As the instigator you’re already at a slight disadvantage, since the other side gets the last word
Letting them effectively get the first word in too, can be hard to overcome.
Without reading cons reply, let me guess… aborting them can’t make them cease to exist. Rather it sends them straight to heaven. FYI, the he Amish believe this about dead babies, it’s something to be celebrated instead of mourned l; at least up until some weird thing of poking it with a brush and it hits back.
As for the physical discomfort, more is attained with pregnancy and birth.
and God? Oh god, any mediocre debater could have a field day with that, just consider how many abortions God performs per year. RM will probably keep it simple with something along the lines of “unfounded opinion.”
Great description. Honestly where I stand with abortion… I think with the current setup I. The USA it would be a crime against at humanity for the government to step in (FYI, I get used to force abortions!), but still, ideally it would not occur.
Anyone else notice something strange with the Jedis when it comes to family?
This scene isn't as bad as I remembered it, but come on, you're in bed with Natalie Portman, and get all sweaty thinking about your mother?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1v-vMCUvDTE
I will agree with con that he likely would have reverted had he lived.
There was some old comic where he lived and became a rebel hero, with his costume painted white... Lame!
However, he basically got Luke to assist in killing himself, before that could happen. And as pro pointed out, he was at the moment of his death good enough to become a Force Ghost.
By the way, Anakin was not created by the force, because Sidious is a mother fucker.
Con is only right about Red Pill predating Andrew Tate (and maybe the blue pill stuff, never heard of it before).
Red Pill 💊 stems from incel culture, it is not about self improvement, because women suck and won’t suck on you no matter what unless you were born muscular with a 12” erection which took the doctors eye out. Basically what con refers to as black pill. They openly believe women are a type of non-sentient animal, etc.etc. Usually some racism tossed into the mix just so they can complete failing to be more than a bad stereotype.
Black Pill refers to the conclusion for Incels of killings themselves. Studies on this cultural subset are inconclusive (particularly the success rate), but Incels praise those brave enough to go swallow the black pill.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: jamgiller // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 5 to con
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
I literally only read the first paragraph... I do hope it was con who caught the misrepresentation of studies; but alas, there is a more glaring problem...
It needs to be said that bad arguments are already punished under arguments, so there is no need to double dip to assign them against conduct as well. Even if they were generally bad conduct, they were at least arguments, unlike the forfeitures. Making someone sit around a full week is quite rude, and it was done multiple times. Withholding of that point where is clearly against your majority awardee, is strong evidence of overwhelming bias.
Conduct is an optional award as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, such as extreme unsportsmanlike or outright toxic behavior which distracted from the topical debate.
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
**************************************************
#3
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:
Reason:
Pro seriously misrepresented the scientific studies they cited. Although the actual content of the sources seems to be reliable, Pro is an extremely unreliable communicator, as I will explain below. Since Pro's entire argument is based on their attempt to use scientific data, and they failed to use it properly, I must give arguments to Con, even though the latter forfeited two rounds. At least Con made reasonable arguments based on correctly interpreting the studies they cited.
Addressing Pro's most egregious misrepresentations of the scientific literature:
1. The study that Pro cites for the rates of Serious Adverse Events (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2022.08.036) directly contradicts the resolution of the debate as specifically defined by Pro. In the study's Introduction, the authors write: "Our study was not designed to evaluate the overall harm-benefit of vaccination programs so far." More importantly, the author's Discussion describes the implications and limitations of their study in detail, and closes with the following:
"We emphasize that our investigation is preliminary, to point to the need for more involved analysis. The risks of serious AESIs in the trials represent only group averages. SAEs are unlikely to be distributed equally across the demographic subgroups enrolled in the trial, and the risks may be substantially less in some groups compared to others. Thus, knowing the actual demographics of those who experienced an increase in serious AESI in the vaccine group is necessary for a proper harm-benefit analysis."
Therefore, the very study that Pro tried to use to prove the resolution actually shows that we have not yet learned whether COVID vaccines have done more harm than good. I advise those who read this to review the Discussion section of the paper, which provides serious coverage of this topic.
2. Pro cited the study described above under the heading "UK", and compared the SAE rates to estimates of numbers needed to vaccinate from UK data. However, the study described above is based on data from North America. It is incorrect and misleading to directly compare medical studies of sample groups from two different populations and separate continents as Pro did.
