Total votes: 1,369
1. Some conspiracy theorist...
Pro offers it, and con disproves the validity of it on several grounds.
2. Bill Gates said...
Con proves that Bill Gates has since updated his beliefs, and that software is more advanced than us as of 2001; refuting the idea that something more advanced is required to make something less advanced (like tool progression, we did not start at supercomputers and work our way down to the hammer).
3. Our DNA mutates every time we sin
Con refutes the crazy source for this, and pro offers no reason we should believe it in light of that.
3 (bonus) DVD salesman is greater than God
Con twists pro's words into this, and pro stands by it... Nicely done pro.
4. spam.
5. spam.
I've reviewed the main points, and am not reviewing more spam which doesn't in any way connect to the resolution.
Sources:
Con did extensive research to challenge pro's sources, and even used pro's own Harvard source to prove that he was blatantly misrepresenting the data while trying to move the goalpost away from complexity, and failing even by that standard.
"spacefaring lifeforms might just be biding their time" ... This was by far the strongest point by pro, and it still fails to meet the lowest standard of BoP to imply that any aliens (Canadians don't count) ever visited or even observed our existence. Con of course argued first that BoP is on pro, which was successful to a high enough degree that the rest of his case was needless (it was nice of him to explain things to pro, but not something I need to review).
Sources for flipping pro's own source to show "no evidence for alien intelligence currently exists." Pro's own offered evidence says he's wrong, and that was not overcome. Otherwise con literally school pro, teaching the basic concepts pro needed to use to build a case.
Conduct:
While con gave an implicit concession ("as much as i want there to be space aliens i know there is no solid proof"), he kept arguing, so he still loses conduct for the forfeiture.
Gist:
Pro just dropped way too much...
Arguments:
BoP is on pro, he asserts they’re not harmful, but goes on to list that they sometimes are harmful. Con counters with thousands of people tortured and killed even by the stated non-harmful ones. Pro questions if that might be against the religions in question, which doesn’t mean they don’t commit it, merely it’s hypocritical thus harmful to their organizations, in addition to being harmful to external people they harmed.
Sources:
Not assigning points for this (not enough of a lead)...
Pro you should look at how con used sources, they were an integrated part of his case and discussed, not merely thrown on at the end as if an afterthought.
S&G:
Formatting could use some work. For starters, please don’t block quote above what you’re responding to: https://tiny.cc/DebateArt
Conduct:
No issues.
Pro's final round statement was not topical, leaving this as a full forfeit (every round, or every round after the first). Plus lying about objective reality is a huge pet peeve of mine (had a creeper obsessed with me back on DDO, he made up a bunch of statements I was supposed to have made, and then cried about how unfair objective reality was for discriminating against him via not warping to what he wants to have happened...).
See comments:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1136/comment_links/19674
Admittedly this is a case where I wish I could assign one less point for arguments, as a way to give credit for how good a job con did against the odds he faced.
See comments:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1217/comment_links/19545
Gist:
From various direct human rights abuses to outright sponsoring terrorism, SA was proven to be highly immoral and wicked. There was no counter case, con forfeited for over a month (60% of the debate I might add)...
Con was doing better, but he conceded.
Hopefully they'll do a rematch.
While not everything always needs to be responded to, pro kept dropping the wide sweeps of cons concise case.
Con repeatedly pointed out the soul issue, and the Imago Dei not applying the animals (which feeds into genesis of us lording over them rather than being equals). Pro's only (eventually) response was to say that there might have been a translation error.
Whereas pro's case was disproven on the grounds that it implied a vague possibility for reinterpretation, rather than actually proving anything.
Concession.
To improve formatting (thus win a lot more debates): https://tiny.cc/DebateArt
So I'm pretty sure con was just trolling this. Conceding the resolution ("I know that you can have a bad quality of life but a good standard of living"), but insisting he won the debate in a weird type of lawyering Kritik.
It's clear they are related things, but pro succeeded in showing the measurements differ (USA has a higher GDP per capita, but ranks much lower in quality of life). A con case could have been made focusing on inequality in wealth distribution accounting for that (pun intended), but such was not done (instead he argued both terms contain some of the same letters).
