Reason:
Both debaters aren't arguing the resolution. When I read or skim the debate, it is clear they are arguing over whether abortion is murder and therefore wrong or not wrong. That is not the subject of the debate, the subject of the debate is whether personhood begins at conception or not.
We are not here to argue whether abortion is wrong or not wrong. Therefore, whoever stays on topic and argues the resolution the best will get the point for arguments.
Pro starts off appealing to examples of moral consistency and semantics. Personhood begins at conception because the lifeform is already human and will eventually develop to have consciousness, sentience, and emotions. If an action interferes with this potential by stopping it, then this action is defined as a harm. Pro argues that a fetus deserves the same moral consideration as an adult because their value and worth are not different. If killing an adult human or an infant is wrong, then the same is true for fetuses. Pro contends with the idea that abortion is acceptable, but euthanizing coma patients is murder by pointing out that any justification or argument someone applies to not killing a coma patient can also be used to save the life of a fetus. That intelligence and sentience do not determine whether a person is worthy of moral consideration.
(Pro doesn't give a strong justification for why murder is wrong and why humans fall into the category of personhoods, even if I buy that fetuses are human. We could also use a judging criteria for what to consider moral consideration. Proportional harm/benefit, context, and the method is too vaguely defined.)
Con begins very strongly. Con cleverly points out that Pro's own concept he gives for personhood is self-refuting. Specifically, the example where murdering a human is worse than murdering a pig. Con's point here is that pro's version of personhood contains qualities of exceptionalism that give it unfair privilege over other species. Con defines the qualities that constitute personhood.: Sentience, autonomy, and critical thinking. Con reasons that a zygote possesses none of these qualities and therefore has no moral value. Con's arguments also begin to go off-topic and are irrelevant, such as when he mentions that banning abortion harms women. This is outside the scope of the debate because this does nothing to tell me why or why zygotes aren't persons. Con's rebuttal against Pro's Uncertainty Principle does not refute the example. While Pro didn't define what he considers personhood, he did clearly describe an example of harm as something that ends life.) Con also breaks the conduct rule by describing Pro's example as moronic and name-dropping him directly to accuse him of lying.
Pro argues that all humans are persons, regardless of their stage of development. And that according to the social contract, a human killing another human is more immoral than a human killing another pig and that the consensus for moral value is not defined by an intelligence gap. Pro defends that fetuses are worthy of moral consideration by mentioning their potentiality. Con argues there is no reason to give moral consideration to imaginary future people, but Pro has refuted this by explaining that fetuses are already living people.
Given the debate, the victory does seem to be slightly in Pro's favor but only slightly, as this debate could have went any way. Pro didn't need to define killing as wrong, he needed to establish a criteria regarding what makes someone worthy of moral consideration and what doesn't. Con is the only one to do this, and if Pro didn't pushback with counter-examples and inconsistencies in society's morals, Con would have won this.
Conduct goes to Pro because there are a couple of times Con disrespects Pro in this discussion. Both sides scored equal on sources and legibility, as both provided a similar volume of links and had consistent spelling & grammar.
If either of you get a little time, the first vote on this could do with a review.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/5383-child-marriages-should-be-illegal-for-bestkorea?open_tab=votes&votes_page=1&vote_number=1
Neither side uses the phrase Imago Dei. Even if you don’t like that phrase, it lends credibility… kinda like a debate over that guy in a top hat who liked the theater and didn’t like slavery; knowing the name Abraham Lincoln can condense so far much.
Timothy should not be used as biblical evidence. If you’re going to use fan fiction, why not hot erotic fan fiction?
It took me a bit to understand what con is going for. I’ll probably come back and finish reading then vote, after I’ve had a beer or two.
Exactly komrade, further we shall all receive equal shares of the food. Some of us are just more equal than others... And by giving it to me, I shall ensure it trickles down to everyone; even those in Ukraine shall be fed in this manner... Well, fed their "equal" share, which is in no way genocide.
Good to know that with one act of doing nothing, I can lengthen my ____.
---
A better way to request votes is to post this debate to: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3492-vote-requests
It's no guarantee of course, but is a little more likely to be seen.
Been over a month, no other mod is getting to it... But of course anyone is welcome to appeal.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Barney // Mod action: Not Removed (non-moderated debate)
>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 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
**************************************************
Please stop. You can initiate a rap battle and have all that hate inside the rounds, but the comments section does not have the same protections for what would otherwise be targeted harassment.
