Total votes: 1,362
Forfeiture.
Pro makes some nice assertions that he believes all living things have the equal rights, but con makes arguments with the backing of authority. A bit of a K to the topic, more of ambiguous, but that still takes the day.
It could be viewed as a foregone conclusion or a concession, I am choosing the latter.
Con dropped everything after R1, and pro identified a key dropped point from R1 anyways... But the overwhelming politeness makes an exception for winning conduct through good behavior.
Sources are not awarded since the sources are to the subject, so nothing unexpected or exceptional. I cannot merely award this for whomevers interpretation I prefer.
( I am treating this as a comedy debate, so not how I’d vote on any real debate)
Pro does boilerplate arguments…
Con counters with the existence of anime girls, which becomes what the debate is about.
Pro hurts his conduct by saying they’re not real, this point finishes sliding over with cons final round surrender; however con misspelled No, too many O’s, so it hurt his conduct.
Arguments were of course won with the reminder that this is anime not hentai, so ugly bastards are out.
Lastly, sources for the detailed research con out in and definitely shared with us… those demographics may have been his downfall, but there is no denying the quality of sources (which may not have been many, but quality over quantity)
Pro could have actually carried this with some more wit. Had he responded to the flaws such as social breakdown with talk of those being a feature instead of the flaw; such as we need to follow Russia and Chinas examples of perfect fair starvation for minority groups they didn’t like in their population… plus with 35 million chickens, fir everyone to have even half a chicken each we need to drop the population just a few digits.
As is, cons challenges easily refute the paper thin case built purely upon circular reasoning
Forfeiture
Forfeiture
Sometimes that is the best strategy (concession)
Pro's case was amazing, and glad to see he could adapt when robot was disproven. Could have been improved by showing a gecko or something bypassing the human check.
con did disprove the robot, and while he doesn't need to disprove everything else there's still a few factors missing... Like for comedy, taking a joke of a debate like this so suriously was amusing, but in too disturbing of a way for me to count it as a significantly favorable argument.
Trying to weigh this, I am feeling very null to both sides.
Let's see, the whole yield thing is a figure of speech. It can mean surrender, but it can also be a yielding of the floor to let the opponent speak.
This is supposed to be comedy, but neither made me laugh.
The discussion of happy felt like it was dodging the question....
Yeah, whole lot of nothing.
Con opens with a reasonable declaration. He builds up anarchy, only to expose the fatal flaw of those damned anarchists!
Pro seems to miss this, and pretty much just says if the anarchists are all good, then bad things won't happen. Plus the government sucks (I would have learned heavily on this). .
Remember that for proposal debates a quality opening round must address the Why and How.
If the Why is missing, they are easily countered by the lack of benefit.
If the How is missing, they are easily countered with impracticality and limited resources.
ANyways, con shows how anarchy leads back to government, with the need for innovation and more importantly: food.
Pro gives a reply focused on the government sucking for violating rights, but ends on the issue of food that it's ultimately a choice (this is not building toward anarchy working).
I feel for them in the next round, since I see how never happens also means never works, but it's a good comeback that basically it's hypothetical of could it work even if it couldn't happen (which is conceded to, more like pushed away from the topic under discussion).
Pro getting into the No True Scotsman was interesting, but that was also pushing anarchy further into the realm of fairies.
...
With no sense that pro's anarchy could even hypothetically happen, a lot of meaning starts to be lost. While con could have hit harder, he showed that society with governments works and implied that without do not.
Had con been a critical troll, he could have taken this.
"3) The sense of belonging is often exploited by politicians to get what they want and do horrible things in the name of religion."
He could have leaned on that, as it's very useful for corrupt politicians. The satanism argument was funny, but no benefit was demonstrated (pun intended). Had he mixed it with pro's point 3, of getting donations and such at satanic orgies, then he would have had a fighting chance.
As is, the debate boils down to a foregone conclusion. Pro outlines why religion is outdated, and con basically says hail Satan.
