If, as you stated, we're considering "random street fights," then are potential weapons taken into account? Facing someone who might have a knife or gun dramatically changes the situation.
The resolution leaves some room for flexibility. For example, in a martial art that combines striking and grappling (e.g. Muay Thai), you could argue that striking is the more preferable part, but the grappling makes up for any weaknesses the opponent brings up.
Look, I was sort of annoyed last night after spending 20 minutes manually going through every single link you provided in the sources, and not finding anything related to the statistic.
I apologize for threatening to accuse misconduct - I was annoyed and thinking you were making up evidence, especially after I spent another 10 minutes searching the web for "32 innocence", "32 claimed innocence", "death penalty 32", "32 7000 death penalty", etc, and finding absolutely nothing.
I wanted to try and settle it in the comments peacefully, since I'm interested in having an actual debate regarding the death penalty, not an argument over who has better sources. I would always prefer to look at your source and genuinely refute it, rather than just saying it doesn't exist at all.
After having a dinner to think about it, I decided to try and assume good faith instead when writing my final argument - perhaps you had simply missed an important source and didn't see my comments, which is what actually happened.
Anyway, this is my attempt to explain what happened, and apologize for what you might have seen as "bluffy" or "obnoxious" behavior - I assure you this was not the case.
In retrospect, I have to agree with your advice - I appreciate it, and will remember it in the future. I don't really think it'll change much though, since my opponent probably didn't see it anyway.
Hey Sir.Lancelot, thanks for the excellent debate - I wanted to add a short conclusion, but I ran out of characters. Overall, I think you had good arguments, but some of them didn't have enough relevance to the resolution, or significantly measurable impact - I admit that I was a bit guilty of that as well. Nevertheless, I enjoyed this interesting discussion regarding the death penalty - I have a feeling neither of us will change our minds, but perhaps some voters will.
Do you have a source for "32 of around 7,200 cases claimed actual innocence"? I checked the DPCI link you provided, but found no relevant figures supporting your claim.
After careful consideration, I have come to the conclusion that passive-aggressiveness is the best aggressiveness.
First of all, THERE IS NO OFFICIAL DICTIONARY FOR THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE - something I verified with five minutes of research. Unless you have a reason that Merriam-Webster's dictionary is less reliable than Oxford's dictionary, then you're just making stuff up for the sake of an argument.
Second of all, when did I say "con should argue it is right for women to maliciously kill their child"? If you're going to call me a supporter of malicious child-killing, then I'm going to call you a [REMOVED BY USER REQUEST - MOD].
Third of all, yes, debates have no official ruling structure. This doesn't mean that voters can interpret the debate however they want. Your strawman is so easily knocked over that it's pathetic.
If you can't understand the concept of burden of proof, something so simple that I've explained it to 6th graders who have no experience in debate, then it really is hopeless trying to talk to you.
PRO is making a controversial claim. By default, he has to prove that controversial claim - I don't have the responsibility to prove it wrong. Yes, my opponent needs to do the work. If he didn't want to do that, then he shouldn't have affirmed such a controversial claim: "abortion is murder." Obviously, proving that wrong is easier than proving that right. How is it my fault that my opponent chose an unbalanced topic? (No hate to you Skipper, you seem like an OK guy).
I am not setting the rules - I am setting my framework for how I believe I will win the debate. Voters don't have to agree with me, but I guarantee you that almost all of them will. I don't have to convince you, someone who doesn't understand basic debate concepts. I have to convince actual voters.
By waiving, it means you give up the round without technically forfeiting - that way voters will know that it's not your fault you have nothing to say.
For example, something like, "My opponent has the responsibility to provide the topic, which he has failed to do. As such, I will waive this round and wait for my opponent's response. I urge voters to view this as poor conduct by my opponent."
BTW, taking the role of CON doesn't work - the instigator always starts first.
Thanks for the debate. Your organization, structure, and research are all excellent, and you have a lot of potential as a debater. I would advise you to be more careful when crafting the resolution - wording can make or break a debate.