This isn't proclaiming you can't make a witty remark at someone's expense (note that no one else is tagged...). The issue isn't wit, it's poison.
The fancy uppercut would help in combat situations. Saying one option doesn't help except for one thing, leaves the other option worse for not even having one thing listed.
Please add a touch more comparative detail to your votes.
Your vote has been deleted for vagueness. This wasn’t much of a debate, so little more is needed, but the debate isn’t an obvious foregone conclusion to allow for such little consideration.
Not sure the context, but there is no rule against quotation.
Possibly thematically related, anyone who has “honor” as a common part of their vocabulary, cannot stand to be quoted, because it’s an insult to their honor to accuse them of saying the things they said.
Thank you for the detailed vote. And even more so for agreeing with me that my conduct was atrocious, plus ridiculously immature (which I didn't think of the maturity level, but it's a fair assessment).
Your vote is also a great example of what I believe to be optimal thought process for voting on closely matched debates.
I will say it was such a minor removal to not go into the moderation log (how we denote a habit to build toward removing voting privileges). It was done in part to encourage greater (or in this case any) detail in future.
> "He was saying my songs made him feel better."
I don't know eastern spiritually to know that, nor was there enough context for me to figure it out. The vote was a little like Vickie's plan in The Good Place of "Needles!"
But yes, me not understanding the vote (at least one within this category), means I should have passed it onto another moderator. If there was then a joint "WTF is this even trying to say?" then removal would have been appropriate. Which is a long way to say: Yes I over moderated, and that was wrong of me. Sorry.
As has been mentioned before, FishChaser is welcome to revote. A single note beyond an eastern spiritually buzzword (which did not come up in the debate) would be plenty to improve it.
Were he to revote with literally the same vote, it would be an implicit appeal of the prior decision (especially given some of the comments), so another moderator would have to make the new determination.
To the person who reported this debate: I agree with all negative sentiments toward it.
Muslims idolize a warlord who was also a pedo. This violates the rule:
“You may not engage in or promote the sexual exploitation of minors.”
However rules are somewhat context dependent. The context of both a mythological/historical figure, and that of a debate, makes it something that would be unhealthy for the site if we limited debates to topics we don’t find repugnant.
At the same time, the topic is so ugly that it’s hard for the comments to be worse than the base level it creates.
Additionally, while I’m pretty sure I used to have less chill and banned some deplorable users for being deplorable… It can be beneficial for certain things to be exposed to the harsh light of day, so that they may be figuratively lynched by logic.
I have not. Due to repeated complaints about how biased I am against child rapists, another moderator should be requested to review any CoC violations.
If either of you happen to be on, I am somewhat ill suited to judge the following vote which was reported: https://www.debateart.com/debates/5321/votes/10114
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: FishChaser // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro
>Reason for Decision: "I got a better feeling in my chakras from Mharman's songs."
>Reason for Mod Action:
Even while this debate falls into a non-moderated category, there are occasionally exceptions.
Since neither debater mentions chakras, and AFAIK likewise with their songs, the vote ends up feeling like one cast without regard for the debate itself.
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.
**************************************************
My thoughts are much the same. Can doesn't mean should.
I'm sure con already covered it, but each food type has a definition. Leave a smoothie in the blender too long as it ceases to be a smoothie, but is converted to soup.
I personally advise against suicide. I don't know you, but most problems pass with time. You could move away to Alaska working seasonal gigs for example, and establish a new life without the current people (assuming they're part of the problem).
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Barney // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
For any non-moderator the vote would be fine. As a moderator, I'd grade it as at worst borderline.
The problem becomes that I keep second guessing it, and in light of that I've realized that paid too much attention to factors not presented inside the debate.
The big thing is I generally treated this debate as comedy. In comedy dildos win by a landslide, just because of the image of someone holding one (an image not presented by either debater). This isn't to say pro did not do a good job showing how they can poke someone in the eye in a fight, and keep the family together, but I'm not even sure if I graded the sanitation issues con raised to counter them.
That said, I can revote, and I still /might/, but I have a couple projects to focus on this weekend and have to complete them first before I lose myself in this debate.
**************************************************
#1
Reason:
I'm pretty close to the fence on this one. They talked past each other more than I would have liked, with pro being the worse offender. Plus by a good margin I prefer con's structure. I'd have liked more details in the setup, as maybe one more round.
To me the pan obviously beats the kettle.
