RationalMadman
07.18.2023 05:53PM
Reason:
Until the voting mods fix a major issue or make this unrated, I counter Sting's vote and don't give a shit about this 'diet battle' as I find the idea more ridiculous than anything if you ask me.
We don't know each other's reasons for liking, affording or eating certain diets. That's our own business.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Sting // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to pro
>Reason for Decision: Pro has healthier meals
>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.
**************************************************
lancelot has better lyrics and disses. they were easy for me to understand. macman doesn’t know how to write very good or carry a tune, his lyrics were very choppy, but it’s ok because not everyone listens to rap
all of the rounds got very brutal and poetic so i give disses and lyrics to lancelot. he also makes more sense so he gets better flow but macman uses more rhymes.
---RFD---
Headings would help this debate a lot.
tiny.ccy/debateart
I like the focus on just one taboo drug.
Pro opens with strong warrants for the drug being comparatively safe. A lot of comparisons to another drug which is a controlled substance, so scope creep to that one is inevitable; oddly con complains about that, how pro's case could be applied to various other drugs, which pro was up front about his belief there.
Safety:
Pro argues the main side effect is constipation. With regulations side effects from other substances would disappear, etc.
Built into this point is far reaching problems with the current system of illegality, which results in poison being sold as heroin.
Alcohol:
Con argues alcohol is worse than heroin, therefore heroin should be illegal. Non-sequitur, or as pro puts it: "His rant about alcohol doesn’t mean what he thinks it means."
Con insists legalizing alcohol lead to more deaths but does not back it up with any evidence.
Sex:
Con argues that only things necessary for life should be legal, such as sex. Pro counters that sex is done for enjoyment.
Sources:
This goes to pro by a mile. Lots of .gov and .edu sources, to inform us how safe real heroin is; verses con telling us to go google some graphs he saw somewhere.
Pro had unwarranted assertions, and abandoned the debate once I took it seriously in R3.
That I needed to take it seriously at all is a huge compliment to his skill level.
In order to win, he’d basically have had to prove Native Americans do not exist. This is in addition to the hole in his logic which reduced the number of genders to just one; which he had no defense against.
#2
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
My voting structure:
Convincing arguments = diss quality/relevance
sources = rhyme/flow
legibility = wordplay
conduct = the opposite of what it usually means (bigger asshole wins)
Pro starts out brutal but without even rhyming his lines. If it wasn't such a vicious attack I would call it pathetic. He finally starts rhyming and the round one disses are good but how will things progress? With Rational pulling things like rhyming sidekick 30 lightyears away from "tried it" lol. Rational better be able to rap really fast with the way he writes but I'm not buying it.
From round one we can see that RM is clearly superior rhyme wise. He carries a rhyme scheme much further while staying relevant. In round two Lancelot continues not rhyming. I was less impressed (if you can call it "impressed" in the first place) with RM's round 2.
Then in round 3 Lancelot comes with a lot of meh-taphors and is much less brutal. RM attempts to clarify his flow, puns and rhymes but idk wtf kind of accent he must have to make some of that rhyme properly or what super-ingenious flow he's supposedly using.
I read the whole thing. Neither side made me want to side with them in the flamewar and neither side used good wordplay.
--- RFD (1 of 2)---
While I strongly disagree, pro soundly takes the win. A couple shaky ideas, but a strong case that a fetus is greater than or equal to a fully developed person in importance.
Sources are overwhelmingly in his favor, going into overkill, but not feeling like source spam. His source for a fetus not being part of the mother, soundly unmade one of cons few good points. Con comparatively had a few, a couple tossed at the end of a round feeling like source spam, and others which were from a copy/paste off wikipedia (which he didn't even cite).
Conduct gets shaky at the very end, with a last ditch appeal from con (which really should have been his opening argument), but I don't feel that it sways things enough even while being of note.
---
Glad to see exceptions outlined in the description. Going in, that already lifts this out of the gutter.
R1:
Pro completely dominated this. Con responding to just one of pro's arguments, gave the impression of dropping the others; he would have been better off just making his case (and it needed to be expanded) with a statement that he would respond to pro's in R2. I really don't think con will recover from this.
R2:
Pro basically extends.
Con makes a good comeback at the start.
R3:
Pro defends quite well, using authoratative sources to blow holes in cons comback (not going to outline it in great detail due to what follows).
Con misrepresents pro's case, betting the whole thing on legal definitions of murder (which as I mention below on 5., pro thought ahead on).
---
"having one’s lifespan reduced is a harm"
This is something missing from most of these debates. Usually it falls to Karen's hurt feelings, but pro makes a harm and makes it hold sway even for those who do not feel pain.
"Uncertainty Principle"
Also a smart thing for pro to outline, as it pre-defends against any outright dismissals of the value of the fetus.
1. Killing Human Beings is Wrong
Human life has value, more so if they're young due to remaining time span.
Con argues the starting point for consciousness is the 18th week, and abortion should be stopped at the 14th week (long after conception which this debate is about, but even further away from birth). He argues the baby born in a coma need not be kept alive if there is no possibility of it recovering (contextually seems to imply a brainless body, missing that anencephaly was one of the exceptions pro made for abortion being allowed), and that creates a difference.