BoP failure. Pro only attempts to approach BoP once, with Jesus having maybe called a woman a dog, but without a source to back up that this was indeed abusive con's explanation that it was not wins (in addition to it being a single isolated incident, not enough to show a pattern).
Forfeiture.
However, both had compelling point; it’s certainly worth pondering how similar we might be to slavery (or more accurately indentured servitude).
If trying to argue this more seriously, definitions into the description will be important.
Conduct for repeated forfeitures.
This could have been a good one, as the description specifies " as opposed to minor missteps in his personal life." So HUGE missteps are a little step outside of scope.
Pro made an short contention out of the song I'm Your Angel being made by R. Kelly, and nothing bad about R. Kelly was raised, so weighting the issues presented, the only possible outcome is pro's victory.
Forfeiture.
Plus pros plan of married men all starving themselves to death, would be so beneficial for society!
As a soulless Canadian, I'll attempt to grade this...
Con forfeited less, so automatic conduct allotment.
The description tag "canada sucks like your mom" tells me right away this is intended as comedy.
The Hitler card was hilarious, the frozen waste less so, the reeducation camps (or program) was quite alarming, and the Canadian women it should have been spelled out more that the act of smoking is to suck (possibly cross it with rates of other types of sucking?). The idiots bit with the resturant did make me chuckle, and I enjoy the cherry-picked facts for so few people living there per square mile.
...
Con misses the point, trying for pure rebuttals, without cracking a joke to engage with the arguments in good faith.
E.g., calling pro sexist for complaining about Canadian women... I mean do that, but also show some Baywatch clips or something to show that they're appealing (if memory serves they average a few pounds less than their neighbors, which results in more of them being attractive by conventional standards.
Details of the reeducation don't defeat the issue with overstep on jurisdiction.
So many of the comparisons push back but do not wholly refute pro's case; a little bonus outside of those is needed if they are not bolstered more.
...
Again, this is a comedy debate, so while I'm willng to look at it by another standard, you need to come ahead by a greater amount to get past so utterly failing at the comedy,
Unassailable logic too strong for pro to contend with.
Forfeiture
Forfeiture
A rather odd concession
Forfeiture
Forfeiture
We know con list without physical evidence of it.
Foregone conclusion.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#foregone-conclusions
Pro waiting until the final round to really engage, left far too much dropped to stand a chance.
forfeiture.
Con taking the worst possible interpretation of the resolution, missed that clarification in the description.
“remove the Penny from it's currency” doesn’t sound like hunting them all down for destruction
After that, it’s largely an unknown number of people still use it, versus $70M spent on it every year (that’d be 24 years to build one of the wonders of the world, not every two, and even if earmarked there’s no guarantee it’d ultimately end up going to such a project).
Without a weighable benefit to maintaining the status quo, but having a strong weighable cost (plus defense of other countries doing it without problems), pro wins.
And FYI, money costing more to make than its technical value, only matters if it’s circulated less than said value. This has to do with the money multiplier effect.
From the voting policy:
"If you spot some true rubbish that invalidates their argument or the spirit of debate, call it out with a vote against them on conduct (or more as warranted by the comparative arguments) and move on."
Pro wishing con would die and calling him the N-word, is an wholly unacceptable tactic (pro, consider this your written warning). Trying to be so vile that the other side is likely to abandon the debate (or at least the topical arguments therein), while not explicitly spelled out in the voting policy, is still cheating. Worse, we can never know the circumstances of strangers online, and what damages out of the blue statements like that could cause.
Thankfully in this case, con had fortitude and wit.
>> "That is too much cholesterol and furthermore you are fat, ugly and should die."
>"I might be offended if I wasn't convinced you're a bloated diabetic that's chronically constipated and repulsive to look at.
> Furthermore, you should get better taste in food before you actually do end up dying from that garbage."
The second is IMO how to handle such insults inside a debates (note the de-escalation, and pulling things back to the topic). It is also far better criticism of the others diet, so it wins the argument point from me as well.