3. Pro falsely claims that COVID vaccines lead to more deaths. In Round 2, they claim the "official UK data for all of 2022" shows a higher COVID death rate among the vaccinated, whereas the official report on the data from the UK's Office of National Statistics (https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsinvolvingcovid19byvaccinationstatusengland/latest#cite-this-statistical-bulletin) directly states:
"Monthly age-standardised mortality rates (ASMRs) for deaths involving coronavirus (COVID-19) have been consistently lower for all months since booster introduction in September 2021 for people who had received at least a third dose or booster at least 21 days ago, compared with unvaccinated people and those with just a first or second dose."
No wonder Pro tried to use a ridiculous graph from their friend to support their false claim.
Got to say, the novel for The Phantom, while it needed a good editor, OMG some of the stuff that went on in it... Raul in his great devotion to Christine, stayed up at night murdering cats... WTF?
Interesting topic. If it was to go longer, it would benefit from a section on mutants. Michael Phelps for example has mutations which gave him an advantage; would that be considered naturally achievable?
Thankfully, we all know that we can /naturally archive/ the same results as The Liver King. You just need to /naturally/ be injected with a ton of steroids and other performance enhancers, then act like a one dimensional cartoon villain.
The resolution as currently worded, may not give you the debate you desire.
An argument is valid, if the logic is internally consistent. A red piller can make a valid argument that it should be illegal because women suck. It would be unsound due to the premise that women suck is wrong, but it would still technically be valid.
What I believe you wish to argue is that the moral weight of "the right to life" does not exceed that of "the right to the pursuit of happiness" when it comes to abortion.
A related topic would of course be that abortion ought to not be considered murder.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Americandebater24 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded:
>Reason for Decision:
Pro presents a stronger argument, as they support their stance on the Holocaust and its effects with numerous sources, leading to the desire to criminalize Holocaust denial. Pro's use of credible sources contributes to a well-structured and persuasive argument. In contrast, Con fails to make any persuasive argument in the first round, and although their formatting improves in the second round, their argument remains unrelated to the debate at hand. As a result, Con's argument becomes non-existent, rendering their sources null and void. Pro's conduct was superior to Con's, as Con barely took the debate seriously until its later stages and acted unprofessional Meanwhile, Pro maintained consistency and professionalism throughout the entire debate.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote mainly falls short on details, even while seeming knowledgeable about the debate. Additionally, conduct is reserved for true abuses, not merely not taking a debate seriously.
If revoting please also explain a bit about BoP related to the stigmatise piece of the resolution (everyone knows it's illegal in some places, this debate is about the goal of such).
To cast a sufficient vote, for each category awarded, a voter must explicitly perform the following tasks:
(1) Provide specific references to each side’s utilization within the said category.
(2) Weigh the impacts against each other, including if any precluded others.
(3) Explain the decision within the greater context of the debate.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#casting-votes
Conduct is an optional award as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, such as extreme unsportsmanlike or outright toxic behavior which distracted from the topical debate.
**************************************************
I am quite glad the reports panel will not be flooded with all those.
For starters, BrotherD is already banned for the behavior to which you are attempting to raise our awareness. Reporting old posts of his from prior to a ban, is incredibly unlikely to be productive.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Mps1213 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro
>Reason for Decision:
There wasn’t really a resolution for this debate. So it was hard to pick a winner. However I will go with pro because it seems to me that con is making the case that the choice shouldn’t even be had. I do not like that type of thinking. People should be able to choose whether or not they engage with this activity. The other absolutely obnoxious statement is “western men don’t like my blow jobs as much” maybe you’re just not good at giving blowjobs. There are logical arguments to be made to not have circumcisions be done. Con made none of these arguments, so I have a hard time giving him the vote.
The other reason I vote pro is because he seems to be at least attempting to not meddle into others lives. If anyone knows how I form my opinions it, in most cases, revolves around leaving people alone. Allowing them to make their own decisions as long as those decisions don’t inhibit my life or others lives in some way. People not liking Con’s blow jobs is not good enough to show this activity is inhibiting his or her life to a great extent.
>Reason for Mod Action:
While it's good to give honest feedback on weaknesses, this vote reads too much like just an opinion on the topic. A breakdown on the similar contentions against interference in peoples lives would have greatly improved this, rather than just saying one seemed to argue that (in this case, both did in their own way) so they win.
Outside content may be commented on, so long as it does not cross into being a determinant factor on the vote. Should the voter weigh things outside of what the debaters themselves presented inside the debate rounds, the vote is eligible for deletion (identified plagiarism is a notable exception).
