**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Best.Korea // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to con
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
This vote was not reviewed until after the debate window had closed, at which point it is impossible to remove.
Handling the unusualness of a video reply (without such being pre-agreed), is an area of voter discretion. It is however unfortunate that no voter weighted the arguments.
**************************************************
Note: As an immigrant (no one likes being accused of eating dogs and cats), I am too biased to fairly assign points... But I can give some feedback.
On the setup I would suggest have a more direct comparison with shared BoP. Trump > Harris vs Harris > Trump. This means if equal (or near equal) voters should leave it a tie (not that they're likely to on such heated matters).
Government Education:
"The Education system in America has consistently been on the decline since 1776" that instantly seems too broad to support. Like did we even have public schools back then? That I wonder this, speaks of biting off more than you can chew (or at least that the voter can chew), it's akin to breaking the suspension of disbelief. And the article does not speak of 1776, which ruins this from the onset...
Con's reply got to the heart of the matter that language subtly shifts, and while pro is right that we would have trouble understanding GW, he would not understand "skibidi," so this shift is non-indicative of anything other than a shift has occurred.
AFTERTHOUGHT: Trump has already been president, if he was going to have an impact in making education better than 1776, shouldn't that have already occurred? Or did it continue to get worse by the stated standard?
Price Controls:
Con catches that Trump and Harris are agreed on the need for it.
Economic Policy:
Con shows tariffs under Trump lead to inflation.
Pro does well defending that tariffs can be useful according to non-partisan economists.
Honesty:
I have really mixed feelings about this point even being brought up...
The best of this was just pro pointing out that Trump claims to shit gold (sorry, greatest economy ever, nothing went wrong, not even covid). It intuitively undermines any claim of success on any of his measures (but it's not Trump claiming them in the debate, it's pro presenting evidence to support points... instantly making him far superior than Trump by many standards).
Con shits the bed in his response, echoing many mentally stunted individuals who will not shut up about "what about Bill Clinton?" Once you start addressing Biden bad to prove anything about Harris, you've lost the audience. And this is while I wholly agree that the WP sucks donkey dick... The Justfactsdaily website is is course not the best because of their deranged commentary about off topic subjects (fact checking is bad, how dare anyone fact check, oh and here's a graph showing us fact checking... PolitiFact shows itself to be massively superior with a dry take on matters, and various times catching Harris and her team in blunders (less than the other side, but when it happens they seem to report it)).
Healthcare:
A good point raised by con that Trump harmed healthcare, but it would have been improved with showing what Harris' plans for healthcare are.
Pro is able to well defend this by showing harms to poorly implemented government plans.
---
I can already tell that were I voting, I'd end up leaving sources a tie. Both have some poor sources and some good ones; it's in an area where I'd say both have done their due diligence, with neither is showing true comparative excellence.
Arguments would inevitably go to whomever can stay on topic longer.. But this is without knowing of any interesting contentions raised after those initially listed.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Owen_T // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 5 to con
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
Special Rules in the description are not strictly enforced by moderation, but a voter may (and unless Kritiked in the debate, usually should) choose to abide. If doing so, that there are such rules should be explicitly stated to opt for alternative moderation.
note: Additionally that setup has plenty of leeway. One cannot argue that Art is a better clown than Homie, without referencing Homie for comparison (likely to include his shortcomings); to do otherwise would make the argument for Art somewhat non-sequitur (similarly you could argue he's a better cook than Bob, but without knowing if Bob is a good or bad cook it's indeterminant).
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Savant // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: three to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: AnonYmous_Icon // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro, 3 to con
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote cannot be removed as the voting period has ended. The vote also did not effect the outcome out the debate (otherwise I would have procrastinated far less).
What about the pathos was better and worse would vastly improve the vote. Please do review the voting standards before voting again. That said, the vote by doing a mixed allotment to both sides implies the absence (or at least minimalistic amount) of bias.
**************************************************
I suspect it will be argued 1 therefore 2, which is the angle I’d personally attack since I can’t even imagine how someone would prove that negative…
People do body mods for self confidence all the time. Proving that it’s a sickness AND not an identity issue (regardless of if it’s caused by a sickness), seems neigh impossible.
I think my cat could out logic this setup. Namely by killing something and feeling no remorse, ergo either not murder or murder is not automatically wrong.
To get into Grad School, I needed my undergraduate grades to average out to about that.
The downside I see, is that if 90% was the passing standard, it would not allow flexibility of having a mediocre performance at any one class canceled out by higher ones. Also with that in mind, an angry teacher would have more power.
There are of course advantages in pushing people to do better.
“ It is unfortunate that I must only give a better legibility vote for Pro because the topic itself is highly subjective and thus I cannot give either side the better argument vote.”
Legibility needs to be explained. Like what in con’s case made reading it difficult?
I have no disagreement with that argument allotment. While it could be expanded, not awarding arguments has a much lower burden of explanation.
Owen_T your vote has been taken down for insufficient explanation of sources… There needs to not just be quantity, but something notable about how they were leveraged to bolster at least one contention.