I found this here debate about farming tools when searching for the word "hoe" at the library a couple towns over.
I cannot help but feel both sides went off topic with their big city slang; but at least they respect their heritage, by using the word Pimpf from the fatherland.
To do the work of a Pimpf may or may not be easy, but the need to trick young ladies into hoeing the farm for you, in it and of itself suggests that work might be hard. Or maybe they're looking for a future wife who knows the meaning of a days labor, since hoeing is much harder for the fairer sex.
On the other hand, the man who called it hard got drafted by Uncle Sam, and Uncle Sam wouldn't do that if the work on his farm was too much for his family...
---
Jokes aside, conduct for forfeiture. Leaving arguments tied due to how unclear it is with the on balance issue but also with career pimps being shown to be unintelligent via their own words, while at the same time they have some natural talent... Some analysis of risk to reward could have tipped this.
My previous vote and addendums may be found in the comment section at and around:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/5318/comments/59620
---
Due to having not covered much of durability, adding that in...
"since he is an Uzumaki and Jinchuriki"
Pretty sure I commended on this already... A statement like this doesn't mean anything to a lay person, and voters are supposed to act like they are lay persons.
I don't much care for ultimate powers (if either loses they have a power which takes over and kills the other). Those things being employed as pro points out (well one sided points out), is a draw at best (and at least for Naruto it might also kill him if he uses it). Was of course wise to point out that Kurama is apparently not mastered until after episode 300; much like how con tried to argue Aang couldn't use fire (avatar state I'm unclear on).
"'burning straight up ignores durability'"
This is a pet peeve of mine, while the words are close, that's not a real direct quote. Misquoting to that degree pulls attention to the actual wrote: "The Avatar also has many non-kinetic ways to end Naruto, like drowning, burning, asphyxiation and immobilization, all of which straight up ignore durability"
Not to mention, trying so hard to dismiss his fire powers, implicitly says Naruto is weak against them. Likewise for trying to shift focus off of those other non-kinetic attacks.
Needles, Kunais, and I don't know what else are able to harm Naruto as normal (Kunai was defended because the guy holding it was exceptional; still, normal iron or whatever it's made of). This really goes back to my expectations that both are physically human except when questionable writing takes over.
Speaking of kunais... Naruto is a ninja, for whom throwing weapons are a key thing... Yet it's pro who lists Naruto's skills there. Those are a ninjas best ways to counter Aang maintaining distance with his wind powers (while such also reduces ranged weapon effectiveness, I'm sure there's plenty of examples of Naruto aiming well during storms). Naruto at some point on the show has super long arms (not certain when he gains that power). Chakra arms are Naruto's one ranged attack, and they aren't defended as being good when lines of reasoning are made to suggest their ineffectiveness.
---
Plus again, it wasn't clear to me what Naturo's powers are within this debate. Something about he collects fox tails, and the fox tails are sometimes toads, and that lets turn himself into any inanimate objects and him make 1000 clones of himself (seriously?)... Need I go on? Whereas Aang can manipulate X, Y, and Z (elements), and those counter G, H, and I from Naruto. During any debate, if the other side does better representing your side, it's going to be an uphill battle.
---
So in conclusion, I'm left with the impression that Naruto doesn't have the winning combination to defeat Aang, especially with the range problem. Whereas Aang stands a decent chance against Naruto, especially with the power supply advantage. This isn't a conclusive Aang will win 10 out of 10 fights; more like two thirds or three fifths of the time when discounting draws (of which there'd be plenty).
Pro treats defeating Russia as the end all, and while this doesn't get challenged, the likelihood of nuclear Armageddon is raised... It is raised by pro of all people... Intuitively, that would be bad for the US.
“ Now, every so predictably, you'll presumably tell us more how you'll rip my anus add some slurs, boo hoo, I'm hurt but you're just proving me truthful, see?”