At the end of the day, the evidence offered makes them seem correlated but different.
BoP is on pro, but his opening was relevant.
For this type of debate, the contender's job is the cast doubt. He missed the obvious thing of introducing say India as a potential country to become dominant; this leaves the debate as just China v. USA in terms of growth rates...
This debate could have been better with some more direct comparisons (fertility rate in China is low, how is it in the US or India?), and the implementation of better forecasting techniques. The oil issue was a pretty good one for the USA (the explanation of Britain in particular). The GDP growth of China was remarkable, but the rate of slowing suggests it is not sustainable to carry it past the USA. The civil unrest is a valid threat to any predictions about China's future, particularly with the source putting it side by side with knife attacks in Palestine. And finally the number of millionaires (which con countered with a population comparison, making it a problem of greater inequality brought on by the communist system) even if unchallenged, would not override everything else.
In short, con used evidence to cast sufficient doubt on the prediction.
Pro offers 7 standards. Con eventually challenges the economy as slightly favoring Mexico, and that Brazil has a bad leader who is letting the rain-forest burn to bolster his economy... This leaves cultural impacts, military, size, personal freedoms, and average standard of living untouched. By weight, even had pro not defended against cons points, these do not bring them even close to being equal.
BoP...
Seriously, pro never talked about either word in question in the resolution, so BoP could not be met. I did however enjoy that classic Simpson's bit.
The con case is the definitions of the words, showing they have meaning, negating the resolution until such time as pro offers evidence they are indeed misused (oh they are, at least by some groups, but pro has a duty to show it, and to show it).
Some credit to pro for a very concise case...
Nanny-State:
This argument was that people should not be free, that someone else should make the decisions for them; but failed to link to any direction this lack of freedom should take and why.
Obesity:
Con argues that obesity would not drop to the rate someone would argue it would from the tax. Sadly this highlighted the BoP failure from pro, as con's arguments were based around a better debater who would build such a case.
Wealth Disparity:
Con argues that income inequality would be increased by the tax, potentially even leading to isolated cases of starvation. This is a fantastic stand alone reason to reject it.
---
Sources:
Con, please integrate your sources a little more (the only ones that should be listed, are the ones directly referenced; I am still awarding the point for those)...
So a single quote, vs a well researched case such as a Business Wire report on the potato chip industry which the tax would harm: no contest (while I don't believe a tax on potato chips would actually lead to anyone starving, the claim was made and supported, and then unchallenged).
Conduct:
While pro's behavior was suspect, being poor at arguing is not a crime.
Yet another troll debate abusing Poe's Law to mock religious people...
First of all, credit to pro for the improvements on S&G.
I admit I enjoyed the religious people bleed rainbows opening, but I do wish it had pictures...
So the core of pro's case is that DNA doesn't change, except he argues it spontaneously changes every time we drink or have sex, we pass down altered DNA more likely to repeat those things (which would mean gay people don't exist, and everyone is trying to bleep their own mothers). Con of course lays on proof that DNA does change generation to generation, and links it back to our most likely origin.
Con also counters that the claim God did it, begs for other such gods to be considered; so he brings in the FSM and Aliens. Pro's defense via assertion against the FSM is that all gods are "each Demon calling themselfs god" [sic], and fails to offer any suggestion for why God would not be one of these. Con merely points out that Satan hasn't been proven (and no, Santa Clause does not prove Satan, even if he was inspired by the myth, myths inspiring more myths proves nothing).
Con also offers a syllogism, to which pro drops; that alone could cost pro the arguments (if everything above did not already).
Sources: The existence of a guy named Pastor Chuck v. government and educational sites about evolution; one is just kind of there not doing anything, and the other supports arguments.
Forfeiture, and what looks like a concession (concessions get conduct from me, I like everyone's time being saved)...
To actually get this debate to happen, you two should probably do it on the forums or otherwise, and then copy/paste the finished product into a debate for voting.
Con demonstrated that the execution of the rules was not done in a bullshit manner (citing a debate which seems to have inspired this one). He did this via showing multiple votes, and explaining where the line in quality fell. The implication is that it would actually be bullshit to not insist people read the debates before they vote (and then to give minimal proof).