Pro defends on potentiality being of utmost importance, and compares abortion to murdering coma patients. He weirdly attacks the possibility of recovery point (see anencephaly above). And insists that con believes all organisms with the possibility to achieve consciousness in the future are already people. He attacks con for poor reasoning for why a child is worth more than a fetus.
"If a woman has tried for years to conceive and finally becomes pregnant," this bares a little reflecting on... It seems like pro thinks that's the type of woman who is seeking an abortion... I doubt con will catch the absurdity of that notation. Also clearly if you have only one child from years of effort, that one is proportionately more valuable to you than one from a set of ten would be to someone else.
Con comes back strong with bulletpoints outlining why he believes a fetus and an infant are different.
2. Future Like Ours
Coma analogy, this belonged as a subpoint of 1.
3. Continuous Development
Pro argues that for simplicity all humans should be considered persons, regardless of form etc. I will say he cleverly layers in that adults are the same person as they were in utero, thereby anchoring the idea that it's a person even then.
4. Harm of Removing Potential:
Pro compares abortion to willful maiming of children (this has some good implications on circumcision debates). And does a logically valid syllogism.
5. Killing vs. Letting Die:
Pro pre-defends the bodily autonomy arguments, with a logially valid syllogism that if someone causes someone else to need their body to survive, and then denies them that access, it is murder (well equivalent anyway).
Pro is very smart to use the equivalency qualifier on murder, and it pre-defends against legal definitions.
6. Duty to Save:
Pro argues there is a duty to save a drowning child, even if mildly inconvenient. (I will note our teachers had very different opinions of virtue ethics)
Pro goes on to compare it to infanticide in ancient times.
7. Effects of an Abortion Ban:
Pro makes a strong case that abortion bans do decrease the rate of abortion. This pre-defends against coat hanger arguments.
Pro slips into needless offense, comparing the very idea of abortion to pedophilia (it's a particularly bad note to end a round on).
8. Mothers and Abortions:
Con implies negative utility lives if women are forced into motherhood, and that the need to punish disproportionately to crime is illogical.
Pro defends that he has not gone into a misogynistic rant, and insists quality of life does not outweigh life itself.
Con brings up overpopulation.
9. Inconsistent Moral Values:
Con makes a pathos appeal against the pro-life movement, for inflicting suffering on children via abandonment.
Con suggests unwilling mothers will resort to infanticide.
"This is an ad hominem fallacy, and it’s not even directed at me." Not an ad hominem fallacy if it's not directed at you. It's a weakly done political kritik. ... Anyways, pro does fine in defending this as off topic.
10. There is nothing human about a brainless body:
Got to say, I know where con wanted to go with this but it fell short. This feeds directly into responses to 1., addressing it there.
11. Light bulbs
This is tied to 1., but that it getting big... In R2 con blows this thing up, with a house analogy foundation vs the finished thing, to adequately show waste beyond just a sunk cost fallacy.
Pro defends that there is no morally significant difference between the two.
I suggest studying this one:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/4552-thbt-on-balance-abortion-should-be-illegal-in-the-united-states-from-the-point-of-conception-%5Bfor-austinl0926%5D
Got to pick a friend up from the airport, but here's the start of my notes on this debate.
---
Glad to see exceptions outlined in the description. Going in, that already lifts this out of the gutter.
"having one’s lifespan reduced is a harm"
This is something missing from most of these debates. Usually it falls to Karen's hurt feelings, but pro makes a harm and makes it hold sway even for those who do not feel pain.
"Uncertainty Principle"
Also a smart thing for pro to outline, as it pre-defends against any outright dismissals of the value of the fetus.
1. Killing Human Beings is Wrong
Human life has value, more so if they're young due to remaining time span.
2. Future Like Ours
Coma analogy, this belonged as a subpoint of 1.
3. Continuous Development
Pro argues that for simplicity all humans should be considered persons, regardless of form etc. I will say he cleverly layers in that adults are the same person as they were in utero, thereby anchoring the idea that it's a person even then.
4. Harm of Removing Potential:
Pro compares abortion to willful maiming of children (this has some good implications on circumcision debates). And does a logically valid syllogism.
5. Killing vs. Letting Die:
Pro pre-defends the bodily autonomy arguments, with a logially valid syllogism that if someone causes someone else to need their body to survive, and then denies them that access, it is murder (well equivalent anyway).
Pro is very smart to use the equivalency qualifier on murder, and it pre-defends against legal definitions.
As the instigator you’re already at a slight disadvantage, since the other side gets the last word
Letting them effectively get the first word in too, can be hard to overcome.
Without reading cons reply, let me guess… aborting them can’t make them cease to exist. Rather it sends them straight to heaven. FYI, the he Amish believe this about dead babies, it’s something to be celebrated instead of mourned l; at least up until some weird thing of poking it with a brush and it hits back.
As for the physical discomfort, more is attained with pregnancy and birth.
and God? Oh god, any mediocre debater could have a field day with that, just consider how many abortions God performs per year. RM will probably keep it simple with something along the lines of “unfounded opinion.”
Great description. Honestly where I stand with abortion… I think with the current setup I. The USA it would be a crime against at humanity for the government to step in (FYI, I get used to force abortions!), but still, ideally it would not occur.
Anyone else notice something strange with the Jedis when it comes to family?
This scene isn't as bad as I remembered it, but come on, you're in bed with Natalie Portman, and get all sweaty thinking about your mother?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1v-vMCUvDTE
I will agree with con that he likely would have reverted had he lived.
