You’re still nitpicking a minor legibility issue. Sure, had it made the argument incomprehensible I’d have voted for you, but I had no such difficulties.
-> the argument itself he has given is a failure.
I agree, just not for the reason you argued. You argued that the sentence structure was off, but I as a reader had no significant difficulty understanding it. Had you caught that it failed to touch in the issue of aid, then you would have easily won.
-> Who in the fucktardation says "A people" usually?
It’s actually a common phrasing. And again, even taking it on face value that it’s a bad sentence structure, that would still be nitpicking legibility instead of challenging the ideas therein.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/People#:~:text=A%20people%20is%20any%20plurality,of%20people%20of%20a%20polity.
Cool story bro, but it failed to undermine the opposing case.
At best you could say you should have been award legibility, but the rules for that explicitly spell out it’s not awarded for petty nitpicking
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#legibility-formerly-spelling-and-grammar
A baby drowning in a pond is common and basic test applied to ethical systems. What does X command someone to do about it…
So what would your opinion be of people who run away from the pond to petition the government to force someone else to rescue said baby, yet refuse to do it themselves because they’re too special to be inconvenienced?
If said people stood by and let babies drown in a pond for fear of getting their shoes wet, what would your opinion of them be?
Ethically it would be quite similar (basically identical in their opinion). The key difference is that much like the pregnant woman, they may opt for some future more willing person to carry the fetus to term.
There was a limit of 500 characters, which caused things to have to be presented in their most simple form.
While I failed to get it across properly, if anyone has their feelings hurt by abortions, then they should preserve cells from each fetus for their later use. Ideally we’ll find a way to convert men into baby incubators, allowing for all men who oppose abortion to know the joys of pregnancy and prevent any “murders” from having occurred in abortions.
Somehow I doubt any of the anti abortion politicians would be willing to endure pregnancy were it an option.
It's now a little sided against you, but as a voter I do get what you mean. Is their plan for safety good or bad? It's obviously bad if it outright makes them less safe than doing nothing; but doing nothing might be the absolute worst option... So maybe build a counter plan in your arguments which would most likely make them more safe. A lot of plans have been tried, and nothing has worked; but it's a good starting place to build an argument.
Trent0405
10.12.2023 03:06AM
Reason:
This debate would have benefited greatly from a comprehensive debate description outlining what constitutes a just war.
Nevertheless, there was one key point which crystallized Pro's victory in this debate, that being the dispute over the First Gulf War. Con had an issue with the idea that a country engaged in self-defence was also engaged in war. He points out in his third round that to think otherwise opens the door to every war being justified, as every war would have a just and unjust participant. However, Pro highlights the First Gulf War as an example of a war where the aggressing party (the coalition forces) were also the justified party. The Iraqis had no authority to take Kuwait, as Pro points out, thereby justifying the coalition forces in starting a war. Con never directly challenges this example, but he does tangentially combat the idea. After being faced with the Gulf War example, along with many other similar cases Pro brought up, Con seems to focus more on the moral character of humankind. Con argues that all war is unjustified because the very act of starting a war reflects a failure to exercise other alternative solutions. My main issue with a point like this is that Con doesn't do any of the legwork needed to make a point like this stick. Con is making a pretty broad and expansive point here, and simply stating the point does not make it convincing, especially when pushback is provided, which it was. In the end, Con did not elaborate as to how war as a can never, in practical terms, be an inevitability. Therefore, at the end of the debate, I am left with the impression that the First Gulf War was justified, and by extension, that a just war is possible.
Immediately from the description don’t know what is being argued. Glancing at R1, a lot of it seems like it should be in the description.
…
My attacks would be on how it is unlikely to be implemented in the states manner, as it would be implemented by the same people who currently make our justice system suck.
The problem with this tactic is quite obviously that it does not favor the status quo either.
And yeah, I did not have nearly enough characters to make the discussion of preserved human bits properly entertaining and logically valid. As was, it was kinda just there as little more than a side tangent.
I rather enjoyed the unique challenge of the 500 character limit. While I don't like to prattle on too much, any one of my points would most likely normally take that many.
A really good resource for you is: https://tiny.cc/DebateArt
There's even a section in it on writing strong resolutions... Basically make it both minimal in contentions and precise in meaning (I've seen these debates kritiked with such things as animal abortions).
As Ponikshiy said, you'll also want to be assertive/proactive. For this debate, before even responding to me it would have been best to present your case for abortion being murder, and your case for the fetus being innocent.