It's taking me a bit to put my finger on it, but the dildo comes ahead of the textbook largely for feeling that it's valuable within one's life, whereas the text book is treated as something to be gotten rid of quickly with no focus on uses if kept (and both paths could be explored in the same debate; just not assuming both at once). And there was this weirdness of the desire to get rid of the book to acquire a dildo and kettle (that intuitively says it's better to have those things than a textbook).
---
Singular or plural: Singular
I initially thought pro was over reacting when talking about scope, but cross checking the resolution he's got a valid point that it's singular items instead of groups of them.
"Not all of them and one of every variety" goes against the grain of a few of his points, such as some dildos vibrate, but I get it. It's not the selective best for each possible situation, were this a video game then it'd just one potentially randomized set for a roguelike dungeon.
Con argues we should look more at the types of people who would have these items (someone with a book is most likely someone who will earn more money), but that feels just outside the direct scope. This is implicitly backed by his own arguments about cleaning difficulties and potential partners might not be into tea/coffee/pegging (we don't assume they have the perfect partner and special cleaning supplies).
Earnings: Textbook
Con argues schoolbooks are better because education is good for earnings, and is able to hold some ground that there's good value in even a single one. While it's argued items should be sold to buy the items of the other side, that feels like a needless kritik which concludes with (pan + kettle + dildo) > (kettle + dildo), which feels outside the spirit and scope of the debate.
Pro argues at least 3 are needed to actually pass those classes, which doesn't undermine the ~$55 value, but it defends well against the assumed better lifetime earning potential.
NOTE: Students tend to have debt, which pro should have used as a backup to his scope arguments.
Defense: Pan
Surprised it took until the final round before the rarity of these situations was mentioned.
Kettles can be used for physical fitness if no other tools are available, and that makes you far better at defending yourself (seems unlikely for the average person, even while it's a cool historical note). They also risk burning yourself if hot, but can be an unpredictable and unexpected improvised weapon to be wielded in a variety of wars (handle, power cord, used with a towel, etc,).
A dildo can poke a robber in the eye, block a knife swing, or even shield yourself from guns... Useful, but none of it implies actually winning such a fight (the shock factor of it would have worked)
The pan on the other hand is properly suited as a weapon, such that an old man could fend off a crocodile (I'd have preferred less focus on this one example). Honestly, a lot of it boils down (pun intended) to the simple likelihood of successful use without hurting yourself.
Cooking: Pan
It can pretty much cook anything. The kettle can likewise do a lot, but there's nothing it can cook that a pan cannot (even if suboptimal for boiling water).
Cleaning: Kettle
A kettle assists with cleaning nearly everything; it can even potentially be paired up with the dildo /somehow/.
Relations: Dildo
While the pan can cook a nice meal, the dildo apparently holds families together etc. Con accused pro's claim of making up for a micropenis to be from personal experience, and then acted as if he had depended a source; which is not the same thing. Also not sure why a man being gay would be a problem, not that a men pleasuring themselves makes them gay; but I did understand the point of highlighting insecurities.
A big mistake con makes is even at the end he treats the assumption of finding partners for the dildo as a likely occurrence "PRO wants us to live as broke coffeine and sex addicts"
FYI, by creating this debate you are implicitly suspending certain rules which are there for your protection. Hopefully it will be a clean case so it doesn't matter, but I don't want you going in without being warned.
Hero_In_Instatute
04.12.2024 09:44PM
Reason:
Both debaters aren't arguing the resolution. When I read or skim the debate, it is clear they are arguing over whether abortion is murder and therefore wrong or not wrong. That is not the subject of the debate, the subject of the debate is whether personhood begins at conception or not.
We are not here to argue whether abortion is wrong or not wrong. Therefore, whoever stays on topic and argues the resolution the best will get the point for arguments.
Pro starts off appealing to examples of moral consistency and semantics. Personhood begins at conception because the lifeform is already human and will eventually develop to have consciousness, sentience, and emotions. If an action interferes with this potential by stopping it, then this action is defined as a harm. Pro argues that a fetus deserves the same moral consideration as an adult because their value and worth are not different. If killing an adult human or an infant is wrong, then the same is true for fetuses. Pro contends with the idea that abortion is acceptable, but euthanizing coma patients is murder by pointing out that any justification or argument someone applies to not killing a coma patient can also be used to save the life of a fetus. That intelligence and sentience do not determine whether a person is worthy of moral consideration.