There was some old comic where he lived and became a rebel hero, with his costume painted white... Lame!
However, he basically got Luke to assist in killing himself, before that could happen. And as pro pointed out, he was at the moment of his death good enough to become a Force Ghost.
By the way, Anakin was not created by the force, because Sidious is a mother fucker.
Con is only right about Red Pill predating Andrew Tate (and maybe the blue pill stuff, never heard of it before).
Red Pill 💊 stems from incel culture, it is not about self improvement, because women suck and won’t suck on you no matter what unless you were born muscular with a 12” erection which took the doctors eye out. Basically what con refers to as black pill. They openly believe women are a type of non-sentient animal, etc.etc. Usually some racism tossed into the mix just so they can complete failing to be more than a bad stereotype.
Black Pill refers to the conclusion for Incels of killings themselves. Studies on this cultural subset are inconclusive (particularly the success rate), but Incels praise those brave enough to go swallow the black pill.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: jamgiller // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 5 to con
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
I literally only read the first paragraph... I do hope it was con who caught the misrepresentation of studies; but alas, there is a more glaring problem...
It needs to be said that bad arguments are already punished under arguments, so there is no need to double dip to assign them against conduct as well. Even if they were generally bad conduct, they were at least arguments, unlike the forfeitures. Making someone sit around a full week is quite rude, and it was done multiple times. Withholding of that point where is clearly against your majority awardee, is strong evidence of overwhelming bias.
Conduct is an optional award as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, such as extreme unsportsmanlike or outright toxic behavior which distracted from the topical debate.
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
**************************************************
#3
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Reason:
Pro seriously misrepresented the scientific studies they cited. Although the actual content of the sources seems to be reliable, Pro is an extremely unreliable communicator, as I will explain below. Since Pro's entire argument is based on their attempt to use scientific data, and they failed to use it properly, I must give arguments to Con, even though the latter forfeited two rounds. At least Con made reasonable arguments based on correctly interpreting the studies they cited.
Addressing Pro's most egregious misrepresentations of the scientific literature:
1. The study that Pro cites for the rates of Serious Adverse Events (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2022.08.036) directly contradicts the resolution of the debate as specifically defined by Pro. In the study's Introduction, the authors write: "Our study was not designed to evaluate the overall harm-benefit of vaccination programs so far." More importantly, the author's Discussion describes the implications and limitations of their study in detail, and closes with the following:
"We emphasize that our investigation is preliminary, to point to the need for more involved analysis. The risks of serious AESIs in the trials represent only group averages. SAEs are unlikely to be distributed equally across the demographic subgroups enrolled in the trial, and the risks may be substantially less in some groups compared to others. Thus, knowing the actual demographics of those who experienced an increase in serious AESI in the vaccine group is necessary for a proper harm-benefit analysis."
Therefore, the very study that Pro tried to use to prove the resolution actually shows that we have not yet learned whether COVID vaccines have done more harm than good. I advise those who read this to review the Discussion section of the paper, which provides serious coverage of this topic.
2. Pro cited the study described above under the heading "UK", and compared the SAE rates to estimates of numbers needed to vaccinate from UK data. However, the study described above is based on data from North America. It is incorrect and misleading to directly compare medical studies of sample groups from two different populations and separate continents as Pro did.
3. Pro falsely claims that COVID vaccines lead to more deaths. In Round 2, they claim the "official UK data for all of 2022" shows a higher COVID death rate among the vaccinated, whereas the official report on the data from the UK's Office of National Statistics (https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsinvolvingcovid19byvaccinationstatusengland/latest#cite-this-statistical-bulletin) directly states:
"Monthly age-standardised mortality rates (ASMRs) for deaths involving coronavirus (COVID-19) have been consistently lower for all months since booster introduction in September 2021 for people who had received at least a third dose or booster at least 21 days ago, compared with unvaccinated people and those with just a first or second dose."
No wonder Pro tried to use a ridiculous graph from their friend to support their false claim.
Got to say, the novel for The Phantom, while it needed a good editor, OMG some of the stuff that went on in it... Raul in his great devotion to Christine, stayed up at night murdering cats... WTF?
Interesting topic. If it was to go longer, it would benefit from a section on mutants. Michael Phelps for example has mutations which gave him an advantage; would that be considered naturally achievable?
Thankfully, we all know that we can /naturally archive/ the same results as The Liver King. You just need to /naturally/ be injected with a ton of steroids and other performance enhancers, then act like a one dimensional cartoon villain.
The resolution as currently worded, may not give you the debate you desire.
An argument is valid, if the logic is internally consistent. A red piller can make a valid argument that it should be illegal because women suck. It would be unsound due to the premise that women suck is wrong, but it would still technically be valid.
What I believe you wish to argue is that the moral weight of "the right to life" does not exceed that of "the right to the pursuit of happiness" when it comes to abortion.