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: FishChaser // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to con
>Reason for Decision:
"Should not do" does not mean "should not be allowed to do" nor do any of the reasons Pro provided make circumcision ideal. Even when it is necessary, that doesn't make it desirable. That being said I think con argued their case better.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Please show how one side argued the case better.
In essence, this vote was just too vague... This can be avoided in future by just commenting on the core contention (and the main counterpoint or the lack thereof), listing a single source you found important (if voting sources), saying what conduct violation distracted you (if voting conduct)... You need not write a thesis, but some minimal level of detail is required to verify knowledge of what you're grading.
Please review the voting policy:
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#vote-removal
While your vote gets to the heart of the matter as you see it, it seemed to not give pro any chance to prove “normal” by any standard. Both debaters put a lot of work in, and while you don’t need to go down every rabbit hole, more analysis is needed if assigning points.
1 point(s)
Reason:
Pro uses the word "normal" which could mean anything depending on the cultural context and then tries to warp biology to justify Mohammad fucking a 9 year old. Con points out that this is nonsense and points out that Mohammad had control of the narrative.
Both sides argued the other should argue as an absolute. If this debate werabout pineapple on pizza, con would claim pro must prove it needs to be on all pizza; whereas pro would argue that con is arguing for a complete ban…
FYI: the current description for the pedo tag reads:
The deplorable mental illness of adults desiring sexual relations with children; along with closely related behaviors.
I don’t consider there to be a need for nuanced semantics. In English common usage a pedo is a creeper attracted to pre-adults of any age.
Please familiarize yourself with at least the basics of the debate in question before accusing those who have of being druggies.
Had you read as far as the short description, you'd know that the era in question was a key point for why the otherwise evil action could be considered normal.
> Islam Vs Anything2
> Marriage between Prophet Muhammad (saw) and Aisha (RA) Marriage was normal (especially for that era) Marriage was Successful. There were no grievances from any side. It was acceptable until recently.
While I cannot speak for Bella, I can assure you all that I am in no way a proxy or slave account for RM (as much as I'm sure I've made jokes to that effect at one time or another).
Further, the only sources for help I received in writing my RFD came from the voting policy and the debate.
Adding to this, last I checked RM is a big believer in full tabula rasa voting. While I take measures to minimize bias, I go in with basic knowledge, such as I don't need to be walked through how evil Nazi Germany was for the argument that they were abnormal to have impact.
FYI, if you right click the post # for any post and copy the link address, you'll have a static link for it.
Such as: https://www.debateart.com/debates/4533/comments/54831
Instead of: https://www.debateart.com/debates/4533-islam-vs-anything2?open_tab=comments&comments_page=1&comment_number=231
For most topics the difference is moot, since the shorter one will turn into the longer when followed. However, an intentionally controversial topic like this attracts a lot of comments, and the one in question will soon be pushed onto page 2, and in time maybe page 3. The longer link will not be able to find the comment, due to only looking for it on page 1. Whereas the shorter one will ask the comment which page it's currently at and return that information.
I will add that con while nailing the issues of how unhealthy it most likely was, did miss the focus on strangeness to the confines of the era. This leaves it not an absolute victory on all fronts; even while still having a strong lead.
---RFD---
In simple terms this debate boils down to a series of fallacious special pleadings.
Pro is a pedophila apologist, arguing the relationship between Saw and Ra was neither strange nor unhealthy for various exceptions to the status que. While the very need to go to such lengths to defend it implies strangeness, what elevates this beyond a foregone conclusion is the "especially for that era" qualifier; meaning that at the time of occurrence such marriages were not strange, and the particular marriage was healthy.
As the BoP rests with pro, no amount of special pleading that maybe this case might have been an exception makes it seem like it was most likely the case, causing him to miss victory by a mile.
...
Common vs Normal:
Con opens by addressing that frequency of occurrence is a mere red herring to normality (normality being defined as not strange and healthy), and the definitions are not synonymous. He leverages a powerful Nazi Germany example of how the very worst of crimes may be common in a broken society but such does not somehow make pure evil somehow not strange and outright healthy.
Without challenge to them being district words for different purposes, pro wholly misses this and without challenging it makes various contentions around such things having happened so therefore it must be normal.
Grooming and Slavery:
Con asserts that child marriage is slavery, and raises the problem of grooming prepubescent girls to deny that agency, and even brings up Stockholm Syndrome.