Oh and your best defense to such odd contentions as the hand, is to say something like "If anything else is or is not murder, is outside the scope of this debate." My debates usually have some thing more for entertainment; in this case, I really did not have the characters to properly explain it.
Nice comeback with the Billy Madison quote! I routinely cite that scene.
Here’s a useful tool for you, it even has a section on writing resolutions:
http://tiny.cc/DebateArt
What you suffered here is a trollish kritik. That it’s humorous doesn’t automatically make it invalid (at least to me), it rather becomes an extra standard by which to weigh the debate.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Trent0405 // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded:
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
**************************************************
I'll reread this. Right now I'm torn. While bringing Ben back seems a fine direction for further sequel movies, said sequel movies were kritiked as a bad idea.
By that standard they would be many thousands of organizations, not a singular one. Also you'd be in a unique organization with everyone whom you've ever kinda made some kind of plans with. Such a standard leads to the word being all but meaningless.
In common English, organizations are defined by order, and always have a hierarchy (a few claim to be flat, such as the Catholic Church, in which The Pope is no higher at all than any priest... Their words on it do not match reality).
Antifa is a disorganized movement. There is no leadership, nor standards at all... Heck, I've met literal Neo-Nazis who identify as "Antifa."
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Redpilled // Mod action: Not Removed (non-moderated debate)
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 7 to con.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
This debate clearly falls into one or more category of non-moderated debates, and the vote does not seem to be cast in malice. Therefore, no intervention is merited.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#non-moderated-debates
note: On any moderated debate, the only valid point allotment for such reasoning (which would still need to be expanded) would be arguments. Being bad at arguments, only relates to the argument award.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Redpilled // Mod action: Removed (or would be, but too late)
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro, 6 to con.
>Reason for Decision: pro is stating transitioning is good for kids but fails to provide evidence for this
>Reason for Mod Action:
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.
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
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Redpilled // Mod action: Removed (or would be had the time not expired)
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro
>Reason for Decision: pro does not provide adequate sources of information and it would appear all of his statements are opinions
>Reason for Mod Action:
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.
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
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Redpilled // Mod action: Not Removed (borderline)
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded:
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was borderline. By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient.
Note: This decision can be appealed to whiteflame or oromagi. Essentially while the vote is barebones, it's from a new member and seems to get the gist across.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Redpilled // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: Arguments and conduct to pro
>Reason for Decision: Con made many points he was unable to prove
>Reason for Mod Action:
Arguments must always be reviewed even if left a tie (in which case less detail is required, but some reason for said tie based on the debate content must still be comprehensible within the vote).
Arguments go to the side that, within the context of the debate rounds, successfully affirms (vote pro) or negates (vote con) the resolution. Ties are possible, particularly with pre-agreed competing claims, but in most cases failing to affirm the resolution means pro loses by default.
Weighing entails analyzing the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments and their impacts against another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
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 advise changing the resolution to “antifa are often terrorists.” This would give you flexibility to show a widespread pattern of terrorist activities committed in their name, without needing to prove all or most; nor the obvious kritik that it’s not an organization.
You could also have a debate literally on if they are an organization, or for this one specify “assuming they’re an organization, antifa qualifies as a terrorist organization”
This is not a valid reason for voting. Should it have been raised as an argument, more assessment of it and at least one other contention would be required. As is, this is a vote based on outside content of your options which do not align with the debate which occurred.
Please don’t demean yourself by using the R word; especially with such little provocation.
You’re still nitpicking a minor legibility issue. Sure, had it made the argument incomprehensible I’d have voted for you, but I had no such difficulties.
-> the argument itself he has given is a failure.
I agree, just not for the reason you argued. You argued that the sentence structure was off, but I as a reader had no significant difficulty understanding it. Had you caught that it failed to touch in the issue of aid, then you would have easily won.
-> Who in the fucktardation says "A people" usually?
It’s actually a common phrasing. And again, even taking it on face value that it’s a bad sentence structure, that would still be nitpicking legibility instead of challenging the ideas therein.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/People#:~:text=A%20people%20is%20any%20plurality,of%20people%20of%20a%20polity.
Cool story bro, but it failed to undermine the opposing case.
At best you could say you should have been award legibility, but the rules for that explicitly spell out it’s not awarded for petty nitpicking
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#legibility-formerly-spelling-and-grammar
A baby drowning in a pond is common and basic test applied to ethical systems. What does X command someone to do about it…
So what would your opinion be of people who run away from the pond to petition the government to force someone else to rescue said baby, yet refuse to do it themselves because they’re too special to be inconvenienced?