Arguments could also do with more detail. Like what’s a contention pro excelled at? And (I haven’t read the debate, so I could be missing a big area of discussion) it seems odd on a debate about comparable probabilities, to agree that something is impossible, but then wholly dismiss that as missing the point of the debate.
Conduct would not have been warranted for annoyance with a flawed argument tactic. However it is something quite valid against arguments (not referring to this specific debate).
And in general every point other than arguments shouldn’t be for mild tipping of the scales, but for comparable excellence. I’ll even advise to consider winning arguments to make it a slightly higher burden to get any additional points on top of that.
Reason:
I'm an agnostic, and I agree with Con, but CatholicApologetics knows his stuff.
Starting with arguments:
Pro presented a strong case, and backing it up with quite a few sources. And then there is Con, who's arguments did not make sense to me.
For example, the resurrection is medically impossible. Well yeah of course it is. That's literally the whole point.
He then goes on to argue the apostles being martyred means nothing, even though they knew the objective truth, as Pro pointed out.
These are just two examples, but there are more things like this.
As mentioned before, Pro used many sources to back up all of his arguments. Con didn't do a bad job with sources, Pro was just better.
I was tempted to give Pro the conduct point to, as Con kept bringing up arguments that had already been well debunked, and that makes me livid when it happens to me.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Trent0405 // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: conduct to con
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
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).
While the voter did not cover every issue, they indeed covered the meat and potatoes. Leaving the meat and potatoes a tie based on their analysis is fine.
Since the voting period is over, there's no risk of influencing any decisions. A couple thoughts...
The shit those politicians get up to is fucking weird! I was initially just making fun of them a little as a fun side-note to the debate, but then pro took major offense at me calling misogynistic cultists “misogynistic cultists,” so I treated it as an exploitable weakness concerning the 14th Amendment... I believe in isolation the kritiks here would have carried the day, but in this over-sized debate they got lost under so much other debris.
I generally will advise for any debate when key players are attacked on ethical grounds, to just briefly acknowledge it then dismiss it as scope creep. As a couple voters pointed out, what ought to be doesn't define what is. The constitution can be corrupted and unfortunately still be the constitution.
Letting me poison the well so much, risks the audience letting their disdain for a serial rapist (sorry, serial /attempted/ rapist) influence their opinion of Kavanaugh's performance as a justice and in turn not want to agree that he had any power. Oh and Todd Akins, you can literally endure yourself to the audience with something like “Yes yes, he was a piece of shit… Thank jove he’s dead… But him having been dead for awhile now, means he probably didn’t get to serve as mentor to those brand new justices.” Which in turn would splash mud back in my face by showing low relevance to one of my chosen weapons.
The tanned eunuchs was a micro-point about hypocrisy, but mainly just there to entertain. They were planned for a final joke at the end concerning what type of livestock occasionally bit their dicks off… I think I was going to imply donkeys at gloryholes, and add as if to redeem them that they aren't such asses as to think it was people being forced to perform.
Pro's R2 was missing sound. So effectively a missed round.
Con's didn't have anything new to respond to, and ended up feeling a bit forced. That said, there is merit to letting the police handle the matter... I do feel here that the generated voice couldn't handle this properly, as the material was so ripe for jokes at Germany's history which it would not have been able to carry.
> Con, for whatever reason, brings up the Dobbs decision
It was already brought up with mention of repelling Roe v. Wade. But yes, my tactic there was largely to invalidate the appeal to authority with both a greater appeal to authority and with ethos and logos appeals. In hindsight I do totally get yours and Wylted's point that it doesn't always matter what ought to be the case but purely what is. Plus, it let me tie in their great teacher Todd Akin, who is positively always fun to mock.
> Pro also points out the contradiction in saying that abortion was typically allowed before the quickening, but also that many enslaved women were forced to remain pregnant.
I admit I still tilt my head in confusion at this. I do believe it's self evident that different classes of people exist, plus I thought I proved pretty well that they were not all black slaves being raped and forced to give birth to increase the number of chattel, and that 13th amendment raised those who were mistreated to that degree to the level of those who were (most often) mistreated far less.
> I feel like this point goes to Pro.
No objection there. I actually considered ignoring everything pro said in R1 and just going into the 13th, but thought that would be disrespectful to the work he put in; as you concluded, not all points need to be won.
> He tries to make a separation between institutional slavery and sex slavery,
IMO some commentary from the authors of intent of the 13th could have carried this (particularly since those guys were men of their time, and while not all evil, I doubt any were feminist). As is, at least to me it fell closer to renaming slaves "Peons" or "Student Athletes" rather than actually not slaves.
> simply stating that the current Supreme Court establishes it as unconstitutional.
That was why I attacked Trump's appointees so much, to bring into question if their decisions are valid.
> I think Pro got too hung up on points regarding tradition and custom as rights
I also got hung up there. When undermining the 14th Amendment, one of Trump's "Justices" has repeatedly made the declaration that that nothing can be a right unless it was first a tradition. I find that mentality to be quite ill informed to say the least, but from it I could make a few implicit arguments, such as if that's valid they're coming for your guns next.
> abortion either is an issue left up to the states by the Constitution or it isn’t.