Not a Pedo:
Pro defends that Saw waited until she was 6 before expressing interest in her, and she may have started puberty by then... This is whole thing is incredibly strange, even more so being raised by pro, and without first addressing the common phycological damage raised by pro, leaves it most likely quite harmful.
Age of Consent Laws:
Con uses the age and power gap here, to cast strong doubt on free and positive consent.
I'm having a hard time understanding the basis for pro's counter logic. Pro at some length argues that in other countries sexual deviants (one of con's counters solidifies this, as it's frowned upon even if legal) target children much older than 9; which /somehow/ means it's good for men in their 50's to not wait so long? 🤮
Con of course counters by not defending the legal status quo, and stating it doesn't go far enough due to development not finishing until around age 25, which implies an abnormality for any large age gaps until the younger has reached that age.
Pro counters that if you can get the kiddies pregnant, then it's not strange and healthy... WTF?!
Con wisely refutes: "Being able to physically bear children at such a young age doesn't mean it's ideal or preferable. To confuse the two to be synonymous is laughably absurd. Teenagers give birth to children all the time and it doesn't mean they are old enough to shoulder the burden of responsibility."
Diet:
Pro, what the heck are you even going on about here? It's somehow normal if a child eats eats cucumbers?
Saw was sexy:
Pro argues it's not pedophilia if the aggressor is is hot... WTF did I just read?
Various off topic rants:
Please stick to the damned topic. There's a comment section for side rants.
Conduct (con):
The comment section is usually off limits but pro truly stepped over the line just before his final argument in what feels like an attempt to poison the well for early voters.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/4533/comments/54727
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#cheating
Conversely, con was impatient at the very start of the debate, and otherwise mostly stayed out of the comment section.
Additionally, pro committed no less than 11 ad hominem attacks in the final round... And damning his own arguments while he's at it, he implies that Islam is good with marrying "adult" girls at the tender age of 8 months...
"Lina Medina started having mensuration at the age of 8 months the extremest case of precocious puberty. But my opponent is dumbest of all, can not see it at all what I have wrote just wasting time with his nonsense."
Wow... While not named in the debate, I have seeing the spirit of Todd Akin living on.
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/todd-akins-sexual-assault-gaffe
While the religion has declared it’s okay to mutilate girls in that manner, and some sects insist upon it, most Muslims don’t hate women enough to commit that act of pure evil.
The resolution contradicts itself.
Murder is unlawful killing.
Killed on sight implies a universal duty, which in it means of itself implies it would be legally ok.
Ergo, no murders.
Plus, self defense laws apply to protecting others.
Blasphemy is Karen code for hurt feelings of weaklings. Worse, it’s a quite demeaning form of white knighting. If your god is real, he would certainly be capable of defending himself should his feelings be hurt; if his feelings are not hurt, cries of blasphemy are inherently an insult to claim he’s so pathetic.
You are welcome to find a safe space debate site, where no disagreements are allowed. This however is not such a place. Here by presenting an idea in the form of a debate, you are outright asking people to disagree with it.
As for Brother getting a bunch of likes: seriously?! 🤨
As the instigator you’re already at a slight disadvantage, since the other side gets the last word
Letting them effectively get the first word in too, can be hard to overcome.
Your R1, seriously?!
Without reading cons reply, let me guess… aborting them can’t make them cease to exist. Rather it sends them straight to heaven. FYI, the he Amish believe this about dead babies, it’s something to be celebrated instead of mourned l; at least up until some weird thing of poking it with a brush and it hits back.
As for the physical discomfort, more is attained with pregnancy and birth.
and God? Oh god, any mediocre debater could have a field day with that, just consider how many abortions God performs per year. RM will probably keep it simple with something along the lines of “unfounded opinion.”
Great description. Honestly where I stand with abortion… I think with the current setup I. The USA it would be a crime against at humanity for the government to step in (FYI, I get used to force abortions!), but still, ideally it would not occur.
Please remind me in like 12 hours.
Drinking to drown out fireworks and memories.
Damn, that was well done! I had not noticed more than one kiss between the twins…
BTW, you ever look up the crazy censorship of Sailor Moon?
Anyone else notice something strange with the Jedis when it comes to family?
This scene isn't as bad as I remembered it, but come on, you're in bed with Natalie Portman, and get all sweaty thinking about your mother?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1v-vMCUvDTE
I haven't read more than a tiny fraction of the lore, but since when is The Force intelligent?
