Barney

Forfeiture

I disagree, but forfeiture.

Forfeiture.

Arguments lead towards con, but not by enough to make me comfortable assigning the point.

Islam could have taken it, but it was kinda just tossed out there as an afterthought. The whole was Jesus Jewish or not point, either side could have taken the debate with a single source (as is, I’m declining your vote my bias).

That read like a concession, with some added commentary.

For what it's worth, yeah, history would be much better if young men were not so gullible... Then again, they're still quite gullible today, just look at election results (clearly the winner really loves them more... 🙄)

This was a hot mess.

Pro forfeited less.

As for arguments, I am leaving them a tie because both tried bastardly tactics. Pro waited until the final round before presenting his case (at which point there could be no defense). And con seemed to want to a free win because superheroes are fictional (it's a bastard kritik against his own resolution).

This is a massive BoP failure.

Con was wise to immediately show the three separate resolutions pro took the duty to prove. I personally am ok with the clarification of husbands or wives (not quite the same as spouse, even while it’s used as such), even while it should have been in the description. Of course pro did excel at showing other activities besides the missionary position married people may engage in without it being a biblical sin.

Alcohol was a pretty massive failing due to over specifying. Even one drink meant it applied to church wine. Also, it’s quite common knowledge that grape juice is a fairly modern invention from the year 1869. To dispute this common knowledge, would need a strong source implying otherwise (there are many sources for mistranslations in the Bible, but to claim Jesus turning water to wine was a mistranslation requires one to be cited).

The whole alcohol is piss she shit point was destined to go nowhere. It makes about as much sense as saying you shouldn’t wash the temple with water, since some of those water molecules at some point passed through a dinosaur thus making water dinosaur pee.

Also it must be said that Jesus was preaching that R.Kelly should embrace cannibalism, since he is after all a gay fish.

This was a very uneven match, with con falling back on a compound error of Ad Hominem attack and No True Scotsman (saying anyone who doesn't love Dragonite must be trolling, since no true fan would say that).

Pro introduced the topic with a pretty simple metric, including two paths con could use to achieve victory. Con didn't really argue against pro's case that Dragonite is pretty good but not great, he just asserted that Dragonite is cool and popular.

I was going to make this a conduct only vote, but with the choice of point system I cannot.

Pro: Gish Golloping to such an extreme and apparently copy/pasting your previous stuff as if its new, will most likely only lead to victory if the other person leaves the site... Which means you get to debate less, so it'll cost you more than you gain. You'll be lucky if a judge skims more than the first five, and the hit to credibility will make one well researched point outweigh it all. This isn't saying you can't Gish Gallop, but I do advise doing it in moderation and conceal it within subpoints (say make three organized arguments, and have ten subpoints each).
The big problem in this debate is that you have the burden of proof, and no judge will read all that to see if you made a single compelling case.

Con: While the setup is forcing me to give you full victory instead of just a conduct victory, you didn't really win. A single well executed point would have carried the day, but in your confusion over handling the Gish Gallop you wanted out of the debate and half assed it. That said, your points were intuitively correct which carries a good amount of weight, but there was something missing... A single statistic would have outdone the whole Gish Gallop, but you kept your case ambiguous. That said, the need for work trucks was effective. Had you cited say a statistic on how many lumberjack companies use helicopters and dedicated light rails instead of trains (it's 0%), you could have carried the day with ease. ... So in gist, to defeat the tactic you went against, commit to a single strong point, give a source or two, and flush out the implications of it.

PS: Not that it came up, but buses are effectively trucks. It seems this debate wanted to be one on private automobile ownership, but in the urge for AI assisted Gish Galloping, didn't quite take form.

Foregone conclusion (this fits the rule to a T.)

Forfeiture and dropout

Concession and forfeiture.

concession

Repugnant , but a full forfeiture.

Christianity < Con's Life. This is quite simply a big general bad doesn't hit as hard as a personal one.

Women > AI Girls. Originality for the win.

Nutrition > Alimony. Alimony feels like an extension of the previous round.

I could go in depth, but I don't want to (this is a comedy debate, much lower BoP on me). Jokes aside, if anyone wants detailed feedback on any point I'll happily provide it.