Wholly agreed. That something has completely failed, doesn't mean it is not the law. I argued the aughts because it's a powerful appeal along all three of ethos, pathos, and logos (this one the weakest). Much of it is fallacious, but still undeniably stirring appeals.
> I don’t believe that either definition is mutually exclusive from the other
I agree. Inside a debate I can argue in black and white terms to talk smack about someone moving the very goalposts they had set, but definitions are generally holistic.
> and simply calling Con’s definition “subjective” and “made-up” isn’t enough to dismiss it entirely.
Wasn't actually my definition.
> I think Pro had an opportunity here to accept this and argue that women having this constitutional right as slaves who were subjected to rape and torture is a pretty distinct scenario from women today...
I'd like to think that would have been the path I would have argued were I on the other side. But yes, outside of the debate I'll wholly agree that women being turned into a type of slave by the states today, only somewhat compares to women as literal slaves their whole lives back then. A big one toward that would be something I pointed out inside the debate, that laws were passed to force children of slaves to themselves be slaves; that was the type of slavery the 13th abolished; even if a woman is a slave for 9 months, her children are not, so right there it's notably different.
> there’s too much distracting information in this debate
Guilty. I did not mean for there to be as much. But it got loaded, then overloaded.
Glad to see I wasn't the only one thinking of the mistake in the trolly problem (inaction =/= murder; even while option of murder /may/ be better justified than said inaction).
The problem of other countries fearing the same, was also a good point, but it probably should have been expanded upon. It brings my mind to the problem after someone kills baby Hitler, in that their future is gone, so they're just a madman who butchered a baby for some quasi-religious belief that the baby as evil.
If you haven't already, you should read That Hideous Strength by C.S. Lewis, and if in the mood for something lighthearted which deals with one in a million chances, Guards! Guards! by Sir Terry Pratchett.
Arguments for consideration ought to be placed within the arguments tab.
As a voter, I am not convinced of not high IQ by performance in another debate. So the mostly meaningless conduct point will not be assigned for a that.
As a debater, I well understand the tactic of identifying a weakness and pressing it (such as in the other debate mentioned, calling a serial /attempted/ rapist a rapist and other such slights).
As a moderator Inhavent finished that video and have to get back to work.
The title of this debate reminds me of a kritik I did on the rationality of belief in God. If memory serves, I argued for the less controversial figure of Santa Clause... Of course it's rational to believe in Santa, all the other kids do, your parents are telling you he's where the presents come from (and they do come... also whatever crimes you did are fine because you're still on the all-knowing nice list).
Please tone it down, or at least target someone like me with thick skin (we could even argue over which of us is the bigger idiot… FYI, I’m 6’3… I’m so dumb that I’m using imperial units (long live the queen!), I don’t know the conversion rates, but I’m pretty sure I’m more big than the average bad analogy typed at 50 WPM)
> Nonetheless, his arguments where still highly intelligent but they did not have the same effect that they would have had if Barney kept a cooler composure throughout.
If you believed pro's arguments that I was emotional and therefore wrong, I really can't fault that line of persuasion since it worked (to be clear, out of the debate I do not fault it; inside the debate I literally prefaced everything with a defense against that likely line of attack).
For future reference, my arguments almost always include a healthy dose of wit. Such as my one Hall of Fame winning debate:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/866-fetuses-as-a-replacement-for-the-usd
Obviously thank you a hundred times over for getting through that, and a hundred more for putting the work into such a thoughtful vote.
Here were some thoughts I had at different points in it...
R1 con:
Seriously, I did not expect so much of this to actually be something pro would want to focus on.
6:00
I'm entertained by the voice selection. Curious how close to that guys actual voice this is. Regardless, wicked program.
10:40
Yup, I introduced the points from a place of arrogance. I did make them (somewhat) warranted with sources.
12:00
My remark on Madison was to decrease nitpicking. The quote from him stood by itself regardless of what anyone may or may not raise about him.
14:00
Glad you enjoyed the contention just before the 13th got going, and also glad you immediately opted against taking it all seriously (I’d be worried if anyone did). And yup, pathos appeals are one of the weapons in my arsonal… Anyways, that paragraph was a satirical shell around a key theme to the debate, which also served as lead-in for the next point.
15:45
Incel is probably a more nuanced term than I realized. I used it for variety. I should have said Men's Rights Activists.
18:30
The logic indeed can be applied to taxation. Atlas Shrugged was largely an exploration of that idea (by a brilliant idiot who wants to bore us all to death… That reminds me of a fun debate I had with one of my philosophy professors on if Rand was an Egoist or not. Their argument was something like yes because the heroes are all about how they shouldn’t have to work for the common good; whereas I argued no because the villains were the embodiment of the Egoist ideals for wanting to just mooch off the contributors).
And I really was hoping for social contract theory. Interesting discussions can happen in that space.
R2 pro:
20:15
I really did not expect such an offense at hyperbole against objectively evil SOBs. That of course influenced my course going forward.
22:40
Not rude against pro, and also 100% truthful with sources to back it up.
23:00
Glad you saw it, and saw it right away… Those were not even meant as big red herrings, I even prefaced the argument with what was important.