Now that it already started, there's not much you can do. If the contender doesn't reply with a topic, then waive the first round - it's a slight disadvantage, but voters will award you conduct points as compensation.
This is why you should make a rule requiring the instigator to waive the first round, and the contender to waive the last round, for these kind of debates.
I would like the resolution to be changed somewhat. Any treatment, including widely accepted ones like chemotherapy for cancer, can be "dangerous", as whiteflame and I independently noted. However, chemotherapy is used because the benefits far outweigh the harms.
Therefore, how about the resolution, "On balance, the benefits of gender-affirming therapy outweigh the harms." It's fair, serves the same intended purpose without allowing semantic arguments, and shares the burden of proof.
Yea, I've figured out by now that written debates are half semantics.
By the way, along with Barney, you're one of the two debaters whose style I studied extensively before I joined the website. I was impressed by your maneuvering of the definition of "innocent" in the "China is detaining innocent Uyghur Muslims" debate.
We could do a 2-week debate if you're worried about being overscheduled. Of course, if you want to do just one debate at a time, then that's totally fine.
Indeed. Frankly, the instigator shot himself in the foot with this resolution. In order to win, he needs to prove that every single politician on this list is either:
1. It's not a false dichotomy - "right" in this context isn't referring to whether abortion is a good thing (in an ideal world, we would have zero abortions). It's referring to whether morally speaking, abortion is justified, which I think it is.
2. You're entitled to your own opinion, but the wonderful thing about neutral votes is that voter neither has to listen to you or I. By the way, I'm not just making this up - this is a widely accepted standard of debate, and votes on this site are moderated. Any experienced voter will rule on my favor when it comes to this point.
3. "Premeditated malice" has a very different meaning in law than in common usage. Premeditated malice is when you deliberately act to cause harm to someone - regardless of intentions. Please do some basic research.
1. Obviously, if I think abortion is not wrong, then the only other option is that I think it is right. This is self-evident, and is implied, regardless of whether it is explicitly stated in the resolution or not.
This doesn't change the fact that the BoP is on my opponent. When someone makes a statement that challenges the accepted status quo, and particularly when they are the one to start the argument, then the BoP is on them, regardless of the claim their opponent is defending.
My opponent is not just making an unpopular claim, but an extreme one; not only does he say that abortion is wrong, he tries to prove this by claiming that abortion is murder. In these circumstances, it's very justified for me to place the burden of proof on him.
Additionally, it's a moot point, considering I proved that abortion is not murder anyway.
2. See above - the burden of proof is on my opponent. If you've ever been in a formal debate, you would know that the side affirming the resolution must prove the resolution, while the side negating it can either prove the resolution wrong, or negate the evidence provided by the affirmative.
3. It's literally the same definition - both have the same three key elements:
-killing of a human
-unlawful
-premeditated
If you're going to try and sabotage your closest rival, you could afford to be a bit more subtle about it.
If, as you stated, we're considering "random street fights," then are potential weapons taken into account? Facing someone who might have a knife or gun dramatically changes the situation.
The resolution leaves some room for flexibility. For example, in a martial art that combines striking and grappling (e.g. Muay Thai), you could argue that striking is the more preferable part, but the grappling makes up for any weaknesses the opponent brings up.
Look, I was sort of annoyed last night after spending 20 minutes manually going through every single link you provided in the sources, and not finding anything related to the statistic.
I apologize for threatening to accuse misconduct - I was annoyed and thinking you were making up evidence, especially after I spent another 10 minutes searching the web for "32 innocence", "32 claimed innocence", "death penalty 32", "32 7000 death penalty", etc, and finding absolutely nothing.
I wanted to try and settle it in the comments peacefully, since I'm interested in having an actual debate regarding the death penalty, not an argument over who has better sources. I would always prefer to look at your source and genuinely refute it, rather than just saying it doesn't exist at all.