When debating someone and they write the above, doing exactly that (even with an elephant metaphor) comes across as very limp wristed (with all the talk of jacking him off, pun intended). When someone predicts your tactic, damned well pivot your tactic; to do otherwise might as well be to concede since they’ve pre-refuted it.
Also, rap battles are not supposed to be confessions of affection. I get that it’s more hatred than love, but it is obsessing over a desire to rape and jackoff one side… It literally made me think of the episode of South Park where Cartman drugged Butters, and then took pictures of butters dick in his mouth to prove that Butters is gay.
Whereas the other side did real and personalized analysis, with links! So rather than scratching my head at probably made up BS, One a click I’m able to see WTF is being referenced.
Concession.
Before reading the debate I decided regardless of which argument I prefer, that I’d leave it tied due to potential bias I’ve been accused of by one debater…
The main failing from both sides was relying on the comment section.
Pro: if it doesn’t help your case, bringing in content from the comments is a poor idea. It makes voters look there, instead of strictly at what your opponent presents inside the debate.
Con: your points from the comment section were about the same length as your argument, but IMP flushed out better. Literally just copy pasting them in would have greatly improved your case.
The lack of a definition of evil confused matters. I’m under the impression pain = evil but also whatever a property owner decides is evil = evil. These are overly simplistic competing definitions, with no reason stated why either should be preferable.
Adding to matters, points are argued without warrants, making them weightless assertions.
Concession
Also to be objectively right or wrong, involves application of metrics. If no numbers but just a feeling, then it’s not objective
Took a bit for this debate to build momentum. I could see con laying out some string, a stick, a nice treat, and a box overhead... Somehow I was like 'oh the box must be to provide shade' but in R2 he sprung the trap...
"Women are not privileged by default. That is the very reason why policies were made to help them out. That's why athletics has a lesser league for women in all sports. That's why Chess elo grades have categories for women have lower Elo to earn them, that's why awards ceremonies had to have a 'best woman' and 'best man' category to avoid men slaughtering women."
In one move, con knocked western civilization off the board. There wasn't even a real attempt at recovery after this.
...
Earlier points (from when I was grading this contention by contention).
Dating: pro (for the first point, not the second)
Pro starts strong here by showing that women have an advantage in setting the terms of things. Sadly, left to his own devices pro starts into rants about how rape is the lesser evil compared to not getting any action.
Con concedes the first point in this, and later criticizes the latter for lack of a coherent measurement system.
Wage Gap: con
Pro argues it doesn't exist, because women can whore themselves out to counterbalance it (FYI, if you need to counterbalance against something, that in itself proves it exists).
Con brings the expected point of less promotions for the same work.
Sexual harassment: con
Pro brought this up, and con was quick to point out that sucks for women so more is worse. Con further supported this with a comparison of the rates to which each group files complaints (hell, a couple years ago I was being sexually harassed at work, I didn't realize it and filed a complaint for the threats of violence which stemmed from me refusing to let them touch me).
Height: Con
Muscle Mass: Con
Pregnancy: Pro
Con's point, but it favors pro due to it showing something women are superior at (yes, in hindsight it this fed into denying BoP by showing they are not equal on paper).
Murder: Con
Yup, men really excel at that.
...
Without such a society as laid out in the title existing, pro cannot meet BoP, thus victory defaults to con. In contrast, con offered plenty of evidence to support his tactic as being more than baseless assertions, which pro would do well to learn from. Sources which particularly stood out are hbr.org which showed clear inequity, and ncbi.nlm.nih.gov for a breakdown on muscle differences.
Concession.
Pretty sure I've previously criticized those definitions. Mere consideration is an incredibly low bar. I mean I feed a stray cat, right there it reaches the bar.
Oh hey, pro goes right for the above "if human beings deserve any level of moral consideration from the point of conception, the resolution is affirmed."
