I didn't have enough characters to say this (I had like 5 characters to spare), but I'm looking forward to a good debate! Hope we have a good discussion.
BTW, since you two have commented with suspicions of plagiarism...
Based on the current substantial evidence (including the comment below), would you vote for me on grounds of plagiarism alone? I just want to know before I spend a couple hours exhaustively writing a counter-argument.
As a voting moderator, would you consider the last two votes valid? I was under the impression that first, the rule-breaking penalty is limited to conduct unless specified otherwise, and second, votes on forfeits alone can only allot conduct.
"This is my first instigated debate. I am new to this, so please forgive me if I make mistakes in the process."
"The statement was that the US does not operate as a democracy, which I believe. First, let me define what operating as a democracy."
"Democratic principles include popular sovereignty, political equality, majority rule with minority rights, Based on the aforementioned I am claiming that the US does not operate in that matter."
See anything wrong? It's not quite obvious, but in each of the segments quoted above, there is a DOUBLE SPACE between each sentence. I suspect they were human-written. This stylistic choice never shows up again in the rest of the perfectly formatted argument. Food for thought.
Edit: apparently DART automatically formats double-spaces into single-spaces in the comments section, but not in forum posts or debate arguments. Spectators can check the original argument if they don't believe me.
I made no accusations. I merely pointed out a statement of fact - that several independent detectors flagged your conclusion as AI generated.
By the way, in your last comment, I counted almost 10 *very basic* grammar errors. ("hear", "cras", "proposturious", "iis", "respondant", "narrivte", excessive and unnnecessary commas, awkward phrasing, and incoherent organization). The first mistake is particularly egregious, as it is clearly not a typo, but rather a basic confusion with homophones.
Lancelot, perhaps I am biased here, so I would like to ask a neutral witness who I know to be competent in writing. Do you think the same person who just made 10 grammar errors in 94 words is capable of writing a perfect 30,000 character argument with not a single mistake?
I never accused you of using Chat-GPT to write your argument - I merely pointed out that when I put your conclusion in several AI text detectors, it flagged as being AI generated.
Zero-GPT: "100% AI GPT"
DNG AI Detector: "100% written by AI"
Content At Scale AI Detector: "Highly likely to be AI generated"
I'm not making any claims. Just putting the evidence there.
That too - Chat-GPT is known for writing a wide spread of points with little detail for each. The formatting by numbers is extraordinarily informal - it stands out as strange compared to the perfect MLA in-text citations seen in the rest of the argument.
"[Votes based on concessions] are invalid if the concession was not explicit, not intended, or not part of the debate proper (such as a debater in the comment section saying they would vote in favor of their opponent)."
Considering how vaguely worded CON's "concession" was, a case could be made for it not being explicit.
BTW, voters and my opponent alike might be amused to hear that my definitional Kritik was completely unintentional - I was writing my argument in a hurry, and didn't notice that Lancelot had already put (rather reasonable) definitions in the description. By the time I realized, my only option was to double down and do what I do best: pretend I know what the heck I'm doing.
I vote based on what happened in the debate, not my personal opinions. If Lancelot comes up with a convincing rules Kritik and defends it, I'll give him the win. If he doesn't, then I give you the win, regardless of how silly I find your rules. That's how objective voting works.
And perhaps that's the case. But one day, someone will accept one of your debates and successfully Kritik your rules. Why, that person might even be me, once my schoolwork completes itself.
It's called malicious compliance, and tends to be a natural consequence of making silly rules. FYI, many style guides exclude in-text citations from the character count, meaning your first round argument technically has less than 3500 characters.
"If the rules in the description are authoritative"
Key word being if. As a DART history connoisseur, I can name at least three instances in which a side that had violated a rule successfully argued against its validity and went on to win its debate. Considering the clear absurdity of this rule (at Melcharaz has pointed out), this could be a fourth.
R3 SOURCES:
1: https://oncubanews.com/en/cuba/inequality-and-population-at-risk-of-poverty-in-cuba/
2: https://www.ascecuba.org/asce_proceedings/cuba-external-debt-and-finance-in-the-context-of-limited-reforms/
3: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40752161
4: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022343320962566
5: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3911478
6: https://www.cato.org/regulation/fall-2013/more-economic-freedom-more-jobs
7: https://globaledge.msu.edu/countries/vietnam/memo#:~:text=Vietnam%20has%20a%20mixed%20economy,%2DPacific%20Partnership%20(TPP)
8: https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2023/03/13/vietnam-s-economy-forecast-to-grow-by-6-3-in-2023-world-bank-report-says
9: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1062976916300114
10: https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/how-economic-freedom-creates-healthy-environment
11: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/cuba-confirms-first-coronavirus-cases-tells-people-make-their-own-n1156711
Done.