After having a dinner to think about it, I decided to try and assume good faith instead when writing my final argument - perhaps you had simply missed an important source and didn't see my comments, which is what actually happened.
Anyway, this is my attempt to explain what happened, and apologize for what you might have seen as "bluffy" or "obnoxious" behavior - I assure you this was not the case.
In retrospect, I have to agree with your advice - I appreciate it, and will remember it in the future. I don't really think it'll change much though, since my opponent probably didn't see it anyway.
Hey Sir.Lancelot, thanks for the excellent debate - I wanted to add a short conclusion, but I ran out of characters. Overall, I think you had good arguments, but some of them didn't have enough relevance to the resolution, or significantly measurable impact - I admit that I was a bit guilty of that as well. Nevertheless, I enjoyed this interesting discussion regarding the death penalty - I have a feeling neither of us will change our minds, but perhaps some voters will.
P.S. sorry for the spam notifs.
Yes, that's a fair point - I'm trying to assume good faith, however.
Last warning before I formally accuse you of poor conduct in my R4 argument
I know you're online, please respond to comment #10
Friendly tag, last chance for mutual clarification before I put up my argument
Do you have a source for "32 of around 7,200 cases claimed actual innocence"? I checked the DPCI link you provided, but found no relevant figures supporting your claim.
What exactly is a brawl? In a street fight, boxing is better, while in an organized spar, grappling is better.
Can you challenge me to the same topic? It's not because I want free, juicy rating points, I'm just very interested in this topic... yea.
Alright.
We can do a debate on chemotherapy then - the harms and benefits are fairly well-defined.
Apologies for the slightly messy style of writing, I had to type it up in 30 min or so because of a busy day.
That's a valid strategy, but keep in mind that you might get squished by the character limit if you try to rebut my responses from both R2 and R3.
After careful consideration, I have come to the conclusion that passive-aggressiveness is the best aggressiveness.
First of all, THERE IS NO OFFICIAL DICTIONARY FOR THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE - something I verified with five minutes of research. Unless you have a reason that Merriam-Webster's dictionary is less reliable than Oxford's dictionary, then you're just making stuff up for the sake of an argument.
Second of all, when did I say "con should argue it is right for women to maliciously kill their child"? If you're going to call me a supporter of malicious child-killing, then I'm going to call you a [REMOVED BY USER REQUEST - MOD].
Third of all, yes, debates have no official ruling structure. This doesn't mean that voters can interpret the debate however they want. Your strawman is so easily knocked over that it's pathetic.
If you can't understand the concept of burden of proof, something so simple that I've explained it to 6th graders who have no experience in debate, then it really is hopeless trying to talk to you.
PRO is making a controversial claim. By default, he has to prove that controversial claim - I don't have the responsibility to prove it wrong. Yes, my opponent needs to do the work. If he didn't want to do that, then he shouldn't have affirmed such a controversial claim: "abortion is murder." Obviously, proving that wrong is easier than proving that right. How is it my fault that my opponent chose an unbalanced topic? (No hate to you Skipper, you seem like an OK guy).
I am not setting the rules - I am setting my framework for how I believe I will win the debate. Voters don't have to agree with me, but I guarantee you that almost all of them will. I don't have to convince you, someone who doesn't understand basic debate concepts. I have to convince actual voters.
Ok, rant over. Peace out.
Would appreciate a vote, CON full forfeited the debate
Sure, I made it an open challenge for a reason.
Up for a rematch?
Bump
Sir.Lancelot is correct - the contender forfeiting the first round of a debate where they choose the topic is grounds for auto-loss on conduct alone.
No problem - always happy to help.
By waiving, it means you give up the round without technically forfeiting - that way voters will know that it's not your fault you have nothing to say.
For example, something like, "My opponent has the responsibility to provide the topic, which he has failed to do. As such, I will waive this round and wait for my opponent's response. I urge voters to view this as poor conduct by my opponent."
BTW, taking the role of CON doesn't work - the instigator always starts first.