Oh that little typo you had for a moment of “abortion is slavery” I have literally heard that from pro-lifers. 🤯
28:20
That was one of pro’s best moments (not that I’d give credit during the debate, instead of pulling the Karen card).
34:40
That was not one of pro’s best moments.
R2 Con:
38:00
Fair! It
38:40
Glad you understood that I was having some fun with that.
Admittedly, I’ve only read the opinions of the justices (the full thing is over 100 pages), and intuitively assume that since it is raised in the context of him trying to have his VP killed, they meant it to apply to that (even if another court takes over from here). But yes, it was an intentional oversimplification to poison the well against the three justices in question.
44:30
This stumped me for a good minute, then I broke out literally laughing aloud!
49:30
I’m getting lost in that thought experiment. I believe conjoined twins have tested the law on killing another sentient being to be free of them (you may not), but I don’t think any slavery angle has been legally used in any cases with merit.
—
R3 Pro:
52:50
Likewise, this will be the last time I take part in such a lengthy debate.
53:49
Outside the debate I wholly agree that it’s not inherently bad that they have religion. But I do stand by it being problematic when it’s required.
57:50
Yo momma so fat, that when she ‘fell out of the sky’ no one thought she was an angel, they thought she was the next extinction event!
1:05:25
1:07:08
Respect.
1:08:45
Knowing how this turns out, it’s good to see someone agreeing with the side they ultimately through strength of arguments votes against.
R3 con:
…
R4:
…
Conclusions:
1:13:25
I appreciate what that vote was trying to do. It’s actually a good place in the development of a voter to consider where sides surpassed each other.
And I agree with your advice to pro for how to beat me next time.
In an early issue of X-Force Kane gets into a fight with Deadpool. Kane knows Deadpool is tougher than him, but he also knows that Deadpool’s most deadly power is his mouth. So he bit down, ignored everything Deadpool said, and just kept focused on hitting him.
I’d say the big reason is the messiah hadn’t been born yet…hard to write books anbout… even while there were prophecies.
As for poly vs mono… it’s a way they used to say they’re different, but it was also stupid from a language standpoint. Angels exist, if you believe this you’re probably a polytheist. Yes, there’s a high god, but that doesn’t equate to denial of the power of the angels (or any other supernatural beings besides God).
Actually, I can name one religion which might truly be monotheistic… Pastafarianism!
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: LogicalDebater01 // Mod action: Not Removed (borderline)
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: conduct to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was borderline. By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient.
We've never considered weights of emojis compared to forfeiting, and they can vary so very much... I don't foresee it becoming a common enough occurrence to impact any debate outcomes.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Owen_T // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: conduct to con
>Reason for Decision: "American debater forfeiture"
>Reason for Mod Action:
Any unexcused forfeited round merits an automatic conduct loss, but arguments must still be voted on or justified as a tie. Repeated forfeitures waives the need to consider arguments (you still may, but by the choice of one side to miss at least 40% of the debate, the requirement ceases. And yes, this does apply to Choose Winner, which otherwise would not allow conduct to be the sole determinant).
Should either side forfeit every round or every round after their initial arguments (waiving is not an argument), the debate is considered a Full Forfeiture, and any majority votes against the absent side are not moderated (a vote may still be cast in their favor of the absentee, but is eligible for moderation to verify that it is justified via the normal voting standards).
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#forfeitures
**************************************************
I'd prefer it if abortion did not occur (barring exceptional circumstances; those I'd also prefer did not occur, but we have to deal with the fact that they do).
I view it as generally a wrong, so I would personally not get an abortion. However...
1. Pineapple on pizza is far more often viewed as wrong, and nothing about it merits legal enforcement.
2. Abortion cannot be a pure wrong, because God is good, and God carried out literally countless abortions (not even talking about miscarriages).
Actually a really complex question to answer, and much of what I began to type touched on topics from the debate (remind me after voting ends and I'll answer in depth).
One thing I can say is that I really think the whole issue gets looked at quite backwards. I don't understand how we can have forced births and not forced vasectomies.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Best.Korea // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to con
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
This vote was not reviewed until after the debate window had closed, at which point it is impossible to remove.
Handling the unusualness of a video reply (without such being pre-agreed), is an area of voter discretion. It is however unfortunate that no voter weighted the arguments.
**************************************************
Note: As an immigrant (no one likes being accused of eating dogs and cats), I am too biased to fairly assign points... But I can give some feedback.
On the setup I would suggest have a more direct comparison with shared BoP. Trump > Harris vs Harris > Trump. This means if equal (or near equal) voters should leave it a tie (not that they're likely to on such heated matters).
Government Education:
"The Education system in America has consistently been on the decline since 1776" that instantly seems too broad to support. Like did we even have public schools back then? That I wonder this, speaks of biting off more than you can chew (or at least that the voter can chew), it's akin to breaking the suspension of disbelief. And the article does not speak of 1776, which ruins this from the onset...
Con's reply got to the heart of the matter that language subtly shifts, and while pro is right that we would have trouble understanding GW, he would not understand "skibidi," so this shift is non-indicative of anything other than a shift has occurred.
AFTERTHOUGHT: Trump has already been president, if he was going to have an impact in making education better than 1776, shouldn't that have already occurred? Or did it continue to get worse by the stated standard?