A related topic would of course be that abortion ought to not be considered murder.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Americandebater24 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded:
>Reason for Decision:
Pro presents a stronger argument, as they support their stance on the Holocaust and its effects with numerous sources, leading to the desire to criminalize Holocaust denial. Pro's use of credible sources contributes to a well-structured and persuasive argument. In contrast, Con fails to make any persuasive argument in the first round, and although their formatting improves in the second round, their argument remains unrelated to the debate at hand. As a result, Con's argument becomes non-existent, rendering their sources null and void. Pro's conduct was superior to Con's, as Con barely took the debate seriously until its later stages and acted unprofessional Meanwhile, Pro maintained consistency and professionalism throughout the entire debate.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote mainly falls short on details, even while seeming knowledgeable about the debate. Additionally, conduct is reserved for true abuses, not merely not taking a debate seriously.
If revoting please also explain a bit about BoP related to the stigmatise piece of the resolution (everyone knows it's illegal in some places, this debate is about the goal of such).
To cast a sufficient vote, for each category awarded, a voter must explicitly perform the following tasks:
(1) Provide specific references to each side’s utilization within the said category.
(2) Weigh the impacts against each other, including if any precluded others.
(3) Explain the decision within the greater context of the debate.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#casting-votes
Conduct is an optional award as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, such as extreme unsportsmanlike or outright toxic behavior which distracted from the topical debate.
**************************************************
I am quite glad the reports panel will not be flooded with all those.
For starters, BrotherD is already banned for the behavior to which you are attempting to raise our awareness. Reporting old posts of his from prior to a ban, is incredibly unlikely to be productive.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Mps1213 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro
>Reason for Decision:
There wasn’t really a resolution for this debate. So it was hard to pick a winner. However I will go with pro because it seems to me that con is making the case that the choice shouldn’t even be had. I do not like that type of thinking. People should be able to choose whether or not they engage with this activity. The other absolutely obnoxious statement is “western men don’t like my blow jobs as much” maybe you’re just not good at giving blowjobs. There are logical arguments to be made to not have circumcisions be done. Con made none of these arguments, so I have a hard time giving him the vote.
The other reason I vote pro is because he seems to be at least attempting to not meddle into others lives. If anyone knows how I form my opinions it, in most cases, revolves around leaving people alone. Allowing them to make their own decisions as long as those decisions don’t inhibit my life or others lives in some way. People not liking Con’s blow jobs is not good enough to show this activity is inhibiting his or her life to a great extent.
>Reason for Mod Action:
While it's good to give honest feedback on weaknesses, this vote reads too much like just an opinion on the topic. A breakdown on the similar contentions against interference in peoples lives would have greatly improved this, rather than just saying one seemed to argue that (in this case, both did in their own way) so they win.
Outside content may be commented on, so long as it does not cross into being a determinant factor on the vote. Should the voter weigh things outside of what the debaters themselves presented inside the debate rounds, the vote is eligible for deletion (identified plagiarism is a notable exception).
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: FishChaser // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to con
>Reason for Decision:
"Should not do" does not mean "should not be allowed to do" nor do any of the reasons Pro provided make circumcision ideal. Even when it is necessary, that doesn't make it desirable. That being said I think con argued their case better.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Please show how one side argued the case better.
In essence, this vote was just too vague... This can be avoided in future by just commenting on the core contention (and the main counterpoint or the lack thereof), listing a single source you found important (if voting sources), saying what conduct violation distracted you (if voting conduct)... You need not write a thesis, but some minimal level of detail is required to verify knowledge of what you're grading.
Please review the voting policy:
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#vote-removal
While your vote gets to the heart of the matter as you see it, it seemed to not give pro any chance to prove “normal” by any standard. Both debaters put a lot of work in, and while you don’t need to go down every rabbit hole, more analysis is needed if assigning points.
1 point(s)
Reason:
Pro uses the word "normal" which could mean anything depending on the cultural context and then tries to warp biology to justify Mohammad fucking a 9 year old. Con points out that this is nonsense and points out that Mohammad had control of the narrative.
Both sides argued the other should argue as an absolute. If this debate werabout pineapple on pizza, con would claim pro must prove it needs to be on all pizza; whereas pro would argue that con is arguing for a complete ban…
FYI: the current description for the pedo tag reads:
The deplorable mental illness of adults desiring sexual relations with children; along with closely related behaviors.
I don’t consider there to be a need for nuanced semantics. In English common usage a pedo is a creeper attracted to pre-adults of any age.
Removed for ineligibility
Sting
07.16.2023 01:06PM
Reason:
i almost vote for mcman here but lancelot explains the cuck story in round 4, so it changed my mind and makes me vote him
Removed.
RationalMadman
07.18.2023 05:53PM
Reason:
Until the voting mods fix a major issue or make this unrated, I counter Sting's vote and don't give a shit about this 'diet battle' as I find the idea more ridiculous than anything if you ask me.
We don't know each other's reasons for liking, affording or eating certain diets. That's our own business.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Sting // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to pro
>Reason for Decision: Pro has healthier meals
>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.
**************************************************
Removed for ineligibility
Sting
07.16.2023 12:47PM
Reason:
sirlancelot
lyrics 4
flow 3
roast 4
rhyme 3
rationmcman
lyrics 2
flow 1
diss 2
rhyme 4
lancelot has better lyrics and disses. they were easy for me to understand. macman doesn’t know how to write very good or carry a tune, his lyrics were very choppy, but it’s ok because not everyone listens to rap
all of the rounds got very brutal and poetic so i give disses and lyrics to lancelot. he also makes more sense so he gets better flow but macman uses more rhymes.
This type of argument is strange to me. If we’re in a simulation which tells us it’s round, why should we then dismiss what our senses inform us?