I made a couple comments previously, which factor into this…

Arguments can be showcased with a single point from pro: “ No, if God says that you should stone gays just ONCE then that means your infallible creator told you to go stone gays. So go be a good Christian and murder people for no good reason.”
The problem for his case is that this feeds into con’s case about the flaw of trying to do the direct inverse. Christians don’t practice murder (in spite of what they are argued to believe), which offends pro… the direct opposite of not murdering people is self evidently bad.

There were other issues such as pro advocating for general atheism and veganism, rather than a direct inverse of Christianity; which is a very weird thing to aim for.

I do think con did well in some points, such as diets, but he selected a very high BoP he could not hold onto when faced with challenges.

Sources are mostly explained in one of my comments. It fell back outside the tired range for pro not defending his sources when he was accused of source spam without reading them (this challenge was well done, quoting said source to show it was unsound).

Conduct to pro for not trying to take advantage of the website error to act like con had forfeited. He had a bad potty mouth, but I believe the integrity outweighs any issues stemming from that.

Forfeiture.

Forfeiture and foregone conclusion.

Pro was able to meet BoP with the AI weapon systems. While hardly a threat today, it creates an instinctive fear that saying they don't exist doesn't dismiss.

Between pointing out the BoP is for sound (a much higher standard than logical validity), and catching that "human rights arent determined by government" con easily took this.

Pro for his part threw some popular phrases and questions against the wall to see what would stick, but as con pointed out, asking some questions does not equal proving soundness.

Forfeiture

Concession

Foregone conclusion.

First of all, sources... It's very very difficult to win sources on biblical debates, because I literally wrote into the rules that discussing the topic itself does not equate to winning sources. However, citing the bible is likely to indicate a strong argument... Conversely, , the lack of a biblical foundation may harm arguments for either side.

Conduct: Using the wrong citation could be an innocent mistake, so not automatically deducting for that.

BoP is an interesting matter to consider. Pro must show that the bible supports it, con must prevent that by whatever means. Con tried for an affirmative case that it supports a conflicting idea, but it's a really big book which is open to interpretation, so these are not mutually elusive claims.

Pro is able to give examples of the Holy Spirit being sent as an agent of the other guys, which indeed strongly implies a distinction.
Con argues in a well done example of circular reasoning: "My position doesn't contain the concept or doctrine of a person, persons or personhood or personalities. It's just , Holy Spirit being Father God period." He also argues it doesn't explicitly state that they are not the same person ("We can't find any where in scripture that the Father is one person, Holy Spirit is another.") therefore they must be.

R2:
Pro navigates the realm of these things not being mutually exclusive (which the bible is really big on, they love to have their cake and eat it too... That's why you get things like Jesus is a blood descendant of the king following the male line, but also from a miracle virgin birth).
Con insists they can be viewed as all one person, so therefore must be.

R3:
Pro defends some more gives more examples such as "If the Holy Spirit were just an impersonal force, or the power of God, it would be unable to intercede on our behalf." Which ties back to some of his earlier points about individuality.
To which con's reply (actually pretty good if playing a priest), backfires "You're not to make logical connections which from man, that's how he explains or understands" we're not beholden to pure logic, but that's an implicit admission that the logic all says pro is right; and yes a kritik that we should dismiss it, but I am seeing no compelling reason to support such a dismissal... So this debate hands down goes to pro.

Concession

Forfeiture.

Forfeiture.

First of all, the resolution of can something exist is way too open ended!
https://debate.miraheze.org/wiki/Resolution

"rarely exists" is an immediate accidental concession.

"may have always contained some dormant romantic interest" feels like it is failing the falsifiability standard.
https://debate.miraheze.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Pro basically opening with a definition to make the debate not so open ended, was a wise move.

Pro catching that the resolution calls for existence rather than difficulty of them staying platonic, is one I don't foresee con recovering from. Con does seem to push back catching the word "can" in pro's statements, which without the later everyday examples would be quite problematic.

"A devoted Christianhusband or pastor is more likely to have platonic relations, even intimateones, with the young women of his church compared to an unmarried college fratboy and the girls on" this was well played, showing these things exist on a spectrum or scale. Con's pushback that religious leaders have failed from time to time, would have hit a lot harder had he not just outlined the difference between exceptions and the norm.