Price Controls:
Con catches that Trump and Harris are agreed on the need for it.
Economic Policy:
Con shows tariffs under Trump lead to inflation.
Pro does well defending that tariffs can be useful according to non-partisan economists.
Honesty:
I have really mixed feelings about this point even being brought up...
The best of this was just pro pointing out that Trump claims to shit gold (sorry, greatest economy ever, nothing went wrong, not even covid). It intuitively undermines any claim of success on any of his measures (but it's not Trump claiming them in the debate, it's pro presenting evidence to support points... instantly making him far superior than Trump by many standards).
Con shits the bed in his response, echoing many mentally stunted individuals who will not shut up about "what about Bill Clinton?" Once you start addressing Biden bad to prove anything about Harris, you've lost the audience. And this is while I wholly agree that the WP sucks donkey dick... The Justfactsdaily website is is course not the best because of their deranged commentary about off topic subjects (fact checking is bad, how dare anyone fact check, oh and here's a graph showing us fact checking... PolitiFact shows itself to be massively superior with a dry take on matters, and various times catching Harris and her team in blunders (less than the other side, but when it happens they seem to report it)).
Healthcare:
A good point raised by con that Trump harmed healthcare, but it would have been improved with showing what Harris' plans for healthcare are.
Pro is able to well defend this by showing harms to poorly implemented government plans.
---
I can already tell that were I voting, I'd end up leaving sources a tie. Both have some poor sources and some good ones; it's in an area where I'd say both have done their due diligence, with neither is showing true comparative excellence.
Arguments would inevitably go to whomever can stay on topic longer.. But this is without knowing of any interesting contentions raised after those initially listed.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Owen_T // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 5 to con
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
Special Rules in the description are not strictly enforced by moderation, but a voter may (and unless Kritiked in the debate, usually should) choose to abide. If doing so, that there are such rules should be explicitly stated to opt for alternative moderation.
note: Additionally that setup has plenty of leeway. One cannot argue that Art is a better clown than Homie, without referencing Homie for comparison (likely to include his shortcomings); to do otherwise would make the argument for Art somewhat non-sequitur (similarly you could argue he's a better cook than Bob, but without knowing if Bob is a good or bad cook it's indeterminant).
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Savant // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: three to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: AnonYmous_Icon // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro, 3 to con
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote cannot be removed as the voting period has ended. The vote also did not effect the outcome out the debate (otherwise I would have procrastinated far less).
What about the pathos was better and worse would vastly improve the vote. Please do review the voting standards before voting again. That said, the vote by doing a mixed allotment to both sides implies the absence (or at least minimalistic amount) of bias.
**************************************************
Well said.
I suspect it will be argued 1 therefore 2, which is the angle I’d personally attack since I can’t even imagine how someone would prove that negative…
People do body mods for self confidence all the time. Proving that it’s a sickness AND not an identity issue (regardless of if it’s caused by a sickness), seems neigh impossible.
Thank you for the invite, but I’m trying not to engage in any formal debates at least until I’ve got a certain project off the ground.
…
Anyways I was criticizing “A Fetus is a human being, Murder is wrong, therefore abortion is wrong”
It’s a bad non-sequitur. Might as well say “I like vanilla ice cream, therefore abortion is wrong.”
I think my cat could out logic this setup. Namely by killing something and feeling no remorse, ergo either not murder or murder is not automatically wrong.
This could be very interesting.
It is without a doubt an uphill battle, since slavery is horrible is firmly the status quo.
If you’d both like, I can delete this debate.
Your fundamental weakness is lack of sources. When the other side has some well laid out evidence, bringing your own is highly beneficial.
More or less, right now you’re saying “this is my opinion” for which you want to add on “and these experts agree.”
To get into Grad School, I needed my undergraduate grades to average out to about that.
The downside I see, is that if 90% was the passing standard, it would not allow flexibility of having a mediocre performance at any one class canceled out by higher ones. Also with that in mind, an angry teacher would have more power.
There are of course advantages in pushing people to do better.
It was a TV show about AI's controlling people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_of_Interest_(TV_series)
Person of Interest did a really cool analysis of this.
“ It is unfortunate that I must only give a better legibility vote for Pro because the topic itself is highly subjective and thus I cannot give either side the better argument vote.”
Legibility needs to be explained. Like what in con’s case made reading it difficult?
I have no disagreement with that argument allotment. While it could be expanded, not awarding arguments has a much lower burden of explanation.
Owen_T your vote has been taken down for insufficient explanation of sources… There needs to not just be quantity, but something notable about how they were leveraged to bolster at least one contention.
Arguments could also do with more detail. Like what’s a contention pro excelled at? And (I haven’t read the debate, so I could be missing a big area of discussion) it seems odd on a debate about comparable probabilities, to agree that something is impossible, but then wholly dismiss that as missing the point of the debate.
Conduct would not have been warranted for annoyance with a flawed argument tactic. However it is something quite valid against arguments (not referring to this specific debate).
And in general every point other than arguments shouldn’t be for mild tipping of the scales, but for comparable excellence. I’ll even advise to consider winning arguments to make it a slightly higher burden to get any additional points on top of that.