If either of you have any questions/objections to my vote, just let me know.
R2 SOURCES:
1: https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking
2: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1127087/
3: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/great-leap-forward.asp
4: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alejandrochafuen/2020/09/28/freedom-and-equality-in-the-top-twenty-economies/?sh=2d7986fa4462
5: https://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/publications_ext_content/ifc_external_publication_site/publications_listing_page/lessonsofexperienceno5
6: https://www.piie.com/commentary/speeches-papers/north-koreas-external-economic-relations-paper
7: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cuba-economy-idUKKBN1XH02L
8: https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/venezuela/external-debt#:~:text=Venezuela%20External%20Debt%20reached%20110.2,Mar%201997%20to%20Mar%202019.
9: https://cubanstudiesinstitute.us/social/exploitation-of-workers-in-cuba/
10: ibid 1
11: https://rankedex.com/society-rankings/education-index
12: https://cei.org/blog/why-economic-freedom-is-the-best-weapon-against-poverty/
13: https://www.imf.org/en/Countries/VNM/vietnam-raising-millions-out-of-poverty#:~:text=Vietnamese%20started%20to%20travel%20broadly,percent%20from%20almost%2060%20percent.
14: https://uk.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/market-economy
Yes.
I didn't have enough characters to say this (I had like 5 characters to spare), but I'm looking forward to a good debate! Hope we have a good discussion.
R1 SOURCES:
1: https://www.worlddata.info/country-comparison.php?country1=CUB&country2=VNM
2: https://www.oecd.org/countries/vietnam/1921919.pdf
3: https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/vietnam/overview
4: https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-economy-of-vietnam.html
5: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Cuba#:~:text=The%20economy%20of%20Cuba%20is,%2Doperatives%20and%20self%2Demployment.
6: https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/100314/whats-difference-between-market-economy-and-command-economy.asp
7: https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2020/02/14/Vietnam-s-Development-Success-Story-and-the-Unfinished-SDG-Agenda-48966
8: https://www.reuters.com/markets/asia/vietnam-2022-gdp-growth-quickens-802-vs-258-expansion-2021-2022-12-29/
9: https://time.com/5937706/cuba-private-business/
10: https://www.prosperity.com/globe/cuba#:~:text=OVERALL%20PROSPERITY,rankings%20table%20by%2010%20places.
11: https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/CUB/cuba/gdp-growth-rate#:~:text=Cuba%20gdp%20growth%20rate%20for,a%200.44%25%20increase%20from%202017.
12: http://encyclopedia.uia.org/en/problem/137646
13: ibid 6
14: https://www.masterclass.com/articles/learn-about-market-economy
15: https://oncubanews.com/en/cuba/economy/cuba-more-than-400-state-enterprises-with-losses-according-to-minister/
16: https://mbhsdebate.wixsite.com/debate/kritik
17: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/command-economy-countries
18: https://www.democracymatrix.com/ranking
19: https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/human_rights_rule_law_index/
20: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/1998/09/exeter.htm
Do you know what a "troll debate" is...?
Yea, that's fine. Hope we can do a proper debate sometime in the future.
Well, this is sadge.
See belowwwwwwwww
Oo, sounds fun - like AnarchyChess but on DART.
I'll accept if you make this rated.
So both sides are basically proposing their own version of chess 2, preferably as ludicrous as possible?
Citing Chat-GPT is a pretty chad move. I should try that.
Nope!
This isn't even a debate...?
ZeroGPT Checker:
https://www.zerogpt.com/
Content At Scale AI Detector
https://contentatscale.ai/ai-content-detector/
Hive Moderation AI Detector
https://hivemoderation.com/ai-generated-content-detection
Grammarly Plagiarism Detector
https://www.grammarly.com/plagiarism-checker
Scribblr Plagiarism Detector
https://www.scribbr.com/plagiarism-checker/
Check-Plagiarism Tool
https://www.check-plagiarism.com/
Sometimes I wonder if there's something wrong with me. It's like I have a pathological addiction to doing things right before the deadline :/
He's probably trying to pull the old Pro-Con switcheroo.
(bump so I remember to do this one tmrw)
BTW, since you two have commented with suspicions of plagiarism...
Based on the current substantial evidence (including the comment below), would you vote for me on grounds of plagiarism alone? I just want to know before I spend a couple hours exhaustively writing a counter-argument.