Bump, full forfeit
Thanks for the debate. Your organization, structure, and research are all excellent, and you have a lot of potential as a debater. I would advise you to be more careful when crafting the resolution - wording can make or break a debate.
Now that it already started, there's not much you can do. If the contender doesn't reply with a topic, then waive the first round - it's a slight disadvantage, but voters will award you conduct points as compensation.
This is why you should make a rule requiring the instigator to waive the first round, and the contender to waive the last round, for these kind of debates.
Would any of you be willing to cast a fair vote on this debate?
Alr
Any ETA on your R2? I'm leaving on a short trip soon, so I just want to know if I'll have time to respond to your argument before I leave.
Other than that, the definitions and rules look fine.
I would like the resolution to be changed somewhat. Any treatment, including widely accepted ones like chemotherapy for cancer, can be "dangerous", as whiteflame and I independently noted. However, chemotherapy is used because the benefits far outweigh the harms.
Therefore, how about the resolution, "On balance, the benefits of gender-affirming therapy outweigh the harms." It's fair, serves the same intended purpose without allowing semantic arguments, and shares the burden of proof.
Yea, I've figured out by now that written debates are half semantics.
By the way, along with Barney, you're one of the two debaters whose style I studied extensively before I joined the website. I was impressed by your maneuvering of the definition of "innocent" in the "China is detaining innocent Uyghur Muslims" debate.
You two are giving me great ideas for semantic abuse ;)
We could do a 2-week debate if you're worried about being overscheduled. Of course, if you want to do just one debate at a time, then that's totally fine.
I'd object to that - "probably" implies a strong likelihood, more than just "greater than 50%."
Not to mention Volodymyr Zelenskyy as well.
Indeed. Frankly, the instigator shot himself in the foot with this resolution. In order to win, he needs to prove that every single politician on this list is either:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_actor-politicians
a. not an actor
b. not a great leader
This seems like an impossible task.
I'll take that bet.
How about, "The US should not have bombed Japan at the end of WWII."
The experts have spoken
Sorry, I don't quite understand - are you saying the Oxford or Merriam-Webster definition is more fair?
Unfortunate that your opponent forfeited all rounds of an interesting debate. Would you be willing to debate the same topic with me?
"Should we allow illegal immigration?" or smth like that.
1. It's not a false dichotomy - "right" in this context isn't referring to whether abortion is a good thing (in an ideal world, we would have zero abortions). It's referring to whether morally speaking, abortion is justified, which I think it is.
2. You're entitled to your own opinion, but the wonderful thing about neutral votes is that voter neither has to listen to you or I. By the way, I'm not just making this up - this is a widely accepted standard of debate, and votes on this site are moderated. Any experienced voter will rule on my favor when it comes to this point.
3. "Premeditated malice" has a very different meaning in law than in common usage. Premeditated malice is when you deliberately act to cause harm to someone - regardless of intentions. Please do some basic research.
bump
1. Obviously, if I think abortion is not wrong, then the only other option is that I think it is right. This is self-evident, and is implied, regardless of whether it is explicitly stated in the resolution or not.
This doesn't change the fact that the BoP is on my opponent. When someone makes a statement that challenges the accepted status quo, and particularly when they are the one to start the argument, then the BoP is on them, regardless of the claim their opponent is defending.
My opponent is not just making an unpopular claim, but an extreme one; not only does he say that abortion is wrong, he tries to prove this by claiming that abortion is murder. In these circumstances, it's very justified for me to place the burden of proof on him.
Additionally, it's a moot point, considering I proved that abortion is not murder anyway.
2. See above - the burden of proof is on my opponent. If you've ever been in a formal debate, you would know that the side affirming the resolution must prove the resolution, while the side negating it can either prove the resolution wrong, or negate the evidence provided by the affirmative.
3. It's literally the same definition - both have the same three key elements:
-killing of a human
-unlawful
-premeditated
A better way to say it might be, "On balance, it is more likely than not that the God of the Bible does not exist."