And damn, I hate the idea of midichlorians so much. It goes into racial supremacy theories.
I love your vote!
I will agree with con that he likely would have reverted had he lived.
There was some old comic where he lived and became a rebel hero, with his costume painted white... Lame!
However, he basically got Luke to assist in killing himself, before that could happen. And as pro pointed out, he was at the moment of his death good enough to become a Force Ghost.
By the way, Anakin was not created by the force, because Sidious is a mother fucker.
Con is only right about Red Pill predating Andrew Tate (and maybe the blue pill stuff, never heard of it before).
Red Pill 💊 stems from incel culture, it is not about self improvement, because women suck and won’t suck on you no matter what unless you were born muscular with a 12” erection which took the doctors eye out. Basically what con refers to as black pill. They openly believe women are a type of non-sentient animal, etc.etc. Usually some racism tossed into the mix just so they can complete failing to be more than a bad stereotype.
Black Pill refers to the conclusion for Incels of killings themselves. Studies on this cultural subset are inconclusive (particularly the success rate), but Incels praise those brave enough to go swallow the black pill.
Sadly it’s a popularity contest. Still, quality can help.
HoF material
Saw this too late. Yeah, it would have pretty easily gone to con.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: jamgiller // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 5 to con
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
I literally only read the first paragraph... I do hope it was con who caught the misrepresentation of studies; but alas, there is a more glaring problem...
It needs to be said that bad arguments are already punished under arguments, so there is no need to double dip to assign them against conduct as well. Even if they were generally bad conduct, they were at least arguments, unlike the forfeitures. Making someone sit around a full week is quite rude, and it was done multiple times. Withholding of that point where is clearly against your majority awardee, is strong evidence of overwhelming bias.
Conduct is an optional award as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, such as extreme unsportsmanlike or outright toxic behavior which distracted from the topical debate.
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
**************************************************
jamgiller
06.06.2023 12:13AM
#3
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:
Reason:
Pro seriously misrepresented the scientific studies they cited. Although the actual content of the sources seems to be reliable, Pro is an extremely unreliable communicator, as I will explain below. Since Pro's entire argument is based on their attempt to use scientific data, and they failed to use it properly, I must give arguments to Con, even though the latter forfeited two rounds. At least Con made reasonable arguments based on correctly interpreting the studies they cited.
Addressing Pro's most egregious misrepresentations of the scientific literature:
1. The study that Pro cites for the rates of Serious Adverse Events (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2022.08.036) directly contradicts the resolution of the debate as specifically defined by Pro. In the study's Introduction, the authors write: "Our study was not designed to evaluate the overall harm-benefit of vaccination programs so far." More importantly, the author's Discussion describes the implications and limitations of their study in detail, and closes with the following:
"We emphasize that our investigation is preliminary, to point to the need for more involved analysis. The risks of serious AESIs in the trials represent only group averages. SAEs are unlikely to be distributed equally across the demographic subgroups enrolled in the trial, and the risks may be substantially less in some groups compared to others. Thus, knowing the actual demographics of those who experienced an increase in serious AESI in the vaccine group is necessary for a proper harm-benefit analysis."
Therefore, the very study that Pro tried to use to prove the resolution actually shows that we have not yet learned whether COVID vaccines have done more harm than good. I advise those who read this to review the Discussion section of the paper, which provides serious coverage of this topic.
2. Pro cited the study described above under the heading "UK", and compared the SAE rates to estimates of numbers needed to vaccinate from UK data. However, the study described above is based on data from North America. It is incorrect and misleading to directly compare medical studies of sample groups from two different populations and separate continents as Pro did.
3. Pro falsely claims that COVID vaccines lead to more deaths. In Round 2, they claim the "official UK data for all of 2022" shows a higher COVID death rate among the vaccinated, whereas the official report on the data from the UK's Office of National Statistics (https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsinvolvingcovid19byvaccinationstatusengland/latest#cite-this-statistical-bulletin) directly states:
"Monthly age-standardised mortality rates (ASMRs) for deaths involving coronavirus (COVID-19) have been consistently lower for all months since booster introduction in September 2021 for people who had received at least a third dose or booster at least 21 days ago, compared with unvaccinated people and those with just a first or second dose."
No wonder Pro tried to use a ridiculous graph from their friend to support their false claim.
Trying to explain pedophilia to Muslims, is like trying to explain polytheism to Christians.