As a voting moderator, would you consider the last two votes valid? I was under the impression that first, the rule-breaking penalty is limited to conduct unless specified otherwise, and second, votes on forfeits alone can only allot conduct.
I'll accept if you define exactly what Christianity is.
"This is my first instigated debate. I am new to this, so please forgive me if I make mistakes in the process."
"The statement was that the US does not operate as a democracy, which I believe. First, let me define what operating as a democracy."
"Democratic principles include popular sovereignty, political equality, majority rule with minority rights, Based on the aforementioned I am claiming that the US does not operate in that matter."
See anything wrong? It's not quite obvious, but in each of the segments quoted above, there is a DOUBLE SPACE between each sentence. I suspect they were human-written. This stylistic choice never shows up again in the rest of the perfectly formatted argument. Food for thought.
Edit: apparently DART automatically formats double-spaces into single-spaces in the comments section, but not in forum posts or debate arguments. Spectators can check the original argument if they don't believe me.
That's a method I haven't seen yet - thanks.
I made no accusations. I merely pointed out a statement of fact - that several independent detectors flagged your conclusion as AI generated.
By the way, in your last comment, I counted almost 10 *very basic* grammar errors. ("hear", "cras", "proposturious", "iis", "respondant", "narrivte", excessive and unnnecessary commas, awkward phrasing, and incoherent organization). The first mistake is particularly egregious, as it is clearly not a typo, but rather a basic confusion with homophones.
Lancelot, perhaps I am biased here, so I would like to ask a neutral witness who I know to be competent in writing. Do you think the same person who just made 10 grammar errors in 94 words is capable of writing a perfect 30,000 character argument with not a single mistake?
I never accused you of using Chat-GPT to write your argument - I merely pointed out that when I put your conclusion in several AI text detectors, it flagged as being AI generated.
Zero-GPT: "100% AI GPT"
DNG AI Detector: "100% written by AI"
Content At Scale AI Detector: "Highly likely to be AI generated"
I'm not making any claims. Just putting the evidence there.
Tip for the future: when your opponent is about to forfeit, spam a bunch of easy votes on other debates in order to bump your debate out of sight.
I suppose I'll save it as a last-round ace once I have more evidence.
Under your own rules in the description, technically you've lost this debate already.
That too - Chat-GPT is known for writing a wide spread of points with little detail for each. The formatting by numbers is extraordinarily informal - it stands out as strange compared to the perfect MLA in-text citations seen in the rest of the argument.
Not to mention the conclusion was detected as 100% Chat-GPT written when I checked it...
Currently reading through the debate - vote will be up in a few days.
Honestly, you could still win this considering how easy it is to refute the resolution.
Well, I suppose I couldn't have been the only one salty about that update, lol.
BTW I wasn't the one who reported that vote, it would be pointless anyway.
I just did.
"[Votes based on concessions] are invalid if the concession was not explicit, not intended, or not part of the debate proper (such as a debater in the comment section saying they would vote in favor of their opponent)."
Considering how vaguely worded CON's "concession" was, a case could be made for it not being explicit.
That's ironic coming from someone who copy-pastes the same opening argument every time.
If a two sentence argument is more convincing than a long one, whose fault is that?
I have little respect for someone who tries to win debates on a rules technicality. Take it or leave it.
Imagine stalking someone so much that you tag them five times.
Did someone mention flame war? I'm in.
BTW, voters and my opponent alike might be amused to hear that my definitional Kritik was completely unintentional - I was writing my argument in a hurry, and didn't notice that Lancelot had already put (rather reasonable) definitions in the description. By the time I realized, my only option was to double down and do what I do best: pretend I know what the heck I'm doing.
Thank you for the informative RfD.
I vote based on what happened in the debate, not my personal opinions. If Lancelot comes up with a convincing rules Kritik and defends it, I'll give him the win. If he doesn't, then I give you the win, regardless of how silly I find your rules. That's how objective voting works.
And perhaps that's the case. But one day, someone will accept one of your debates and successfully Kritik your rules. Why, that person might even be me, once my schoolwork completes itself.
It's called malicious compliance, and tends to be a natural consequence of making silly rules. FYI, many style guides exclude in-text citations from the character count, meaning your first round argument technically has less than 3500 characters.
"Why would anyone agree to a debate with a rule they weren't willing to follow?? I don't get it."
It's called a rules Kritik, and is a perfectly valid strategy.
"If the rules in the description are authoritative"
Key word being if. As a DART history connoisseur, I can name at least three instances in which a side that had violated a rule successfully argued against its validity and went on to win its debate. Considering the clear absurdity of this rule (at Melcharaz has pointed out), this could be a fourth.