I was not convinced that rules are not elitism (that something is elitism, doesn't mean it's a bad thing), but pro complained about that rather than showing it, and never tried to meet BoP on either point (1. that it's elitist, and 2. that it's bullshit).
Con refuted pro's case with the example of Venezuela, as that happened (and is happening) in present day, so if premature than then it cannot be assumed the world will ever be mature in the right ways for the socialism to not fail. Of course apparently it's actually doing great, as people living there "have no cares only rainbows and free ice cream."
A good follow up debate would be that Norway is socialist, as pro made some assertions around Norway secretly being that, and were they warranted (supported by even minimal evidence) he could have won.
I would have been genuinely interested in learning what technology advancements would make socialism a preferable system (or even a feasible one), the debate was setup for that, but then it never happened.
The highlight of pro's case was that he can't be expected to predict future events... Unfortunately this debate was about a prediction of future events.
Con on the other hand introduced the topic, and explained such factors as Germany being both opposed to immigration and suffering an aging population, making them unlikely to save others from the unspecified future disaster.
Sources for such things as Pew research supporting cons informational claims, making this debate rise above the level of base assertions. In contrast, pro offered zero evidence.
Pro says change is needed. That is his entire case. One that does not favor any course of action over any other. (showing why socialism would improve things was basically required for BoP and was not done). Con introduces a competing system which lifts people out of poverty (capitalism), and explains that socialism both never works and has killed millions.
Sources for the integrated sources from con, such as WSJ debunking the concept of socialism as having never worked, thus being wholly unable to fix the planet. Whereas pro had none, nor did he offer any real challenge to cons (since con did not cite the black book, I am unsure what pro was even talking about in the attempted refutation).
Conduct for multiple forfeitures.
A non-sequitur instead of a case. Pro never once offers evidence to even imply of the guy being alive, he merely points to the death being suspicious. Con points this out, thus wins.
Massive BoP failure. Pro basically tries the Chewbacca Defense to prove God, without ever showing evidence which implies God to even be more likely than Pikachu.
Pro again goes into his numbers thing, trying to say that the random number of fingers and toes is proof that God counted them (and badly for those of us with six instead of five). And that mutation is the blame if the count is off, but he insists such is impossible because God does not allow it to happen (con wisely points out that we have a name for it because of how often it does... so pro's argument is if God then no mutation, but since mutation therefore no God.).
Con makes an unchallenged case for selective pressures causing some variants to die out, resulting in the limited color pallet we see.
Sources go to con for flipping pro's own source to be a concession that pro is wrong (he would not have read it and shared it with us knowing that unless he agreed that he's wrong...). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3885174/
See comments:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1355/comment_links/19200
CVB bill.
I would not do this, but 6 hours left, so no guarantee any moderator will be on.
The resolution adds the 'must' qualifier, raising the BoP requirements (similarly, 'probably' would have lowered it; which really should have been done to suite the limited evidence... actually a 'might' qualifier would have been best).
Arguments: Pro makes some claims about observed things and a didit fallacy, con counters them. Con adds a three part case against them, which pro wholly drops (to include #2, which pre-refuted his assertions in the following round... that pro goes on to complain that he couldn't understand the pre-refutation of his case, does not bode well).
I was left without a clue what this M field is supposed to be (maybe something about Magneto from the X-Men?), which is the below the bare minimum this debate should have accomplished.
Pro: next time walk us through the scientific method on it, to include the falsifiability (given the scientific nature of this, I am giving sources for con providing links and explanations to improve your future arguments... and yeah, sources not worked into a case aren't within consideration).
Pro decided to offer a copy/pasted non-sequitur instead of a valid argument, when this was raised as a point he did some more copy/pasting instead of responding to the the holes in his logic; which is both awful conduct and failing to attempt to win arguments. Plus with the twisted skull evidence pro specifically asked for, this debate ended on an implied concession from him (pro inferred that if he's wrong that evidence would exist, that evidence was then provided...).