If said people stood by and let babies drown in a pond for fear of getting their shoes wet, what would your opinion of them be?
Ethically it would be quite similar (basically identical in their opinion). The key difference is that much like the pregnant woman, they may opt for some future more willing person to carry the fetus to term.
There was a limit of 500 characters, which caused things to have to be presented in their most simple form.
While I failed to get it across properly, if anyone has their feelings hurt by abortions, then they should preserve cells from each fetus for their later use. Ideally we’ll find a way to convert men into baby incubators, allowing for all men who oppose abortion to know the joys of pregnancy and prevent any “murders” from having occurred in abortions.
Somehow I doubt any of the anti abortion politicians would be willing to endure pregnancy were it an option.
That R2 was brutal!
Suriously, take a chill pill.
Thanks again for the debate.
If you’d ever like advice on strengthening any arguments, just ask.
Your arguments should provide a counter plan for what Israel should do in response to Hamas’ aggression.
You should also refute your opponents idea of surrendering, as in spell out for the audience why surrendering is a bad idea.
Right now a voter is likely to be forced to choose your opponent, simply because they’re the only one suggesting any course of action.
It's now a little sided against you, but as a voter I do get what you mean. Is their plan for safety good or bad? It's obviously bad if it outright makes them less safe than doing nothing; but doing nothing might be the absolute worst option... So maybe build a counter plan in your arguments which would most likely make them more safe. A lot of plans have been tried, and nothing has worked; but it's a good starting place to build an argument.
With that one sided of a resolution, expect to be Kritiked.
For starters, traditional ideas of defense and their current tactics are not mutually exclusive.
Removed by request
Trent0405
10.12.2023 03:06AM
Reason:
This debate would have benefited greatly from a comprehensive debate description outlining what constitutes a just war.
Nevertheless, there was one key point which crystallized Pro's victory in this debate, that being the dispute over the First Gulf War. Con had an issue with the idea that a country engaged in self-defence was also engaged in war. He points out in his third round that to think otherwise opens the door to every war being justified, as every war would have a just and unjust participant. However, Pro highlights the First Gulf War as an example of a war where the aggressing party (the coalition forces) were also the justified party. The Iraqis had no authority to take Kuwait, as Pro points out, thereby justifying the coalition forces in starting a war. Con never directly challenges this example, but he does tangentially combat the idea. After being faced with the Gulf War example, along with many other similar cases Pro brought up, Con seems to focus more on the moral character of humankind. Con argues that all war is unjustified because the very act of starting a war reflects a failure to exercise other alternative solutions. My main issue with a point like this is that Con doesn't do any of the legwork needed to make a point like this stick. Con is making a pretty broad and expansive point here, and simply stating the point does not make it convincing, especially when pushback is provided, which it was. In the end, Con did not elaborate as to how war as a can never, in practical terms, be an inevitability. Therefore, at the end of the debate, I am left with the impression that the First Gulf War was justified, and by extension, that a just war is possible.
Nice opening round.
Immediately from the description don’t know what is being argued. Glancing at R1, a lot of it seems like it should be in the description.
…
My attacks would be on how it is unlikely to be implemented in the states manner, as it would be implemented by the same people who currently make our justice system suck.
The problem with this tactic is quite obviously that it does not favor the status quo either.
https://amp.cheezburger.com/6623237/15-hulk-hogan-memes-thatll-make-you-call-everyone-brother
High probability someone will accept this only to deny Hulk’s attack in the twin towers, coming up with some crazy conspiracy theory involving planes…
Thank you both for voting.
In both your votes you stated some of my thoughts much more articulately than I managed.
FYI, you’ve accepted a trap debate. They can be navigated and won, but they will be frustrating.
If something is incapable of intent, then innocence (per your definition) is moot.
By the same standard, all tools used to perform a rare surgical abortion of innocent of that.
This debate may appeal to you.
Thanks for the vote.
And yeah, I did not have nearly enough characters to make the discussion of preserved human bits properly entertaining and logically valid. As was, it was kinda just there as little more than a side tangent.
Nice job on your first serious debate.
I rather enjoyed the unique challenge of the 500 character limit. While I don't like to prattle on too much, any one of my points would most likely normally take that many.
A really good resource for you is: https://tiny.cc/DebateArt
There's even a section in it on writing strong resolutions... Basically make it both minimal in contentions and precise in meaning (I've seen these debates kritiked with such things as animal abortions).
As Ponikshiy said, you'll also want to be assertive/proactive. For this debate, before even responding to me it would have been best to present your case for abortion being murder, and your case for the fetus being innocent.