(Pro doesn't give a strong justification for why murder is wrong and why humans fall into the category of personhoods, even if I buy that fetuses are human. We could also use a judging criteria for what to consider moral consideration. Proportional harm/benefit, context, and the method is too vaguely defined.)
Con begins very strongly. Con cleverly points out that Pro's own concept he gives for personhood is self-refuting. Specifically, the example where murdering a human is worse than murdering a pig. Con's point here is that pro's version of personhood contains qualities of exceptionalism that give it unfair privilege over other species. Con defines the qualities that constitute personhood.: Sentience, autonomy, and critical thinking. Con reasons that a zygote possesses none of these qualities and therefore has no moral value. Con's arguments also begin to go off-topic and are irrelevant, such as when he mentions that banning abortion harms women. This is outside the scope of the debate because this does nothing to tell me why or why zygotes aren't persons. Con's rebuttal against Pro's Uncertainty Principle does not refute the example. While Pro didn't define what he considers personhood, he did clearly describe an example of harm as something that ends life.) Con also breaks the conduct rule by describing Pro's example as moronic and name-dropping him directly to accuse him of lying.
Pro argues that all humans are persons, regardless of their stage of development. And that according to the social contract, a human killing another human is more immoral than a human killing another pig and that the consensus for moral value is not defined by an intelligence gap. Pro defends that fetuses are worthy of moral consideration by mentioning their potentiality. Con argues there is no reason to give moral consideration to imaginary future people, but Pro has refuted this by explaining that fetuses are already living people.
Given the debate, the victory does seem to be slightly in Pro's favor but only slightly, as this debate could have went any way. Pro didn't need to define killing as wrong, he needed to establish a criteria regarding what makes someone worthy of moral consideration and what doesn't. Con is the only one to do this, and if Pro didn't pushback with counter-examples and inconsistencies in society's morals, Con would have won this.
Conduct goes to Pro because there are a couple of times Con disrespects Pro in this discussion. Both sides scored equal on sources and legibility, as both provided a similar volume of links and had consistent spelling & grammar.
If either of you get a little time, the first vote on this could do with a review.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/5383-child-marriages-should-be-illegal-for-bestkorea?open_tab=votes&votes_page=1&vote_number=1
Of course you're both welcome to nominate anyone you'd like for that task.
This debate is going into the HoF, would anyone care to provide a write-up on it?
This debate is going into the HoF, would anyone care to provide a write-up on it?
Initial thoughts:
Neither side uses the phrase Imago Dei. Even if you don’t like that phrase, it lends credibility… kinda like a debate over that guy in a top hat who liked the theater and didn’t like slavery; knowing the name Abraham Lincoln can condense so far much.
Timothy should not be used as biblical evidence. If you’re going to use fan fiction, why not hot erotic fan fiction?
It took me a bit to understand what con is going for. I’ll probably come back and finish reading then vote, after I’ve had a beer or two.
Exactly komrade, further we shall all receive equal shares of the food. Some of us are just more equal than others... And by giving it to me, I shall ensure it trickles down to everyone; even those in Ukraine shall be fed in this manner... Well, fed their "equal" share, which is in no way genocide.
Good to know that with one act of doing nothing, I can lengthen my ____.
---
A better way to request votes is to post this debate to: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3492-vote-requests
It's no guarantee of course, but is a little more likely to be seen.
Been over a month, no other mod is getting to it... But of course anyone is welcome to appeal.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Barney // Mod action: Not Removed (non-moderated debate)
>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 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
**************************************************
You may wish to clarify in the description.
Oh God, just saw some of the reports...
Please stop. You can initiate a rap battle and have all that hate inside the rounds, but the comments section does not have the same protections for what would otherwise be targeted harassment.
This isn't proclaiming you can't make a witty remark at someone's expense (note that no one else is tagged...). The issue isn't wit, it's poison.
The fancy uppercut would help in combat situations. Saying one option doesn't help except for one thing, leaves the other option worse for not even having one thing listed.
Please add a touch more comparative detail to your votes.
-> "🤷 🤷"
I can interpret this emoji to be hands raised in concession. The debate was conceded, so voted against the conceding side are generally not moderated.
The person who reported it was neither of the debaters, so not sure if they ever called you that... But I agree with the sentiment.
-> “ Cash out.”
It’s an FF debate, so the vote is fine. There are limitless ways to say full forfeiture, and they’re all valid.
-> “ what. pro offered zero proof”
Your vote has been deleted for vagueness. This wasn’t much of a debate, so little more is needed, but the debate isn’t an obvious foregone conclusion to allow for such little consideration.