Con finds an interesting K: "it seems like you are claiming that only humans deserve moral consideration" which is intuitively a misrepresentation and oversimplification, but as pro will no doubt defend, it falls outside the scope. Still this one is a good appeal to try for, with a focus on sentience which is the greater factor to many people. Yup, pro responds "Moral consideration of nonhumans is simply not the subject of this debate." Which inevitably pre-refutes some of cons better points, such as "baseless religious beliefs and speciesism" which on this broad topic I am drawn toward agreeing, just not when applied to this very narrow scope.
Pro doubles down on the harm principle, and expands his explanations. With a focus on social contract theory, pro shows why humans aught to give greater consideration for humans rather than pigs or various inanimate things.
I enjoyed the discussion of souls, and wish it had continued. While I know pro is incorrect in his claims about gingers being people, which his own sources implicitly supports (Flintstones can be proven to not be people, along with all members of the band Guns & Roses); con fails to catch this, making it yet another wholly dropped point.
Both debaters would benefit from learning the term "amoral."
Ultimately, con dropped way too many points for this to even be a close contest. Pro instantly catching the scope creep further refused his arguments.
...
Sources:
Leaning pro, but with con at least challenging one of them I'll leave this within the tied range (albeit, by a small margin)
A request for destruction, vs a pondering of the problem of evil
Pros is easier to understand, but cons is highly relatable even while the specific target is not understood; and ending with a call to be healed, which feels like what we all truly want deep down.
So yes, cons seems more beneficial
Pro basically hands the win on a silver platter (denying he's gay, a very closeted move), but con rejects it to instead imply that pro is bi instead of gay.
In short: "All of your arguments are unproven assumptions."
Pro builds a case of incel propaganda (at least it wasn't copy/pasted)
IF true,
THEN sources are easy to find.
Sources would have undermined con, making his kritik weightless.
Con on the other hand kritiks it with an alternative sexuality; and rather than pointing out that it's not really hetero, pro asserts that they go for those little boys because they're so Chad. Which con wisely uses to mock that said chads are "short and weak," which pro flounders at, and somehow doubles down on his off topic rape isn't rape claims.
Thankfully the debate ended with what it should have been instead of a debate, a simple request for BK to not participate in debates from the instigator.
Mostly this debate was non sequitur, which is to say the conclusion does not follow.
"Some users put hours of work into their arguments.
Best.Korea usually responds with only a sentence.
This is ridiculous and it needs to stop."
Right here is a good example, since the conclusion of outright banning someone rather than getting them to change, is quite the leap into faith.
Of course BK builds off of his point about "effortless arguing" with a two word reply "I disagree." I don't have to like this to see that it is arguments, and further the argument the instigator requested.
Gish Golloped lists of forum posts, don't highlight problems to me (voters need not open every link, in fact reading into links too much can be problematic).
Of course, yes, BK is pretty vile. It may be useful to compare banning to the death penalty (extreme I know), if someone should be punished as such, it should be about more than just moral outrage that we dislike them. Laws they've broken, harm they inflict, benefit if they were not taking out oxygen, etc.
A surefire path to victory would have been reviewing the rules for banning someone, and finding say three good and recent offenses worthy of a short term ban (the resolution did not specify how long).
Sources:
While a single source is usually insufficient for either side, con was exceptional in converting pro's source over to his side with pro's interpretation being non sequitur to the actual material within it (specifically, that it was selling counseling for abortions, not speaking against their existence).
Arguments:
I hate to say it, since I've called this fluffery before, but see sources.
Pro's whole case was the existence of that source, so in flipping it, con unquestionably firmly takes it.
Forfeiture.
Also worth noting that pro did well with IDF having a habit of being caught lying, which undermines cons best evidence.
Fun topic
If doing this again I suggest the description includes a little about how these things work in real life, and if it’s Mario or yourself using it.
That leaf sounds stupidly overpowered, with great versatility. I’m not sure how a tranq is expected to take it down.
Uppercutting with the propeller, aside from risk of self harm, was leaned on way too heavily when there’s so many creative uses for that thing.