Gist:
Unclear resolution (in the comment section I accidentally called resolution RFD), and a lack of effort from pro. This became basically an educational lesson for pro from con, rather than a true debate.
1. Definitions
This should have been handled in the description. This is a major area of importance, which con gave, and pro wholly dropped (which translates to accepted at face value, ironically part of con’s definition for intellectual laziness).
2. Facts
We should make up our own mind “based on the facts” with a handy link to how evolution is a fact, while somehow arguing that it is just a theory (the very laziness the source uses to conclude that we should stop trying to explain the difference between fact and scientific theory). Con uses this area to explain the scientific method, and the results we would be stupid to disbelieve (cell phones, etc.).
3. Scientists are fallible
This could have done with an example or two of disproven former theories... Con uses this to basically say it would be worse than intellectually lazy to dismiss subject matter experts, it would be intellectual suicide.
---
Arguments:
See above review of key points. This was a three-round debate, to which pro wholly dropped one round, basically dropped another (only responding to three lines from pro’s argument), basically leaving this as an FF (con won on arguments, but this write-up is me being nice).
See comments:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1330/comment_links/19024
Gist:
More an attempt at hiding behind ambiguity and moving the goalpost than a real debate.
Concession
With the FF pro's case was left unchallenged.
See comments:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1282/comment_links/18910
Gist:
Pretty hard to follow, but I could make sense of four contentions to which I am confident con won, plus one that I am undecided on.
FF
Concession.
Con had a good chance of winning prior to the forfeited round; the main thing he was lacking was a simple data bit on when someone reached that number. The problem with T-series would be the same problem with using the aggregate of all Minecraft videos.
FF
1. Appeal to tradition
That dead people did not like it, is quickly countered with said dead people supporting slavery. Con tries to extend with special pleading... I don't buy it.
2. Depression
Everyone gets it, and nothing to suggest even a higher rate... so no progress for con here.
3. AIDS
Cons main case, that AIDS exists, and homosexuals can contract it. There's actually a good source (a pie chart) showing that gay males are about three times more likely to contract it, but said chart also agrees with pro's counter that straight people catch it too... This leaves it in a weird realm that to say it's not okay under the arguments offered would be to say being straight is also not ok (way more risks than if asexual).
S&G: Very hard to follow debate due to the quote formatting and lack of headlines.
Conduct: Some insults, but it seemed due to not understanding proper form than intentional disruption to the debate.
Another troll spam debate (given that he's previously conceded evolution is how life got here, not God, pretty safe to say the trolling is intentional)... Given the amount of copy/paste, vote against pro would be justified on that alone.
1. Didit fallacy
Pro offers his usual didit fallacy (normally each debate stands wholly alone, but at a certain point we can't pretend someone isn't spamming the same drivel), with no explanation for why any god (let alone a random one from the middle east) would have done it (or that they even exist for that matter). Con calls him out on this in a much wordier format. Summary of it from con: "If an all powerful super being wanted us to fix our illnesses: why make us sick in the first place?" Not even getting into the failing to fix said illnesses most of the time.
1. Evolution
Seems to be the better explanation for what is observed (and as for us being able to benefit from eating other carbon based organisms, well the DNA repair is listed by con as "That such enzymes and antioxidants are beneficial to other animals with DNA, is unsurprising and is explainable using EXACTLY the same trial, error and selection principles as outlined in point 1,2 and 3 in R1."), and no counter case is offered to suggest otherwise. Were this Minecraft and there were exclusively beneficial effects, pro might have a case.
S&G should be self explanatory; but pro decided to hide his points behind a wall of bad grammar, missing punctuation, wrong capitalization, extra spaces at random, etc. Con on the other hand was legible.
Sources and conduct would also be warranted, but I am not putting the extra time into them on a troll debate.
Interpreting the resolution:
Definition of God (seriously, this debate moved to that).
Gist:
So a lot of bandwagon appeals… A couple decent Ks… Got to say it, this is a fine example of why three rounds is preferable to two… Final thing, pro let con control the debate, not introducing any of his own contentions (which is fine to do, but is also risky).