---RFD---
Headings would help this debate a lot.
tiny.ccy/debateart
I like the focus on just one taboo drug.
Pro opens with strong warrants for the drug being comparatively safe. A lot of comparisons to another drug which is a controlled substance, so scope creep to that one is inevitable; oddly con complains about that, how pro's case could be applied to various other drugs, which pro was up front about his belief there.
Safety:
Pro argues the main side effect is constipation. With regulations side effects from other substances would disappear, etc.
Built into this point is far reaching problems with the current system of illegality, which results in poison being sold as heroin.
Alcohol:
Con argues alcohol is worse than heroin, therefore heroin should be illegal. Non-sequitur, or as pro puts it: "His rant about alcohol doesn’t mean what he thinks it means."
Con insists legalizing alcohol lead to more deaths but does not back it up with any evidence.
Sex:
Con argues that only things necessary for life should be legal, such as sex. Pro counters that sex is done for enjoyment.
Sources:
This goes to pro by a mile. Lots of .gov and .edu sources, to inform us how safe real heroin is; verses con telling us to go google some graphs he saw somewhere.
Please remind me to vote on this. I have another of the same topic in my head right now, and don’t want to risk undue influence from that one.
Con will be forced to argue the Luddite position, but it is winnable.
> “ I am not going to get into a quote and response battle with Mall again in this debate. It’s generally pointless.”
Appreciated! I really hate sentence by sentence replies, instead of thematic ones.
https://tiny.cc/DebateArt
Pro had unwarranted assertions, and abandoned the debate once I took it seriously in R3.
That I needed to take it seriously at all is a huge compliment to his skill level.
In order to win, he’d basically have had to prove Native Americans do not exist. This is in addition to the hole in his logic which reduced the number of genders to just one; which he had no defense against.
How do you figure that?
Good catch, it should be "or"
Removed by request
FishChaser
07.02.2023 07:57PM
#2
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
My voting structure:
Convincing arguments = diss quality/relevance
sources = rhyme/flow
legibility = wordplay
conduct = the opposite of what it usually means (bigger asshole wins)
Pro starts out brutal but without even rhyming his lines. If it wasn't such a vicious attack I would call it pathetic. He finally starts rhyming and the round one disses are good but how will things progress? With Rational pulling things like rhyming sidekick 30 lightyears away from "tried it" lol. Rational better be able to rap really fast with the way he writes but I'm not buying it.
From round one we can see that RM is clearly superior rhyme wise. He carries a rhyme scheme much further while staying relevant. In round two Lancelot continues not rhyming. I was less impressed (if you can call it "impressed" in the first place) with RM's round 2.
Then in round 3 Lancelot comes with a lot of meh-taphors and is much less brutal. RM attempts to clarify his flow, puns and rhymes but idk wtf kind of accent he must have to make some of that rhyme properly or what super-ingenious flow he's supposedly using.
I read the whole thing. Neither side made me want to side with them in the flamewar and neither side used good wordplay.
--- RFD (1 of 2)---
While I strongly disagree, pro soundly takes the win. A couple shaky ideas, but a strong case that a fetus is greater than or equal to a fully developed person in importance.
Sources are overwhelmingly in his favor, going into overkill, but not feeling like source spam. His source for a fetus not being part of the mother, soundly unmade one of cons few good points. Con comparatively had a few, a couple tossed at the end of a round feeling like source spam, and others which were from a copy/paste off wikipedia (which he didn't even cite).
Conduct gets shaky at the very end, with a last ditch appeal from con (which really should have been his opening argument), but I don't feel that it sways things enough even while being of note.
---
Glad to see exceptions outlined in the description. Going in, that already lifts this out of the gutter.
R1:
Pro completely dominated this. Con responding to just one of pro's arguments, gave the impression of dropping the others; he would have been better off just making his case (and it needed to be expanded) with a statement that he would respond to pro's in R2. I really don't think con will recover from this.
R2:
Pro basically extends.
Con makes a good comeback at the start.
R3:
Pro defends quite well, using authoratative sources to blow holes in cons comback (not going to outline it in great detail due to what follows).
Con misrepresents pro's case, betting the whole thing on legal definitions of murder (which as I mention below on 5., pro thought ahead on).
---
"having one’s lifespan reduced is a harm"
This is something missing from most of these debates. Usually it falls to Karen's hurt feelings, but pro makes a harm and makes it hold sway even for those who do not feel pain.
"Uncertainty Principle"
Also a smart thing for pro to outline, as it pre-defends against any outright dismissals of the value of the fetus.
---RFD (2 of 2)---
1. Killing Human Beings is Wrong
Human life has value, more so if they're young due to remaining time span.
Con argues the starting point for consciousness is the 18th week, and abortion should be stopped at the 14th week (long after conception which this debate is about, but even further away from birth). He argues the baby born in a coma need not be kept alive if there is no possibility of it recovering (contextually seems to imply a brainless body, missing that anencephaly was one of the exceptions pro made for abortion being allowed), and that creates a difference.
Pro defends on potentiality being of utmost importance, and compares abortion to murdering coma patients. He weirdly attacks the possibility of recovery point (see anencephaly above). And insists that con believes all organisms with the possibility to achieve consciousness in the future are already people. He attacks con for poor reasoning for why a child is worth more than a fetus.