Owen_T
09.07.2024 08:44PM
Reason:
I'm an agnostic, and I agree with Con, but CatholicApologetics knows his stuff.
Starting with arguments:
Pro presented a strong case, and backing it up with quite a few sources. And then there is Con, who's arguments did not make sense to me.
For example, the resurrection is medically impossible. Well yeah of course it is. That's literally the whole point.
He then goes on to argue the apostles being martyred means nothing, even though they knew the objective truth, as Pro pointed out.
These are just two examples, but there are more things like this.
As mentioned before, Pro used many sources to back up all of his arguments. Con didn't do a bad job with sources, Pro was just better.
I was tempted to give Pro the conduct point to, as Con kept bringing up arguments that had already been well debunked, and that makes me livid when it happens to me.
Good catch!
The main problems I suspect people will throw at you are morals of indentured servitude, retirement, and the creation of much needless busy work.
I make that argument regarding their leadership, but when applied to the broad category it doesn't hold water.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Trent0405 // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: conduct to con
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
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).
While the voter did not cover every issue, they indeed covered the meat and potatoes. Leaving the meat and potatoes a tie based on their analysis is fine.
**************************************************
🤯 🤯🤯
Curious to see what crazy take is used on this one...
I do get more use out of my lap than my computer. ;)
But what if your SMV is who you are as a person?
FYI, the outcome of debates like this get very subjective to emotions.
I’ll have to come back to this when I'm more focused.
Since the voting period is over, there's no risk of influencing any decisions. A couple thoughts...
The shit those politicians get up to is fucking weird! I was initially just making fun of them a little as a fun side-note to the debate, but then pro took major offense at me calling misogynistic cultists “misogynistic cultists,” so I treated it as an exploitable weakness concerning the 14th Amendment... I believe in isolation the kritiks here would have carried the day, but in this over-sized debate they got lost under so much other debris.
I generally will advise for any debate when key players are attacked on ethical grounds, to just briefly acknowledge it then dismiss it as scope creep. As a couple voters pointed out, what ought to be doesn't define what is. The constitution can be corrupted and unfortunately still be the constitution.
Letting me poison the well so much, risks the audience letting their disdain for a serial rapist (sorry, serial /attempted/ rapist) influence their opinion of Kavanaugh's performance as a justice and in turn not want to agree that he had any power. Oh and Todd Akins, you can literally endure yourself to the audience with something like “Yes yes, he was a piece of shit… Thank jove he’s dead… But him having been dead for awhile now, means he probably didn’t get to serve as mentor to those brand new justices.” Which in turn would splash mud back in my face by showing low relevance to one of my chosen weapons.
The tanned eunuchs was a micro-point about hypocrisy, but mainly just there to entertain. They were planned for a final joke at the end concerning what type of livestock occasionally bit their dicks off… I think I was going to imply donkeys at gloryholes, and add as if to redeem them that they aren't such asses as to think it was people being forced to perform.
Pro's R2 was missing sound. So effectively a missed round.
Con's didn't have anything new to respond to, and ended up feeling a bit forced. That said, there is merit to letting the police handle the matter... I do feel here that the generated voice couldn't handle this properly, as the material was so ripe for jokes at Germany's history which it would not have been able to carry.
Thanks for voting!
> Con, for whatever reason, brings up the Dobbs decision
It was already brought up with mention of repelling Roe v. Wade. But yes, my tactic there was largely to invalidate the appeal to authority with both a greater appeal to authority and with ethos and logos appeals. In hindsight I do totally get yours and Wylted's point that it doesn't always matter what ought to be the case but purely what is. Plus, it let me tie in their great teacher Todd Akin, who is positively always fun to mock.
> Pro also points out the contradiction in saying that abortion was typically allowed before the quickening, but also that many enslaved women were forced to remain pregnant.
I admit I still tilt my head in confusion at this. I do believe it's self evident that different classes of people exist, plus I thought I proved pretty well that they were not all black slaves being raped and forced to give birth to increase the number of chattel, and that 13th amendment raised those who were mistreated to that degree to the level of those who were (most often) mistreated far less.
> I feel like this point goes to Pro.
No objection there. I actually considered ignoring everything pro said in R1 and just going into the 13th, but thought that would be disrespectful to the work he put in; as you concluded, not all points need to be won.
> He tries to make a separation between institutional slavery and sex slavery,
IMO some commentary from the authors of intent of the 13th could have carried this (particularly since those guys were men of their time, and while not all evil, I doubt any were feminist). As is, at least to me it fell closer to renaming slaves "Peons" or "Student Athletes" rather than actually not slaves.
If either of you set your voice to that annoying AI woman, I will vote against you automatically... Well, at least on legibility.
Thank you for voting.
> simply stating that the current Supreme Court establishes it as unconstitutional.
That was why I attacked Trump's appointees so much, to bring into question if their decisions are valid.
> I think Pro got too hung up on points regarding tradition and custom as rights
I also got hung up there. When undermining the 14th Amendment, one of Trump's "Justices" has repeatedly made the declaration that that nothing can be a right unless it was first a tradition. I find that mentality to be quite ill informed to say the least, but from it I could make a few implicit arguments, such as if that's valid they're coming for your guns next.