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/phoebe-teaching-joey
Got to say, the novel for The Phantom, while it needed a good editor, OMG some of the stuff that went on in it... Raul in his great devotion to Christine, stayed up at night murdering cats... WTF?
Poor girl, I'm team stay single.
Interesting topic. If it was to go longer, it would benefit from a section on mutants. Michael Phelps for example has mutations which gave him an advantage; would that be considered naturally achievable?
Thankfully, we all know that we can /naturally archive/ the same results as The Liver King. You just need to /naturally/ be injected with a ton of steroids and other performance enhancers, then act like a one dimensional cartoon villain.
The resolution as currently worded, may not give you the debate you desire.
An argument is valid, if the logic is internally consistent. A red piller can make a valid argument that it should be illegal because women suck. It would be unsound due to the premise that women suck is wrong, but it would still technically be valid.
What I believe you wish to argue is that the moral weight of "the right to life" does not exceed that of "the right to the pursuit of happiness" when it comes to abortion.
A related topic would of course be that abortion ought to not be considered murder.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Americandebater24 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded:
>Reason for Decision:
Pro presents a stronger argument, as they support their stance on the Holocaust and its effects with numerous sources, leading to the desire to criminalize Holocaust denial. Pro's use of credible sources contributes to a well-structured and persuasive argument. In contrast, Con fails to make any persuasive argument in the first round, and although their formatting improves in the second round, their argument remains unrelated to the debate at hand. As a result, Con's argument becomes non-existent, rendering their sources null and void. Pro's conduct was superior to Con's, as Con barely took the debate seriously until its later stages and acted unprofessional Meanwhile, Pro maintained consistency and professionalism throughout the entire debate.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote mainly falls short on details, even while seeming knowledgeable about the debate. Additionally, conduct is reserved for true abuses, not merely not taking a debate seriously.
If revoting please also explain a bit about BoP related to the stigmatise piece of the resolution (everyone knows it's illegal in some places, this debate is about the goal of such).
To cast a sufficient vote, for each category awarded, a voter must explicitly perform the following tasks:
(1) Provide specific references to each side’s utilization within the said category.
(2) Weigh the impacts against each other, including if any precluded others.
(3) Explain the decision within the greater context of the debate.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#casting-votes
Conduct is an optional award as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, such as extreme unsportsmanlike or outright toxic behavior which distracted from the topical debate.
**************************************************
Well done R2. With a third round to flush out your points, you could have won this.
I am quite glad the reports panel will not be flooded with all those.
For starters, BrotherD is already banned for the behavior to which you are attempting to raise our awareness. Reporting old posts of his from prior to a ban, is incredibly unlikely to be productive.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Mps1213 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro
>Reason for Decision:
There wasn’t really a resolution for this debate. So it was hard to pick a winner. However I will go with pro because it seems to me that con is making the case that the choice shouldn’t even be had. I do not like that type of thinking. People should be able to choose whether or not they engage with this activity. The other absolutely obnoxious statement is “western men don’t like my blow jobs as much” maybe you’re just not good at giving blowjobs. There are logical arguments to be made to not have circumcisions be done. Con made none of these arguments, so I have a hard time giving him the vote.
The other reason I vote pro is because he seems to be at least attempting to not meddle into others lives. If anyone knows how I form my opinions it, in most cases, revolves around leaving people alone. Allowing them to make their own decisions as long as those decisions don’t inhibit my life or others lives in some way. People not liking Con’s blow jobs is not good enough to show this activity is inhibiting his or her life to a great extent.
>Reason for Mod Action:
While it's good to give honest feedback on weaknesses, this vote reads too much like just an opinion on the topic. A breakdown on the similar contentions against interference in peoples lives would have greatly improved this, rather than just saying one seemed to argue that (in this case, both did in their own way) so they win.
Outside content may be commented on, so long as it does not cross into being a determinant factor on the vote. Should the voter weigh things outside of what the debaters themselves presented inside the debate rounds, the vote is eligible for deletion (identified plagiarism is a notable exception).
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: FishChaser // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to con
>Reason for Decision:
"Should not do" does not mean "should not be allowed to do" nor do any of the reasons Pro provided make circumcision ideal. Even when it is necessary, that doesn't make it desirable. That being said I think con argued their case better.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Please show how one side argued the case better.