"If a woman has tried for years to conceive and finally becomes pregnant," this bares a little reflecting on... It seems like pro thinks that's the type of woman who is seeking an abortion... I doubt con will catch the absurdity of that notation. Also clearly if you have only one child from years of effort, that one is proportionately more valuable to you than one from a set of ten would be to someone else.
Con comes back strong with bulletpoints outlining why he believes a fetus and an infant are different.
2. Future Like Ours
Coma analogy, this belonged as a subpoint of 1.
3. Continuous Development
Pro argues that for simplicity all humans should be considered persons, regardless of form etc. I will say he cleverly layers in that adults are the same person as they were in utero, thereby anchoring the idea that it's a person even then.
4. Harm of Removing Potential:
Pro compares abortion to willful maiming of children (this has some good implications on circumcision debates). And does a logically valid syllogism.
5. Killing vs. Letting Die:
Pro pre-defends the bodily autonomy arguments, with a logially valid syllogism that if someone causes someone else to need their body to survive, and then denies them that access, it is murder (well equivalent anyway).
Pro is very smart to use the equivalency qualifier on murder, and it pre-defends against legal definitions.
6. Duty to Save:
Pro argues there is a duty to save a drowning child, even if mildly inconvenient. (I will note our teachers had very different opinions of virtue ethics)
Pro goes on to compare it to infanticide in ancient times.
7. Effects of an Abortion Ban:
Pro makes a strong case that abortion bans do decrease the rate of abortion. This pre-defends against coat hanger arguments.
Pro slips into needless offense, comparing the very idea of abortion to pedophilia (it's a particularly bad note to end a round on).
8. Mothers and Abortions:
Con implies negative utility lives if women are forced into motherhood, and that the need to punish disproportionately to crime is illogical.
Pro defends that he has not gone into a misogynistic rant, and insists quality of life does not outweigh life itself.
Con brings up overpopulation.
9. Inconsistent Moral Values:
Con makes a pathos appeal against the pro-life movement, for inflicting suffering on children via abandonment.
Con suggests unwilling mothers will resort to infanticide.
"This is an ad hominem fallacy, and it’s not even directed at me." Not an ad hominem fallacy if it's not directed at you. It's a weakly done political kritik. ... Anyways, pro does fine in defending this as off topic.
10. There is nothing human about a brainless body:
Got to say, I know where con wanted to go with this but it fell short. This feeds directly into responses to 1., addressing it there.
11. Light bulbs
This is tied to 1., but that it getting big... In R2 con blows this thing up, with a house analogy foundation vs the finished thing, to adequately show waste beyond just a sunk cost fallacy.
Pro defends that there is no morally significant difference between the two.
I suggest studying this one:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/4552-thbt-on-balance-abortion-should-be-illegal-in-the-united-states-from-the-point-of-conception-%5Bfor-austinl0926%5D
Got to pick a friend up from the airport, but here's the start of my notes on this debate.
---
Glad to see exceptions outlined in the description. Going in, that already lifts this out of the gutter.
"having one’s lifespan reduced is a harm"
This is something missing from most of these debates. Usually it falls to Karen's hurt feelings, but pro makes a harm and makes it hold sway even for those who do not feel pain.
"Uncertainty Principle"
Also a smart thing for pro to outline, as it pre-defends against any outright dismissals of the value of the fetus.
1. Killing Human Beings is Wrong
Human life has value, more so if they're young due to remaining time span.
2. Future Like Ours
Coma analogy, this belonged as a subpoint of 1.
3. Continuous Development
Pro argues that for simplicity all humans should be considered persons, regardless of form etc. I will say he cleverly layers in that adults are the same person as they were in utero, thereby anchoring the idea that it's a person even then.
4. Harm of Removing Potential:
Pro compares abortion to willful maiming of children (this has some good implications on circumcision debates). And does a logically valid syllogism.
5. Killing vs. Letting Die:
Pro pre-defends the bodily autonomy arguments, with a logially valid syllogism that if someone causes someone else to need their body to survive, and then denies them that access, it is murder (well equivalent anyway).
Pro is very smart to use the equivalency qualifier on murder, and it pre-defends against legal definitions.
> Adult dogs and dolphins are smarter than newborns, but killing a newborn is more evil than killing a dog or a dolphin.
Got to disagree with you there, but I do understand the rhetorical point you're building.
As the instigator you’re already at a slight disadvantage, since the other side gets the last word
Letting them effectively get the first word in too, can be hard to overcome.
Your R1, seriously?!
Without reading cons reply, let me guess… aborting them can’t make them cease to exist. Rather it sends them straight to heaven. FYI, the he Amish believe this about dead babies, it’s something to be celebrated instead of mourned l; at least up until some weird thing of poking it with a brush and it hits back.
As for the physical discomfort, more is attained with pregnancy and birth.
and God? Oh god, any mediocre debater could have a field day with that, just consider how many abortions God performs per year. RM will probably keep it simple with something along the lines of “unfounded opinion.”
Great description. Honestly where I stand with abortion… I think with the current setup I. The USA it would be a crime against at humanity for the government to step in (FYI, I get used to force abortions!), but still, ideally it would not occur.
Please remind me in like 12 hours.
Drinking to drown out fireworks and memories.