At the end it felt like con was trying to move the goalposts with talk about how even if they exist they aren't true scotsmen... When you need to grasp at those straws, it implies a case which has already been lost (or at the very least severe weakness)

...

This pretty solidly goes to pro. I don't like that he tried to lean on any existence, but at the same time he well exceeded the occasional exception con spoke against with examples I've seen very often in my life.

...

McMieky, there's a good chunk of advice above on setups. Your R2 shows a lot of depth, but the setup ruined you. You may wish to draft an outline for R1 before posting future debates, and then modify the resolution to adhere to what your arguments will be.

Redeemed, for some reason the text editor here has problems when copy/pasting from Word. If you copy paste it into something else like Google Docs, then copy/paste again, your text won't have those missing characters.

Pro argues from the very definition, "a mix of liquid and solid ingredients" which applies to both.
He launches a pre-rebuttal to soups must be hot with "Cold soups like gazpacho" exist.

Con offers a counter definition that "Soup, by definition, is a dish that’s cooked,"
He gets into the cultural usage of the two dishes, which is the highlight of his side.

R2 is largely repeats of the above...

This is close, but his descriptions of the preparation process were effective and not undermined if it was carried out elsewhere then canned; compared to cereal which he asserted does not become a fusion of flavors (which pro really should have caught... like cereal milk ice cream is a thing, because of how good that fusion is).

A point con implied in R2 which really could have sealed this debate in R1 (but in R2 I have to give it no eight because it couldn't be addressed), that cereal has to be consumed immediately. This contrasts to soup which isn't good during that immediate phase but needs time and (usually) heat to make it good.

Forfeiture

https://www.debateart.com/debates/5852/comments/62622

Interesting subject matter, to which my knowledge is a little grey.

Forfeiture.

Forfeiture...

And it needs to be be said that this debate stems from a foundational misunderstanding. The conservative vs liberal divide is about speed and change and caution thereof. Thus sayings like a "conservative estimate" being small, and a "liberal estimate" being less small.

The repeated forfeiture at a critical time in the debate, reduces it to a foregone conclusion.

Essentially pro decides to flip the table to end the game, and do the nuclear option of accusing con of accusing him of being a white supremacist... Since con did not do that , nor anything that could be reasonably mistaken for it, and pro dropped all points to make this gambit... Yeah, giving this one to con.

The comparison of logic to bad logic used by douch bags, is not even an accusation of being such a douch bag (nor even a white supremacist; which some of said douch bags no doubt are, but no connection to all of them was even implied)

The initial start to a writeup may be viewed at: https://www.debateart.com/debates/5808/comments/62035

...

Before that end, it was a fine discussion of a complex topic. I was viewing performances as pretty much tied. Maybe leaning to con's favor due to primary BoP resting with pro, but even then not by much.

I take this to be more of a contest or riddle type of debate.

Pro casts a wide net, but con by sticking to a single point slips through Trump's aims as far as they are known to pro.
Pro's best point was that con was avoiding his argument, but then when con made it crystal clear to one single right he did much the same by not addressing how Trump would use his power for or against people with that issue.

Either one could have dominated this debate with a single source for their side endorsing the right to transition. As is, both arguments are weak.

Giving legibility to con, as he made a strong case on that impacting the debate... And I indeed liked the unicorns vs horses analogy... However, as a voter I was not particularly moved by the existence of a minor typo (even in a key location). Plus there seemed to be no attempt to get it fixed prior to accepting the debate (rap vs rape as a debate example; granted good conduct isn't required, but if you're going to make a mountain out of an issue, the ability to say you tried to get it corrected helps).

Pro was also able to point out that any ambiguity in the setup was clarified in the description: "The Pro side will be arguing that AI is ruining the art of debate and that AI is making humanity stupid in general. And the con side will argue that using AI does not ruin debate, but it enhances it in some respect."

Pro also made points about diminished thought, and how the AI tools are just regurgitating existing thought rather than advancing the medium. This was all dropped for the hyper-focus on a typo.