In essence, this vote was just too vague... This can be avoided in future by just commenting on the core contention (and the main counterpoint or the lack thereof), listing a single source you found important (if voting sources), saying what conduct violation distracted you (if voting conduct)... You need not write a thesis, but some minimal level of detail is required to verify knowledge of what you're grading.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#casting-votes
**************************************************
Please review the voting policy:
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#vote-removal
While your vote gets to the heart of the matter as you see it, it seemed to not give pro any chance to prove “normal” by any standard. Both debaters put a lot of work in, and while you don’t need to go down every rabbit hole, more analysis is needed if assigning points.
06.28.2023 06:30AM
#7
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
Pro uses the word "normal" which could mean anything depending on the cultural context and then tries to warp biology to justify Mohammad fucking a 9 year old. Con points out that this is nonsense and points out that Mohammad had control of the narrative.
Interesting debate…
Both sides argued the other should argue as an absolute. If this debate werabout pineapple on pizza, con would claim pro must prove it needs to be on all pizza; whereas pro would argue that con is arguing for a complete ban…
FYI: the current description for the pedo tag reads:
The deplorable mental illness of adults desiring sexual relations with children; along with closely related behaviors.
I don’t consider there to be a need for nuanced semantics. In English common usage a pedo is a creeper attracted to pre-adults of any age.
Kritik: he was both! 🤣
> This is not true as you know, its a joke
Liar!
🤭
For any actual Muslims (as opposed to trolls impersonating Muslims to make Islam look bad), I’ve started a forum topic related to this debate:
Non-fallacious defenses of Muhammad?
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9532-non-fallacious-defenses-of-muhammad
My mind goes to the immediate kritik that my level of vileness is not a joke. 😈
http://tiny.cc/DebateArt
Best of luck finding your desired safe space, free from any disagreements.
There's some strong contentions available to both sides, so could be a good debate.
It's all good.
FYI, your vote looks fine to me. Yes, it had typos. Typos happen.
Regarding: https://www.debateart.com/debates/4533/comments/54875
The CoC forbids the public sharing PM content without permission of the author.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/rules#safety-and-privacy
Please familiarize yourself with at least the basics of the debate in question before accusing those who have of being druggies.
Had you read as far as the short description, you'd know that the era in question was a key point for why the otherwise evil action could be considered normal.
> Islam Vs Anything2
> Marriage between Prophet Muhammad (saw) and Aisha (RA) Marriage was normal (especially for that era) Marriage was Successful. There were no grievances from any side. It was acceptable until recently.
Regarding: https://www.debateart.com/debates/4533/comments/54868
Where is this notion originate?
While I cannot speak for Bella, I can assure you all that I am in no way a proxy or slave account for RM (as much as I'm sure I've made jokes to that effect at one time or another).
Further, the only sources for help I received in writing my RFD came from the voting policy and the debate.
Adding to this, last I checked RM is a big believer in full tabula rasa voting. While I take measures to minimize bias, I go in with basic knowledge, such as I don't need to be walked through how evil Nazi Germany was for the argument that they were abnormal to have impact.
FYI, if you right click the post # for any post and copy the link address, you'll have a static link for it.
Such as: https://www.debateart.com/debates/4533/comments/54831
Instead of: https://www.debateart.com/debates/4533-islam-vs-anything2?open_tab=comments&comments_page=1&comment_number=231
For most topics the difference is moot, since the shorter one will turn into the longer when followed. However, an intentionally controversial topic like this attracts a lot of comments, and the one in question will soon be pushed onto page 2, and in time maybe page 3. The longer link will not be able to find the comment, due to only looking for it on page 1. Whereas the shorter one will ask the comment which page it's currently at and return that information.
You’re welcome to report my vote, and/or disagree with any part of it.
As for my choice to use a couple emojis to communicate reactions to your (hopefully) devils advocate arguments; that does not invalidate the analysis.
I will add that con while nailing the issues of how unhealthy it most likely was, did miss the focus on strangeness to the confines of the era. This leaves it not an absolute victory on all fronts; even while still having a strong lead.
---RFD---
In simple terms this debate boils down to a series of fallacious special pleadings.
Pro is a pedophila apologist, arguing the relationship between Saw and Ra was neither strange nor unhealthy for various exceptions to the status que. While the very need to go to such lengths to defend it implies strangeness, what elevates this beyond a foregone conclusion is the "especially for that era" qualifier; meaning that at the time of occurrence such marriages were not strange, and the particular marriage was healthy.