> abortion either is an issue left up to the states by the Constitution or it isn’t.
Wholly agreed. That something has completely failed, doesn't mean it is not the law. I argued the aughts because it's a powerful appeal along all three of ethos, pathos, and logos (this one the weakest). Much of it is fallacious, but still undeniably stirring appeals.
> I don’t believe that either definition is mutually exclusive from the other
I agree. Inside a debate I can argue in black and white terms to talk smack about someone moving the very goalposts they had set, but definitions are generally holistic.
> and simply calling Con’s definition “subjective” and “made-up” isn’t enough to dismiss it entirely.
Wasn't actually my definition.
> I think Pro had an opportunity here to accept this and argue that women having this constitutional right as slaves who were subjected to rape and torture is a pretty distinct scenario from women today...
I'd like to think that would have been the path I would have argued were I on the other side. But yes, outside of the debate I'll wholly agree that women being turned into a type of slave by the states today, only somewhat compares to women as literal slaves their whole lives back then. A big one toward that would be something I pointed out inside the debate, that laws were passed to force children of slaves to themselves be slaves; that was the type of slavery the 13th abolished; even if a woman is a slave for 9 months, her children are not, so right there it's notably different.
> there’s too much distracting information in this debate
Guilty. I did not mean for there to be as much. But it got loaded, then overloaded.
Nice R1.
Glad to see I wasn't the only one thinking of the mistake in the trolly problem (inaction =/= murder; even while option of murder /may/ be better justified than said inaction).
The problem of other countries fearing the same, was also a good point, but it probably should have been expanded upon. It brings my mind to the problem after someone kills baby Hitler, in that their future is gone, so they're just a madman who butchered a baby for some quasi-religious belief that the baby as evil.
If you haven't already, you should read That Hideous Strength by C.S. Lewis, and if in the mood for something lighthearted which deals with one in a million chances, Guards! Guards! by Sir Terry Pratchett.
Love the trolly problem, and look forward to cons rebuttals
https://youtu.be/DtRhrfhP5b4?si=5MTTyV2R0FUIl8jE
If doing more math in videos, I suggest Excel (or Google Sheets).
I’d also be curious as to the basic assumptions for that population total.
Arguments for consideration ought to be placed within the arguments tab.
As a voter, I am not convinced of not high IQ by performance in another debate. So the mostly meaningless conduct point will not be assigned for a that.
As a debater, I well understand the tactic of identifying a weakness and pressing it (such as in the other debate mentioned, calling a serial /attempted/ rapist a rapist and other such slights).
As a moderator Inhavent finished that video and have to get back to work.
What was your opinion of the Thomas Jefferson argument?
To improve it in future, I'd be good to know your thoughts on why it failed at the onset and/or how it was refuted.
But Pontius Pilote did not exist, so how can there be a devil and his talking cat walking around Moscow?!
I’m referring to The Master and Margarita
The title of this debate reminds me of a kritik I did on the rationality of belief in God. If memory serves, I argued for the less controversial figure of Santa Clause... Of course it's rational to believe in Santa, all the other kids do, your parents are telling you he's where the presents come from (and they do come... also whatever crimes you did are fine because you're still on the all-knowing nice list).
You’re being dense.
Please tone it down, or at least target someone like me with thick skin (we could even argue over which of us is the bigger idiot… FYI, I’m 6’3… I’m so dumb that I’m using imperial units (long live the queen!), I don’t know the conversion rates, but I’m pretty sure I’m more big than the average bad analogy typed at 50 WPM)
> Nonetheless, his arguments where still highly intelligent but they did not have the same effect that they would have had if Barney kept a cooler composure throughout.
If you believed pro's arguments that I was emotional and therefore wrong, I really can't fault that line of persuasion since it worked (to be clear, out of the debate I do not fault it; inside the debate I literally prefaced everything with a defense against that likely line of attack).
For future reference, my arguments almost always include a healthy dose of wit. Such as my one Hall of Fame winning debate:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/866-fetuses-as-a-replacement-for-the-usd
Obviously thank you a hundred times over for getting through that, and a hundred more for putting the work into such a thoughtful vote.
Here were some thoughts I had at different points in it...
R1 con:
Seriously, I did not expect so much of this to actually be something pro would want to focus on.
6:00
I'm entertained by the voice selection. Curious how close to that guys actual voice this is. Regardless, wicked program.
10:40
Yup, I introduced the points from a place of arrogance. I did make them (somewhat) warranted with sources.
12:00
My remark on Madison was to decrease nitpicking. The quote from him stood by itself regardless of what anyone may or may not raise about him.
14:00
Glad you enjoyed the contention just before the 13th got going, and also glad you immediately opted against taking it all seriously (I’d be worried if anyone did). And yup, pathos appeals are one of the weapons in my arsonal… Anyways, that paragraph was a satirical shell around a key theme to the debate, which also served as lead-in for the next point.
15:45
Incel is probably a more nuanced term than I realized. I used it for variety. I should have said Men's Rights Activists.