Damn, that was well done! I had not noticed more than one kiss between the twins…
BTW, you ever look up the crazy censorship of Sailor Moon?
Anyone else notice something strange with the Jedis when it comes to family?
This scene isn't as bad as I remembered it, but come on, you're in bed with Natalie Portman, and get all sweaty thinking about your mother?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1v-vMCUvDTE
I haven't read more than a tiny fraction of the lore, but since when is The Force intelligent?
And damn, I hate the idea of midichlorians so much. It goes into racial supremacy theories.
I love your vote!
I will agree with con that he likely would have reverted had he lived.
There was some old comic where he lived and became a rebel hero, with his costume painted white... Lame!
However, he basically got Luke to assist in killing himself, before that could happen. And as pro pointed out, he was at the moment of his death good enough to become a Force Ghost.
By the way, Anakin was not created by the force, because Sidious is a mother fucker.
Con is only right about Red Pill predating Andrew Tate (and maybe the blue pill stuff, never heard of it before).
Red Pill 💊 stems from incel culture, it is not about self improvement, because women suck and won’t suck on you no matter what unless you were born muscular with a 12” erection which took the doctors eye out. Basically what con refers to as black pill. They openly believe women are a type of non-sentient animal, etc.etc. Usually some racism tossed into the mix just so they can complete failing to be more than a bad stereotype.
Black Pill refers to the conclusion for Incels of killings themselves. Studies on this cultural subset are inconclusive (particularly the success rate), but Incels praise those brave enough to go swallow the black pill.
Sadly it’s a popularity contest. Still, quality can help.
HoF material
Saw this too late. Yeah, it would have pretty easily gone to con.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: jamgiller // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 5 to con
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
I literally only read the first paragraph... I do hope it was con who caught the misrepresentation of studies; but alas, there is a more glaring problem...
It needs to be said that bad arguments are already punished under arguments, so there is no need to double dip to assign them against conduct as well. Even if they were generally bad conduct, they were at least arguments, unlike the forfeitures. Making someone sit around a full week is quite rude, and it was done multiple times. Withholding of that point where is clearly against your majority awardee, is strong evidence of overwhelming bias.
Conduct is an optional award as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, such as extreme unsportsmanlike or outright toxic behavior which distracted from the topical debate.
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
**************************************************
jamgiller
06.06.2023 12:13AM
#3
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Reason:
Pro seriously misrepresented the scientific studies they cited. Although the actual content of the sources seems to be reliable, Pro is an extremely unreliable communicator, as I will explain below. Since Pro's entire argument is based on their attempt to use scientific data, and they failed to use it properly, I must give arguments to Con, even though the latter forfeited two rounds. At least Con made reasonable arguments based on correctly interpreting the studies they cited.
Addressing Pro's most egregious misrepresentations of the scientific literature:
1. The study that Pro cites for the rates of Serious Adverse Events (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2022.08.036) directly contradicts the resolution of the debate as specifically defined by Pro. In the study's Introduction, the authors write: "Our study was not designed to evaluate the overall harm-benefit of vaccination programs so far." More importantly, the author's Discussion describes the implications and limitations of their study in detail, and closes with the following:
"We emphasize that our investigation is preliminary, to point to the need for more involved analysis. The risks of serious AESIs in the trials represent only group averages. SAEs are unlikely to be distributed equally across the demographic subgroups enrolled in the trial, and the risks may be substantially less in some groups compared to others. Thus, knowing the actual demographics of those who experienced an increase in serious AESI in the vaccine group is necessary for a proper harm-benefit analysis."
Therefore, the very study that Pro tried to use to prove the resolution actually shows that we have not yet learned whether COVID vaccines have done more harm than good. I advise those who read this to review the Discussion section of the paper, which provides serious coverage of this topic.
2. Pro cited the study described above under the heading "UK", and compared the SAE rates to estimates of numbers needed to vaccinate from UK data. However, the study described above is based on data from North America. It is incorrect and misleading to directly compare medical studies of sample groups from two different populations and separate continents as Pro did.
3. Pro falsely claims that COVID vaccines lead to more deaths. In Round 2, they claim the "official UK data for all of 2022" shows a higher COVID death rate among the vaccinated, whereas the official report on the data from the UK's Office of National Statistics (https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsinvolvingcovid19byvaccinationstatusengland/latest#cite-this-statistical-bulletin) directly states:
"Monthly age-standardised mortality rates (ASMRs) for deaths involving coronavirus (COVID-19) have been consistently lower for all months since booster introduction in September 2021 for people who had received at least a third dose or booster at least 21 days ago, compared with unvaccinated people and those with just a first or second dose."
No wonder Pro tried to use a ridiculous graph from their friend to support their false claim.
Trying to explain pedophilia to Muslims, is like trying to explain polytheism to Christians.
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/phoebe-teaching-joey
Got to say, the novel for The Phantom, while it needed a good editor, OMG some of the stuff that went on in it... Raul in his great devotion to Christine, stayed up at night murdering cats... WTF?
Poor girl, I'm team stay single.
Interesting topic. If it was to go longer, it would benefit from a section on mutants. Michael Phelps for example has mutations which gave him an advantage; would that be considered naturally achievable?
Thankfully, we all know that we can /naturally archive/ the same results as The Liver King. You just need to /naturally/ be injected with a ton of steroids and other performance enhancers, then act like a one dimensional cartoon villain.