As the BoP rests with pro, no amount of special pleading that maybe this case might have been an exception makes it seem like it was most likely the case, causing him to miss victory by a mile.
...
Common vs Normal:
Con opens by addressing that frequency of occurrence is a mere red herring to normality (normality being defined as not strange and healthy), and the definitions are not synonymous. He leverages a powerful Nazi Germany example of how the very worst of crimes may be common in a broken society but such does not somehow make pure evil somehow not strange and outright healthy.
Without challenge to them being district words for different purposes, pro wholly misses this and without challenging it makes various contentions around such things having happened so therefore it must be normal.
Grooming and Slavery:
Con asserts that child marriage is slavery, and raises the problem of grooming prepubescent girls to deny that agency, and even brings up Stockholm Syndrome.
Not a Pedo:
Pro defends that Saw waited until she was 6 before expressing interest in her, and she may have started puberty by then... This is whole thing is incredibly strange, even more so being raised by pro, and without first addressing the common phycological damage raised by pro, leaves it most likely quite harmful.
Age of Consent Laws:
Con uses the age and power gap here, to cast strong doubt on free and positive consent.
I'm having a hard time understanding the basis for pro's counter logic. Pro at some length argues that in other countries sexual deviants (one of con's counters solidifies this, as it's frowned upon even if legal) target children much older than 9; which /somehow/ means it's good for men in their 50's to not wait so long? 🤮
Con of course counters by not defending the legal status quo, and stating it doesn't go far enough due to development not finishing until around age 25, which implies an abnormality for any large age gaps until the younger has reached that age.
Pro counters that if you can get the kiddies pregnant, then it's not strange and healthy... WTF?!
Con wisely refutes: "Being able to physically bear children at such a young age doesn't mean it's ideal or preferable. To confuse the two to be synonymous is laughably absurd. Teenagers give birth to children all the time and it doesn't mean they are old enough to shoulder the burden of responsibility."
Diet:
Pro, what the heck are you even going on about here? It's somehow normal if a child eats eats cucumbers?
Saw was sexy:
Pro argues it's not pedophilia if the aggressor is is hot... WTF did I just read?
Various off topic rants:
Please stick to the damned topic. There's a comment section for side rants.
Conduct (con):
The comment section is usually off limits but pro truly stepped over the line just before his final argument in what feels like an attempt to poison the well for early voters.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/4533/comments/54727
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#cheating
Conversely, con was impatient at the very start of the debate, and otherwise mostly stayed out of the comment section.
Additionally, pro committed no less than 11 ad hominem attacks in the final round... And damning his own arguments while he's at it, he implies that Islam is good with marrying "adult" girls at the tender age of 8 months...
"Lina Medina started having mensuration at the age of 8 months the extremest case of precocious puberty. But my opponent is dumbest of all, can not see it at all what I have wrote just wasting time with his nonsense."
Wow... While not named in the debate, I have seeing the spirit of Todd Akin living on.
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/todd-akins-sexual-assault-gaffe
As a reminder, the voting policy may be found at:
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
If bias for either side is too overwhelming to consider that the other has merits, then no points should be assigned.
Damn, Con only took 38 minutes for his penultimate reply!
While the religion has declared it’s okay to mutilate girls in that manner, and some sects insist upon it, most Muslims don’t hate women enough to commit that act of pure evil.
https://arabstates.unfpa.org/en/node/22514#:~:text=communities%20they%20serve.-,FGM%20in%20the%20Arab%20states%20region,Djibouti%20and%2098%25%20in%20Somalia.
The resolution contradicts itself.
Murder is unlawful killing.
Killed on sight implies a universal duty, which in it means of itself implies it would be legally ok.
Ergo, no murders.
Plus, self defense laws apply to protecting others.
Blasphemy is Karen code for hurt feelings of weaklings. Worse, it’s a quite demeaning form of white knighting. If your god is real, he would certainly be capable of defending himself should his feelings be hurt; if his feelings are not hurt, cries of blasphemy are inherently an insult to claim he’s so pathetic.
You are welcome to find a safe space debate site, where no disagreements are allowed. This however is not such a place. Here by presenting an idea in the form of a debate, you are outright asking people to disagree with it.
As for Brother getting a bunch of likes: seriously?! 🤨
I strongly advise challenging tiger to a debate. And/or creating open debate challenges for your opinions.
I’ll outright say that I find certain behaviors less troublesome when the context of a debate.