide some pretty persuasive points to show that those burdens should be increased. That's not an automatic thing. As for morality coming into the debate, I'd say it plays a role, but the debate doesn't solely hinge on morality. You could stay away from a values-based debate almost entirely and still win it on either side. That's what I do when I argue the pro-choice side - I talk almost entirely about the feasibility of implementing pro-life policies. Pro-life is a little more reliant on the moral debate, though I've heard arguments that manage to take it out of the subjective realm.

I don't think that's necessarily true. I'm neither of those things, but many of the best arguments I've heard come from Christian conservatives. It's a matter of how you support them and the ways you approach reaching your audience. The problems really only become apparent if you dig in too deeply on biases rather than focusing on the objective merits of your case.

Good to see you as well. Yeah, nearing the end of this wild ride that has been my PhD, so there's a lot to do in order to wrap up. Good news is that I think my timeline is doable, so it's just a matter of doing it.

I haven’t had the kind of time I used to, so I’ve slowed down on voting. Each of my votes takes quite a while to write out, and I’d rather do fewer than spend less time going through and analyzing each debate on which I vote. That being said, I have been pretty consistent in voting on debates when asked and reminded.

I'm down.

People

Virtuoso

Ramshutu

Mike

Debates

Israeli Conscription

Jury Nullification

Animal Experimentation

Mostly, yes. I'm so slammed with work these days that I wouldn't have time for it, and, let's face it, it's not exactly the most glamorous job out there. That being said, what I appreciated about being a moderator was that I was always tuned into what was going on, and I felt like I had a strong support network in Blade-of-Truth and Airmax. That much I miss.

Users:

In an effort to keep from promoting my own debates, at least for the purposes of the nomination process, I'm going to focus my attention on some of the debates that caught my eye when I was voting on them.

Resolved: In the US, plea bargaining ought to be abolished blamonkey v. Virtuoso

A solid debate on a difficult issue. Could have used some work establishing the differences in framework, but as a breakdown of the issues surrounding plea bargaining, both sides did an excellent job.

Resolved: The US should abolish the death penalty blamonkey v. Virtuoso

Another well-executed debate with a lot of good points made by both sides. I know it's the same two debaters, but it's also a much more even debate.

Governments should legally recognize same-sex marriage Tejretics v. Logical-Master

A complex debate with a lot of intriguing points brought up by both sides. I like the twists and turns this one took, and I think both sides brought their A-game to it.

Debates:

I'm going to try to focus on users who weren't recognized through DDO for this one.

Ramshutu: I don't think I have to say much here. He's been exceptionally good about voting on debates and does a very thorough job in his analysis. His work with the moderation team is nothing to scoff at, and I think he deserves the recognition.

Virtuoso: Again, I think this speaks for itself. He's done a great deal in terms of moderation for the site, is a highly active and engaged user, and one of the main reasons I came to the site in the first place.

I'll reserve the last spot for another time.

Those are my personal favorites on both websites, so thanks for covering them :)

In this hypothetical, I would say that as long as you're clear about the fact that their entire argument is plagiarized, you could win the debate, presupposing that that is the only thing that happens in the debate (from that point onward - it's possible that your opponent would present something in subsequent rounds, in which case the plagiarism should be taken into account, but so should the argument they've written themselves). So, no, you do not have to counter the article. I get RM's point but regardless of the content of the article, the debater in question has plagiarized the entirety of their argument. Some might view that as only a conduct violation, though when that violation constitutes the entirety of their points, I'd say voters are more than justified to award argument points on the basis that that debater's argument doesn't exist without said violation. I can understand the desire to see a response and have some kind of actual debate over the topic, but that desire should not outstrip the reality of what happened in a debate like this. 

Alright, then I'll just make it an open offer to anyone who I'm judging for: I would be happy to sit in on the debate as it's going and provide live feedback on the debate afterward. If you're interested, include me in your planning for the day/time of the debate.

I’d be fine judging for this tournament. One question about that: would it be possible to judge these live? I could provide a summary of the vote on the debate where the video is posted, but I’d prefer live feedback to a more extensive RFD.

It's a big one, but pretty good if you ask me. Appreciate anyone who works on this!

1. Moon Knight. I just love his design, and the lack of need to learn to control a really daunting superpower makes him entirely my speed. 

2. Teleportation. 

3. Marvel

4. Logan. It's a close call with a couple of other contenders, but I absolutely adore this film.

5. Falcon. Honestly, just not interesting to me at all.

6. Ozymandias. His motivations are far more interesting than most supervillains I'm aware of, and the ways he exercises his intellect to reach them are just masterful. 

7. Yes. Often, both sides are in the wrong. The issue is more often that the villains take it too far in their efforts.

8. The Incredibles universe. It has that "wow" factor without any of the world/universe/reality ending stuff of the Marvel and DC worlds.

I'm a fan, though I will say the first season was stronger than the second (minus the ending, which was and remains one of the best endings I've seen in anime). The mech battles were expertly done, though yeah, occasionally it gets a little more unreal than I'd like. The whole concept of the show was really intriguing, and I think they executed well on it.

It's a tough call because of the sheer diversity of anime out there. If I had to pick just one, though, it would be Fate Zero.

Hoping to get an actual vote on this one. Not an actual debate, but some amazing music that's totally worth hearing.