Oh and your best defense to such odd contentions as the hand, is to say something like "If anything else is or is not murder, is outside the scope of this debate." My debates usually have some thing more for entertainment; in this case, I really did not have the characters to properly explain it.
Objective as in equal or greater objectivity to religious answers, or are you pre-agreeing that religious answers have no objectivity?
If you both request it, this debate can be deleted.
Friendly reminder, you have one day remaining to post your opening argument.
Nice comeback with the Billy Madison quote! I routinely cite that scene.
Here’s a useful tool for you, it even has a section on writing resolutions:
http://tiny.cc/DebateArt
What you suffered here is a trollish kritik. That it’s humorous doesn’t automatically make it invalid (at least to me), it rather becomes an extra standard by which to weigh the debate.
You beat me to this one by seconds. I strongly disagree with the notion that not being a slave equals murder.
Whiteflame and/or Oromagi are the people to tag for appeals.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Trent0405 // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded:
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
**************************************************
I'll reread this. Right now I'm torn. While bringing Ben back seems a fine direction for further sequel movies, said sequel movies were kritiked as a bad idea.
You'll really need a definition for exist within the description.
By that standard they would be many thousands of organizations, not a singular one. Also you'd be in a unique organization with everyone whom you've ever kinda made some kind of plans with. Such a standard leads to the word being all but meaningless.
In common English, organizations are defined by order, and always have a hierarchy (a few claim to be flat, such as the Catholic Church, in which The Pope is no higher at all than any priest... Their words on it do not match reality).
Antifa is a disorganized movement. There is no leadership, nor standards at all... Heck, I've met literal Neo-Nazis who identify as "Antifa."
Only according to mistranslations.
I hate double negatives like this.
https://youtu.be/31IDDlKdls0?si=pB3PqM8Bvsi3IL1c
Thanks for voting!
Very well done R1 from both sides!
https://www.debateart.com/debates/4120-the-gender-pay-gap-doesnt-exist
Neat thing!
https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/05/politics/enrique-tarrio-sentencing-proud-boys-seditious-conspiracy/index.html
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Redpilled // Mod action: Not Removed (non-moderated debate)
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 7 to con.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
This debate clearly falls into one or more category of non-moderated debates, and the vote does not seem to be cast in malice. Therefore, no intervention is merited.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#non-moderated-debates
note: On any moderated debate, the only valid point allotment for such reasoning (which would still need to be expanded) would be arguments. Being bad at arguments, only relates to the argument award.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Redpilled // Mod action: Removed (or would be, but too late)
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro, 6 to con.
>Reason for Decision: pro is stating transitioning is good for kids but fails to provide evidence for this
>Reason for Mod Action:
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.
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
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Redpilled // Mod action: Removed (or would be had the time not expired)
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro
>Reason for Decision: pro does not provide adequate sources of information and it would appear all of his statements are opinions
>Reason for Mod Action:
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.
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
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Redpilled // Mod action: Not Removed (borderline)
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded:
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was borderline. By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient.
Note: This decision can be appealed to whiteflame or oromagi. Essentially while the vote is barebones, it's from a new member and seems to get the gist across.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Redpilled // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: Arguments and conduct to pro
>Reason for Decision: Con made many points he was unable to prove
>Reason for Mod Action:
Arguments must always be reviewed even if left a tie (in which case less detail is required, but some reason for said tie based on the debate content must still be comprehensible within the vote).
Arguments go to the side that, within the context of the debate rounds, successfully affirms (vote pro) or negates (vote con) the resolution. Ties are possible, particularly with pre-agreed competing claims, but in most cases failing to affirm the resolution means pro loses by default.
Weighing entails analyzing the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments and their impacts against another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
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.
**************************************************
Copied the short description into the full description for you, to ensure whomever accepts sees those specifications.
Not an organization.
I advise changing the resolution to “antifa are often terrorists.” This would give you flexibility to show a widespread pattern of terrorist activities committed in their name, without needing to prove all or most; nor the obvious kritik that it’s not an organization.
You could also have a debate literally on if they are an organization, or for this one specify “assuming they’re an organization, antifa qualifies as a terrorist organization”
-> “ Cause LGBTQ is demonic”
This is not a valid reason for voting. Should it have been raised as an argument, more assessment of it and at least one other contention would be required. As is, this is a vote based on outside content of your options which do not align with the debate which occurred.
-> “ Con forfeited 50% of debate.”
Sorry, misread this and deleted the wrong vote. Please revote.
And sorry for the trouble!