So yes, arguments to pro, legibility to con (kinda as a style point or kudos points, since I did enjoy reading it, and they put their focus there)

Forfeiture... And waiving is the term. Forfeiting is not showing up.

Concession

Forfeiture.

Concession.

Really a victory by style, of using Adam West's implicit arguments on this matter.

Plus forfeiture.

Forfeiture

Forfeiture

Pro lists many benefits to explain why he believes it is encouraged…

But this debate boils down to a kritik of awful parents exist.

Pro is correct that his description accounted for that. Con would have done better to point out that “but still the turtle moves.” Which is to say the rule is denying the truth, so should be dismissed.

The bigger problem I’m of course seeing with shitty parents, is that they introduce times children ought to not have that value; regardless of if they’re abused into believing it anyways. The debate is after all on if it’s a generally encouraged value, not if it ought to be (or even if better values like freedom exist). So yes, the kritik doesn’t shift the needle much even if allowed.

A better tactic would have been to point out that it’s often reduced to a vice instead of a value (not merely in the extreme outliers), and that most children get told of the value without being properly taught it (usually exposed to it the once or twice a year they attend church). Maybe even leverage divorce rates, and assume that most of them get taught to hate their parents (a bad stereotype, but a potential fun line of reasoning).

Forfeiture.

First it must be said in defense of con, that someone can play devil's advocate for any topic. This topic in particular doesn't have many avenues of defense, so credit for effort.

Sources (tied):
Pro was the only side to give any, but they were not integrated. It was more like a further reading suggestion.

Legibility (tied):
No overwhelming errors from either side.

Conduct (tied):
The comment section has heated up (a reported comment is actually what got me to read this), but nothing particularly bad, and certainly nothing crossing the line into cheating (aka voter manipulation).

Arguments (pro):
Essentially con's case defuses down to some tiny percent of child marriages are genuinely happy. He drops all for this, and (apologies if I missed it) gives no defense to the obvious question of why not wait for maturity?
Pro's case could have been stronger. The global action needed was weak, and had con done a good attack against that it could have cost pro the debate. As is, pro is easily able to show that child marriages are a human rights violation.

---

C1 Human Rights
Pro argues "it takes away children's futures and the potential" and elaborates that they lose their freedom and ability to go to school to build a future for themselves.
Con counters that they still exist... Characters in fiction not understanding figurative speech is great, but in real life it comes off as purely obtuse.
Con moves on to dropping all of this for the happiness angle, without first showing that it's healthy... And again and again and again...

Consent:
Pro argues children are too inexperienced to give informed consent.
Con counters that it's somehow a contradiction that makes child marriage impossible. Also that kids don't consent to schools Con also argues that not being forced into marriage is slavery.
Pro uses more figurative speech, equating forced into a marriage without informed consent to be putting them in chains. School builds them tools to handle things, an is less complex than a marriage.

Happiness:
Con argues some children are happy being married.
Pro counters with a eating nothing but candy analogy, and an IED analogy.

Harm:
To heighten earlier points, pro built out some harm: 'Child marriage causes poverty and gender inequality. A lot of times it results in early pregnancy, high health risks and economic dependency which in turn, force girls into a disadvantage cycle that can last for a lifetime"

Foregone conclusion.

Pro has just one sentence each round after the first, leaving whole contentions entirely unaddressed.

Con has several paragraphs per round, and caught things like pro missing his points.

Bit of a narrow victory. Con delayed multiple important responses into the final round (which pro would be unable to respond to), which he then forfeited.

This debate is about feminism, not female supremacy.

I think pro was very clever in flipping cons chief tactic of focusing on how in Islam women are actually superior to men, treated better, with more rights. The later jab about what Islam does in practice when it rules countries, would have been much better with an example or two (boarding a school buses and shooting girls in the head for example, or a more tame women aren’t allowed to drive or otherwise have any unescorted freedom of movement in other countries).

Pro was wise to bus Christianity a bit, with the level of stupid equality for all people regarding the afterlife.

Con for his part was quite well composed, but he spent all his time trying to find sources without defending the core problem that if his case was to be believed then men (comparatively) really suffer in Islam which isn’t feminism.

Forfeiture.