Minor nitpick: Here those are referred to as extensions, rather than forfeitures.
Not sure the context, but there is no rule against quotation.
Possibly thematically related, anyone who has “honor” as a common part of their vocabulary, cannot stand to be quoted, because it’s an insult to their honor to accuse them of saying the things they said.
200 character limit… very tight
Thank you both for the quality votes!
Thank you for the detailed vote. And even more so for agreeing with me that my conduct was atrocious, plus ridiculously immature (which I didn't think of the maturity level, but it's a fair assessment).
Your vote is also a great example of what I believe to be optimal thought process for voting on closely matched debates.
https://youtu.be/vBJPlhnF3ao?si=EwW_U9cjdGnog-rd
> "I disagree with the removal."
I will say it was such a minor removal to not go into the moderation log (how we denote a habit to build toward removing voting privileges). It was done in part to encourage greater (or in this case any) detail in future.
> "He was saying my songs made him feel better."
I don't know eastern spiritually to know that, nor was there enough context for me to figure it out. The vote was a little like Vickie's plan in The Good Place of "Needles!"
But yes, me not understanding the vote (at least one within this category), means I should have passed it onto another moderator. If there was then a joint "WTF is this even trying to say?" then removal would have been appropriate. Which is a long way to say: Yes I over moderated, and that was wrong of me. Sorry.
As has been mentioned before, FishChaser is welcome to revote. A single note beyond an eastern spiritually buzzword (which did not come up in the debate) would be plenty to improve it.
Were he to revote with literally the same vote, it would be an implicit appeal of the prior decision (especially given some of the comments), so another moderator would have to make the new determination.
> "because it seems like not all will fit"
A clear implicit argument against child marriage.
To the person who reported this debate: I agree with all negative sentiments toward it.
Muslims idolize a warlord who was also a pedo. This violates the rule:
“You may not engage in or promote the sexual exploitation of minors.”
However rules are somewhat context dependent. The context of both a mythological/historical figure, and that of a debate, makes it something that would be unhealthy for the site if we limited debates to topics we don’t find repugnant.
At the same time, the topic is so ugly that it’s hard for the comments to be worse than the base level it creates.
Additionally, while I’m pretty sure I used to have less chill and banned some deplorable users for being deplorable… It can be beneficial for certain things to be exposed to the harsh light of day, so that they may be figuratively lynched by logic.
Both people are being major dicks to each other. Thankfully neither of them is underage.
While assigning zero points, my RFD is ready:
🤢🤮🤢🤮🤢🤮🤢🤮🤢
12 hours remain for you to post an argument.
I have not. Due to repeated complaints about how biased I am against child rapists, another moderator should be requested to review any CoC violations.
If either of you happen to be on, I am somewhat ill suited to judge the following vote which was reported: https://www.debateart.com/debates/5321/votes/10114
Were this in the forums, I'd have to lock the thread.
There's only a small window in which you may delete your own vote. That said, if you ask any moderator for assistance, we'll be happy to help.
Do I need to send an ambulance to check on you, given that you may have just over strained yourself coming up with such an /oh so original/ insult?
If this remains unvoted in say a week, someone remind me and I'll break the tie.
Started reading this, and I'm instantly reminded of an old SNL skit starring Tom Brady: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxuUkYiaUc8
Any sources you wish to add?
> "You deleted my vote because you're a corrupt mod with anti-favoritism towards me and not because of the vote itself."
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-dont-even-know-who-you-are
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: FishChaser // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro
>Reason for Decision: "I got a better feeling in my chakras from Mharman's songs."
>Reason for Mod Action:
Even while this debate falls into a non-moderated category, there are occasionally exceptions.
Since neither debater mentions chakras, and AFAIK likewise with their songs, the vote ends up feeling like one cast without regard for the debate itself.
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.
**************************************************
The resolution and BoP statements are slightly misaligned.
My thoughts are much the same. Can doesn't mean should.
I'm sure con already covered it, but each food type has a definition. Leave a smoothie in the blender too long as it ceases to be a smoothie, but is converted to soup.
FYI, as a friendly reminder, you're down to less than three hours to post your argument.
/projection, gaslighting
Things can also be engaging, but require real effort if judging them.
Be forewarned: I am preparing an insult so good, that you'll be seeing red!
I had meant to vote on this, and it looks like a run read; but too much going on right now.