18:30
The logic indeed can be applied to taxation. Atlas Shrugged was largely an exploration of that idea (by a brilliant idiot who wants to bore us all to death… That reminds me of a fun debate I had with one of my philosophy professors on if Rand was an Egoist or not. Their argument was something like yes because the heroes are all about how they shouldn’t have to work for the common good; whereas I argued no because the villains were the embodiment of the Egoist ideals for wanting to just mooch off the contributors).
And I really was hoping for social contract theory. Interesting discussions can happen in that space.
R2 pro:
20:15
I really did not expect such an offense at hyperbole against objectively evil SOBs. That of course influenced my course going forward.
22:40
Not rude against pro, and also 100% truthful with sources to back it up.
23:00
Glad you saw it, and saw it right away… Those were not even meant as big red herrings, I even prefaced the argument with what was important.
Oh that little typo you had for a moment of “abortion is slavery” I have literally heard that from pro-lifers. 🤯
28:20
That was one of pro’s best moments (not that I’d give credit during the debate, instead of pulling the Karen card).
34:40
That was not one of pro’s best moments.
R2 Con:
38:00
Fair! It
38:40
Glad you understood that I was having some fun with that.
Admittedly, I’ve only read the opinions of the justices (the full thing is over 100 pages), and intuitively assume that since it is raised in the context of him trying to have his VP killed, they meant it to apply to that (even if another court takes over from here). But yes, it was an intentional oversimplification to poison the well against the three justices in question.
44:30
This stumped me for a good minute, then I broke out literally laughing aloud!
49:30
I’m getting lost in that thought experiment. I believe conjoined twins have tested the law on killing another sentient being to be free of them (you may not), but I don’t think any slavery angle has been legally used in any cases with merit.
—
R3 Pro:
52:50
Likewise, this will be the last time I take part in such a lengthy debate.
53:49
Outside the debate I wholly agree that it’s not inherently bad that they have religion. But I do stand by it being problematic when it’s required.
57:50
Yo momma so fat, that when she ‘fell out of the sky’ no one thought she was an angel, they thought she was the next extinction event!
1:05:25
1:07:08
Respect.
1:08:45
Knowing how this turns out, it’s good to see someone agreeing with the side they ultimately through strength of arguments votes against.
R3 con:
…
R4:
…
Conclusions:
1:13:25
I appreciate what that vote was trying to do. It’s actually a good place in the development of a voter to consider where sides surpassed each other.
And I agree with your advice to pro for how to beat me next time.
In an early issue of X-Force Kane gets into a fight with Deadpool. Kane knows Deadpool is tougher than him, but he also knows that Deadpool’s most deadly power is his mouth. So he bit down, ignored everything Deadpool said, and just kept focused on hitting him.
Thank you both for voting!
I’ve met a few Muslims who would disagree. Not sure if any are active or not right now.
I was on the road today and tried to finish reading/listening to this, but signal strength was insufficient.
I’d say the big reason is the messiah hadn’t been born yet…hard to write books anbout… even while there were prophecies.
As for poly vs mono… it’s a way they used to say they’re different, but it was also stupid from a language standpoint. Angels exist, if you believe this you’re probably a polytheist. Yes, there’s a high god, but that doesn’t equate to denial of the power of the angels (or any other supernatural beings besides God).
Actually, I can name one religion which might truly be monotheistic… Pastafarianism!
Since it is and it isn't, this is a good topic.
Good topic.
Considering out
Should be
Considering our
Also you should read Eric by Sir Terry Pratchett
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: LogicalDebater01 // Mod action: Not Removed (borderline)
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: conduct to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was borderline. By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient.
We've never considered weights of emojis compared to forfeiting, and they can vary so very much... I don't foresee it becoming a common enough occurrence to impact any debate outcomes.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Owen_T // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: conduct to con
>Reason for Decision: "American debater forfeiture"
>Reason for Mod Action:
Any unexcused forfeited round merits an automatic conduct loss, but arguments must still be voted on or justified as a tie. Repeated forfeitures waives the need to consider arguments (you still may, but by the choice of one side to miss at least 40% of the debate, the requirement ceases. And yes, this does apply to Choose Winner, which otherwise would not allow conduct to be the sole determinant).
Should either side forfeit every round or every round after their initial arguments (waiving is not an argument), the debate is considered a Full Forfeiture, and any majority votes against the absent side are not moderated (a vote may still be cast in their favor of the absentee, but is eligible for moderation to verify that it is justified via the normal voting standards).
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#forfeitures
**************************************************
I'd prefer it if abortion did not occur (barring exceptional circumstances; those I'd also prefer did not occur, but we have to deal with the fact that they do).
I view it as generally a wrong, so I would personally not get an abortion. However...
1. Pineapple on pizza is far more often viewed as wrong, and nothing about it merits legal enforcement.
2. Abortion cannot be a pure wrong, because God is good, and God carried out literally countless abortions (not even talking about miscarriages).
Actually a really complex question to answer, and much of what I began to type touched on topics from the debate (remind me after voting ends and I'll answer in depth).
One thing I can say is that I really think the whole issue gets looked at quite backwards. I don't understand how we can have forced births and not forced vasectomies.