I’m not quite as harsh on this as bsh1 is, but our views are similar. Mine is that, if you drop your own argument, you have shown me how little you care about it. I take that into account in how I weigh the point, and given the context you’ve stated here about it being the strongest point by far, this would probably reduce its weight to the point that an argument with far lesser impact could beat it. I do recollect one instance where something like this happened in a round I was judging and resulted in a win for the equivalent of the Con team, though even then, there was light mention of the argument in the final round (I ended up giving them my first and only low speaker point win for that, and my RFD was extensive). As for how much weight to give a point like this, I’d say treat it as though the link story was just thoroughly ravaged. If they can still win like that, then they earn that win, though I think the other side would have to do a terrible job building up their case to make that a reality.

My time.

Alright. I’m currently out and about, but I’ll look into options when I get home. Any particular topic areas that interest you? Subjects you’d like to debate?

The major cutoff for me tonight is 9:45, so anything before that works. I guess it’s a question of how much we want to prepare. We could do the debate we had to cancel before. If not that, I can look up some options.

I’d be available later today or next weekend to do it. If we do go for next weekend, though, I’d prefer sometime in the morning (I’m on PST).

I’d love to do a live debate or two - feel like I’ve been getting rusty doing it solely via text.

Don't recall taking this before, but just went through it, looks like I'm a -3.

B>A>C

1. C

2. B

3. Yes, so long as it's agreed to by both debaters

4. Yes

To be clear, I will say that I don't mind affixing my name to my videos, nor do I mind them being posted publicly as they are.

1. Yes, and I'm a fan of the B/E fusion idea

Yes to the remaining items.

The USFG should make the MMR vaccine mandatory

I will sign up as a judge for now. If I find that I have the time to debate, I’ll let you know.

I'll speak to what I know and leave the rest. I do know some about the various political views on foreign policy, though I'll just say that picking through them all is a bit of a mess, so I'll just leave those alone.

On US defense/military intervention/foreign policy:
 
These are big questions and I think a lot of nuance isrequired to answer each. Suffice it to say that we are probably too quick toact in many instances, and too slow to respond to changing conditions or clearneeds. We often intervene in countries where we understand far too little aboutthe local culture, people and attitudes, and that’s particularly damaging forwars that require prolonged occupations. We need to be prepared, in anyintervention, to move beyond solely military force, and I think we often failto think beyond the early stages. That holds true whether we’re occupying ornot, and one of the many failures we’ve had in so many of our interventions isdoing a poor job of getting international support for our endeavors. How weengage with NATO, the EU, the AU, the UN and so many other international bodiesis hugely consequential to us, though some get more attention and politicalgoodwill than others. As for defense, that’s a whole other can of worms, as weoften overspend on what we don’t need and underspend on things we require. Butthat could be a whole discussion in and of itself.
 
On US/Israel/Palestine relations:
 
This is a massive issue that isn’t going away anytime soon.I don’t know if we’ll see a peace accord struck between Israel and Palestine inour lifetimes, which is hugely depressing. However, if our aim is to see thatend, then we must shift the way we approach both. While I think the US must,for a number of reasons, continue supporting Israel militarily, I think we arealso in a position to dramatically alter the way we treat them. The US needs tobe willing to join with other countries in condemning some of the actionsIsrael takes, among them the propping up of settlements in the West Bank.Shifting the embassy to Jerusalem was a mistake that pushes the Palestiniansfurther away from having good faith talks about peace because it telegraphs,perhaps more clearly than ever before, that the US has a dog in this race andit’s Israel. Much as the Palestinian leadership under Hamas has committednumerous transgressions of its own (and it should be held accountable forthose), if the US aims to bring about any kind of peace in the region, we needto be more impartial and act like it.
 
On US/Saudi Arabia/Yemen relations:
 
I don’t think it’s controversial to say that the US needs tohold Saudi Arabia’s feet the fire when it comes to the recent assassination. Wemay benefit from the relationship financially, but even for a country whoseleadership almost certainly has supported terrorist activities in and outsideof the US, this should be a step too far. Well, to be frank, their human rightsabuses in Yemen should have been more than enough to warrant sanctions byitself, but a response to this is nonetheless necessary. Saudi Arabia isheavily dependent on the US being reliant on them for oil, and sanctions arelikely to hit them where it hurts. We shouldn’t and can’t expect them todramatically change, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t punish them forcommitting such heinous acts.
 
On US drone policy:
 
Drones are, in some respects, a double-edged sword. One ofthe most terrible costs of war, and certainly the cost that is most pressing tothe people of the country that is going to war, is the loss of life. Drones putfewer troops in harm’s way to accomplish similar goals, most often with lesscollateral damage. However, because of that, there are significantly fewercontrols put in place on the usage of drones, leading to a greater willingnessto use them and, thus, more conflict. I think that drones are an essential toolin the current US military. While the alternatives are less often used, theyare simply far too damaging to use in many instances to all countries involved.That being said, I think there should be more controls on the usage of drones.Just because they’re not manned doesn’t mean we shouldn’t treat them as theyare: weapons that rain down death on unsuspecting targets. However good themotive, a drone strike may well incite further conflict and require a muchlarger loss of life. We should take those implications seriously.

I'll get to this over the next couple of days - been swamped with work.

I also vote no.

Ah, my bad. 

I'd be down.

Yeah, I don't know if the prep time would work with the format. We could do some kind of hybrid format that would include some prep time, but I'm not sure just yet what that would look like.

Well, I suppose it's worth introducing myself now that I'm becoming involved in the site. Username's whiteflame, I've been an avid debater for quite a while now, both online and offline (though chiefly the latter). These days, I've been spending more time voting than debating, though I'll happily engage in either activity. I'm game for a range of topics, though I'd say I favor policy and scientific topics. While I do enjoy a good long written debate, I'm also game for live debates through Google Hangouts. My inbox is always open, and if you're interested in a debate or want me to vote on one of yours, hit me up.