Instigator / Pro

shabdak2.718

1466

rating

debates

8.33%

won

Topic

#3752

elon musk : mars : wasting resources and misguiding juveniles

Status

Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics

Better arguments

Better sources

Better legibility

Better conduct

After 2 votes and with 14 points ahead, the winner is...

Intelligence_06

Tags

Science

Parameters

Publication date: 09.17.2022 03:25PM
Last updated date: 10.20.2022 03:28AM
Type: Standard
Number of rounds: 2
Time for argument: Two days
Max argument characters: 10,000
Voting period: One month
Point system: Multiple criterions
Voting system: Open

Contender / Con

Intelligence_06

1737

rating

172

debates

73.26%

won

Description

hindi bhashiy vyakti ka param swagat hai , charcha bhartiy bhasha mai karne wala ho koi toh nyota hai ...

Round 1

shabdak2.718

09.17.2022 04:06PM

Pro

scientific research is accepted , well welcomed !

mars stay is fooling-ness . in what context to defending it ?

economic ?

resources ?

feasibility ?

social ?

philosophical ?

about juvenile :

musk mis-representing it in to make more population (like he have bunch of babies ) , its unresourceful .

Intelligence_06

09.18.2022 02:36AM

Con

Opponent's Argument

This is a 2-round debate. In a debate as short as this it should be allowed for rebuttals to take place in R1 as rebutting everything in R2 would be even less convenient.

mars stay is fooling-ness . in what context to defending it ?

This sentence is borderline incomprehensible to me, and it is not my fault, due to the grammatical aspects of said sentence being vastly different than most other text written in English on this site in which users can respond and vote and comment. This site is intended to be used in English since the very first forum topic created, so I am going to interpret this sentence using a less esoteric format of English language.

Staying on the planet Mars is foolish. In what ways could we defend it?(Note, The latter part, a question, is interpreted as a rhetorical one, intended to illustrate that the Mars stay is unprotected in terms of ethics or logical sense, and not for answering)

economic ?

resources ?

feasibility ?

social ?

philosophical ?

Pro listed such possible ways of defending a Mars stay, or so it seems. Despite that, this is no argument at all. It merely speculates that a counterargument to Pro's position may exist. Everything until this point will be seen as nothing as it has no impact.

about juvenile :

musk mis-representing it in to make more population (like he have bunch of babies ) , its unresourceful .

I think Pro is trying to say that Elon Musk is being unethical by planning to essentially 'farm' humans on Mars. That is what comes from my limited ability to interpret exotic structures in a linguistical sense.

However, borderline no context was provided here. What source proves that Musk is skewing the representation to produce more population? How is it unresourceful?

In fact, the term "Unresourceful" is not even included in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. By speculation in what Pro might have meant, we take the opposite of the definition of the term "resourceful".

resourceful
adjective
re·source·ful ri-ˈsȯrs-fəl
-ˈzȯrs-

: able to meet situations : capable of devising ways and means
a resourceful leader

In other words, Pro suggests that the making of new human beings and placing them to live and explore on Mars is not capable of meeting variable situations. Pro suggests that Musk's Mars plan does not suggest a new viability. That is not the case. Of course, it is resourceful in some areas. Also, having more babies which we can educate no matter where we are will be potentially a wonderful method of bringing forth novel remedies, thus making this plan MORE resourceful than before in the long run.

Con's tructive

Now let's look at the prompt itself.

elon musk : mars : wasting resources and misguiding juveniles

Not only is Elon Musk and Mars not capitalized(making the already-confunded title even more so), the usage of colons in the title makes it entirely unclear what Pro is trying to argue, as it could mean a lot of things.

Elon Musk divided by Mars, divided by "wasting resources and misguiding juveniles", is overall more beneficial than harmful.
Elon Musk and Mars wastes resources and misguide juveniles.
It is true that Elon Musk, who is Mars, also wastes resources and misguides juveniles.
The Colon mark represents a word in a programming language that I probably do not know that for Pro comes natually due to his potential area of expertise.

Just to name a few. Wow. Which one is it? The description does not specify which interpretation it is.

I will choose the interpretation of:

Elon Musk and Mars wastes resources and misguide juveniles.

Since it is the easiest to make sense of.

Mars

How could Mars, an inanimate object yet to be proven to even be sentient at all or able for trickery, misguide juveniles? Mars does not guide at all. That is my argument.

Conclusions

Pro makes himself not at all clear when it comes to just what he is arguing, and it could be interpreted that he made no argument at all.

The argument regarding juveniles both is unsourced and makes zero sense.

Pro's title statement is unclear.

Interpreting the statement(if it even is one at all), one finds that it is incredibly easy to disprove it.

Round 2

shabdak2.718

09.20.2022 02:36AM

Pro

Forfeited

Intelligence_06

09.20.2022 03:28AM

Con

Extend, vote Con.

shabdak2.718

09.18.2022 03:31AM

-->

@Intelligence_06

अगर हिंदी भाषी हो तो अच्छे से तर्क वितर्क होना संभव होगा ... इलन मस्क द्वारा चांद या मंगल पर बसने की बात मूर्खतापूर्ण है , यह शाब्दिक भावना रही है ।

https://youtu.be/kuslHGm2Iks

Barney

09.27.2022 09:28PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Forfeiture, and no real argument in R1. Something about 👼🏻 Is just an assertion without value.

RationalMadman

09.27.2022 08:29PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

FF .