I personally advise against suicide. I don't know you, but most problems pass with time. You could move away to Alaska working seasonal gigs for example, and establish a new life without the current people (assuming they're part of the problem).
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Barney // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
For any non-moderator the vote would be fine. As a moderator, I'd grade it as at worst borderline.
The problem becomes that I keep second guessing it, and in light of that I've realized that paid too much attention to factors not presented inside the debate.
The big thing is I generally treated this debate as comedy. In comedy dildos win by a landslide, just because of the image of someone holding one (an image not presented by either debater). This isn't to say pro did not do a good job showing how they can poke someone in the eye in a fight, and keep the family together, but I'm not even sure if I graded the sanitation issues con raised to counter them.
That said, I can revote, and I still /might/, but I have a couple projects to focus on this weekend and have to complete them first before I lose myself in this debate.
**************************************************
Barney
02.26.2024 01:05AM
#1
Reason:
I'm pretty close to the fence on this one. They talked past each other more than I would have liked, with pro being the worse offender. Plus by a good margin I prefer con's structure. I'd have liked more details in the setup, as maybe one more round.
To me the pan obviously beats the kettle.
It's taking me a bit to put my finger on it, but the dildo comes ahead of the textbook largely for feeling that it's valuable within one's life, whereas the text book is treated as something to be gotten rid of quickly with no focus on uses if kept (and both paths could be explored in the same debate; just not assuming both at once). And there was this weirdness of the desire to get rid of the book to acquire a dildo and kettle (that intuitively says it's better to have those things than a textbook).
---
Singular or plural: Singular
I initially thought pro was over reacting when talking about scope, but cross checking the resolution he's got a valid point that it's singular items instead of groups of them.
"Not all of them and one of every variety" goes against the grain of a few of his points, such as some dildos vibrate, but I get it. It's not the selective best for each possible situation, were this a video game then it'd just one potentially randomized set for a roguelike dungeon.
Con argues we should look more at the types of people who would have these items (someone with a book is most likely someone who will earn more money), but that feels just outside the direct scope. This is implicitly backed by his own arguments about cleaning difficulties and potential partners might not be into tea/coffee/pegging (we don't assume they have the perfect partner and special cleaning supplies).
Earnings: Textbook
Con argues schoolbooks are better because education is good for earnings, and is able to hold some ground that there's good value in even a single one. While it's argued items should be sold to buy the items of the other side, that feels like a needless kritik which concludes with (pan + kettle + dildo) > (kettle + dildo), which feels outside the spirit and scope of the debate.
Pro argues at least 3 are needed to actually pass those classes, which doesn't undermine the ~$55 value, but it defends well against the assumed better lifetime earning potential.
NOTE: Students tend to have debt, which pro should have used as a backup to his scope arguments.
Defense: Pan
Surprised it took until the final round before the rarity of these situations was mentioned.
Kettles can be used for physical fitness if no other tools are available, and that makes you far better at defending yourself (seems unlikely for the average person, even while it's a cool historical note). They also risk burning yourself if hot, but can be an unpredictable and unexpected improvised weapon to be wielded in a variety of wars (handle, power cord, used with a towel, etc,).
A dildo can poke a robber in the eye, block a knife swing, or even shield yourself from guns... Useful, but none of it implies actually winning such a fight (the shock factor of it would have worked)
The pan on the other hand is properly suited as a weapon, such that an old man could fend off a crocodile (I'd have preferred less focus on this one example). Honestly, a lot of it boils down (pun intended) to the simple likelihood of successful use without hurting yourself.
Cooking: Pan
It can pretty much cook anything. The kettle can likewise do a lot, but there's nothing it can cook that a pan cannot (even if suboptimal for boiling water).
Cleaning: Kettle
A kettle assists with cleaning nearly everything; it can even potentially be paired up with the dildo /somehow/.
Relations: Dildo
While the pan can cook a nice meal, the dildo apparently holds families together etc. Con accused pro's claim of making up for a micropenis to be from personal experience, and then acted as if he had depended a source; which is not the same thing. Also not sure why a man being gay would be a problem, not that a men pleasuring themselves makes them gay; but I did understand the point of highlighting insecurities.
A big mistake con makes is even at the end he treats the assumption of finding partners for the dildo as a likely occurrence "PRO wants us to live as broke coffeine and sex addicts"
FYI, by creating this debate you are implicitly suspending certain rules which are there for your protection. Hopefully it will be a clean case so it doesn't matter, but I don't want you going in without being warned.
Good points!