The resolution as currently worded, may not give you the debate you desire.
An argument is valid, if the logic is internally consistent. A red piller can make a valid argument that it should be illegal because women suck. It would be unsound due to the premise that women suck is wrong, but it would still technically be valid.
What I believe you wish to argue is that the moral weight of "the right to life" does not exceed that of "the right to the pursuit of happiness" when it comes to abortion.
A related topic would of course be that abortion ought to not be considered murder.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Americandebater24 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded:
>Reason for Decision:
Pro presents a stronger argument, as they support their stance on the Holocaust and its effects with numerous sources, leading to the desire to criminalize Holocaust denial. Pro's use of credible sources contributes to a well-structured and persuasive argument. In contrast, Con fails to make any persuasive argument in the first round, and although their formatting improves in the second round, their argument remains unrelated to the debate at hand. As a result, Con's argument becomes non-existent, rendering their sources null and void. Pro's conduct was superior to Con's, as Con barely took the debate seriously until its later stages and acted unprofessional Meanwhile, Pro maintained consistency and professionalism throughout the entire debate.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote mainly falls short on details, even while seeming knowledgeable about the debate. Additionally, conduct is reserved for true abuses, not merely not taking a debate seriously.
If revoting please also explain a bit about BoP related to the stigmatise piece of the resolution (everyone knows it's illegal in some places, this debate is about the goal of such).
To cast a sufficient vote, for each category awarded, a voter must explicitly perform the following tasks:
(1) Provide specific references to each side’s utilization within the said category.
(2) Weigh the impacts against each other, including if any precluded others.
(3) Explain the decision within the greater context of the debate.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#casting-votes
Conduct is an optional award as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, such as extreme unsportsmanlike or outright toxic behavior which distracted from the topical debate.
**************************************************
Well done R2. With a third round to flush out your points, you could have won this.
I am quite glad the reports panel will not be flooded with all those.
For starters, BrotherD is already banned for the behavior to which you are attempting to raise our awareness. Reporting old posts of his from prior to a ban, is incredibly unlikely to be productive.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Mps1213 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro
>Reason for Decision:
There wasn’t really a resolution for this debate. So it was hard to pick a winner. However I will go with pro because it seems to me that con is making the case that the choice shouldn’t even be had. I do not like that type of thinking. People should be able to choose whether or not they engage with this activity. The other absolutely obnoxious statement is “western men don’t like my blow jobs as much” maybe you’re just not good at giving blowjobs. There are logical arguments to be made to not have circumcisions be done. Con made none of these arguments, so I have a hard time giving him the vote.
The other reason I vote pro is because he seems to be at least attempting to not meddle into others lives. If anyone knows how I form my opinions it, in most cases, revolves around leaving people alone. Allowing them to make their own decisions as long as those decisions don’t inhibit my life or others lives in some way. People not liking Con’s blow jobs is not good enough to show this activity is inhibiting his or her life to a great extent.
>Reason for Mod Action:
While it's good to give honest feedback on weaknesses, this vote reads too much like just an opinion on the topic. A breakdown on the similar contentions against interference in peoples lives would have greatly improved this, rather than just saying one seemed to argue that (in this case, both did in their own way) so they win.
Outside content may be commented on, so long as it does not cross into being a determinant factor on the vote. Should the voter weigh things outside of what the debaters themselves presented inside the debate rounds, the vote is eligible for deletion (identified plagiarism is a notable exception).
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: FishChaser // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to con
>Reason for Decision:
"Should not do" does not mean "should not be allowed to do" nor do any of the reasons Pro provided make circumcision ideal. Even when it is necessary, that doesn't make it desirable. That being said I think con argued their case better.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Please show how one side argued the case better.
In essence, this vote was just too vague... This can be avoided in future by just commenting on the core contention (and the main counterpoint or the lack thereof), listing a single source you found important (if voting sources), saying what conduct violation distracted you (if voting conduct)... You need not write a thesis, but some minimal level of detail is required to verify knowledge of what you're grading.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#casting-votes
**************************************************
Please review the voting policy:
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#vote-removal
While your vote gets to the heart of the matter as you see it, it seemed to not give pro any chance to prove “normal” by any standard. Both debaters put a lot of work in, and while you don’t need to go down every rabbit hole, more analysis is needed if assigning points.
06.28.2023 06:30AM
#7
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
Pro uses the word "normal" which could mean anything depending on the cultural context and then tries to warp biology to justify Mohammad fucking a 9 year old. Con points out that this is nonsense and points out that Mohammad had control of the narrative.
Interesting debate…
Both sides argued the other should argue as an absolute. If this debate werabout pineapple on pizza, con would claim pro must prove it needs to be on all pizza; whereas pro would argue that con is arguing for a complete ban…
FYI: the current description for the pedo tag reads:
The deplorable mental illness of adults desiring sexual relations with children; along with closely related behaviors.
I don’t consider there to be a need for nuanced semantics. In English common usage a pedo is a creeper attracted to pre-adults of any age.
Kritik: he was both! 🤣
> This is not true as you know, its a joke
Liar!
🤭
For any actual Muslims (as opposed to trolls impersonating Muslims to make Islam look bad), I’ve started a forum topic related to this debate:
Non-fallacious defenses of Muhammad?
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9532-non-fallacious-defenses-of-muhammad