1. Definitions
Con wants to just say God is the name for whatever willingly created the universe, pro wants God to be the usual Christian definition.
The debate description did define God as he, but that is very ambiguous. Were con to have not engaged in the contention about Incoherence of Impersonal Causes, I would be more sympathetic to pro. More rounds also might have helped, as this was effectively a two round debate, and demanding such a large change and retooling would reduce it down to basically a single round debate.
I don’t understand pro’s final round bit about “Next time I'll argue the definition of chocolate instead in a God debate.” As for the truism claim, it had been countered by the bandwagon appeal to atheism.
2. KCA
Usual KCA, but with the definition in use it side-steps the usual problem that the KCA does not indicate any particular God (nor even an intelligent deity involved… which he goes on to address under the next contention).
The strawperson “when I see a video online of a tree growing it is not a sign of God it is a sign of a tree growing” failed to refute this argument line. Also pointing out the flawed way the KCA is normally used also fails to refute.
3. Incoherence Problem
I was not moved by this, but it bridged several gaps.
Reductio ad infinitum (/but what created that first cause?/ That actually agrees with con’s definition for God as skipping to the first cause instead of any number down the chain) does not counter this; and I should mention that con brought this up R1.
---
Arguments:
See above review of key points.
Conduct:
This took a small hit in the final round, when con could not respond anymore pro did large scale direct rebuttals on the definition. Not enough to lose the point, but worth noting.
Spam troll debate, so not putting much into this...
“If PRO measured in micrometers and maybe kept the first few decimal places- many interesting and important asymmetries could be accurately recorded.” con also points out that God would not use rounded imperial units, and pro immediately insists on using that bad standard and further insisting that against reason God used it. He the. Gives some really bad math about how many children human women tend to have (1,000,000 each...).
As con pointed out, pro never offers any evidence for how or why his imaginary friend did all these measurements, nor anything to suggest said imaginary friend is real to have done such.
“I admit that he could have been murdered." Concession. Walked back or not, still the most logical part of pro’s argument. Things like “666” do not indicate someone is alive.
Cons arguments were mainly that pros were terrible, challenging the sources as fake news, etc. his case would have been better to open with any source pointing to the death certificate, but the talk of crime families wanting to kill him did a decent job getting pro to concede.
As a reminder, pro had BoP to at least suggest the public figure is still alive, which requires something to suggest that, not just complaints that we don’t have a video of him dying.
See comments:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1265/comment_links/18552
Con turned it into a troll debate anyway.
Gist:
Ultimately a concession, but before that it was frustratingly unclear. This feels a little bit like the warm up ponderings we get in our heads before a debate starts.
1. Opposing Views
It really should not have been pro who brought up “cognitive dissonance,” but once it was mentioned con should have capitalized on it (potentially making a whole point of contention around it)... For con this only really got under way in R2 with the mention of contradicting belief systems introduced by monotheism.
2. Death and Taxes
Pro executed a decent Epistemological argument, that faith leads to death, and in death His Name Is Robert Paulson (this is a Fight Club refence pro did not actually make; he also did not mention taxes, but I suspect that old saying is what he based this K on). Con attempts to dismiss that as not an argument, and claim it included the common Christian torture dungeon threat (which it did not). ... Con then uses short term untruths (he likely should have focused on the destruction factor, that if that’s what’s waiting for us, which we can’t know to be wrong, then in death we will not know anything to include if we were right or wrong).
Regarding the No K rule... Honestly, I’m conflicted if I would call pro’s argument a K or not given that knowledge was the subject of the debate (I kind of think of K’s as out of left field, and this was very much the type of argument to be expected on this topic). Then again, one definition for K I am toying with is arguments which avoid the other person’s argument, so...
3. Reliability
This is what pro conceded on in the end (not that they were wrong, but that their case failed to wholly address this part of the resolution).
---
Arguments:
See above review of key points.
Conduct:
Given for concession.
---
If doing this again...
Advice to Con:
I would make this argument on two fronts. First religion (front load that popular modern religions contradict each other; such as only 10,000 Mormons get into heaven). Second would be government, as 2+2 should equal 4, but 1984 taught us that in politics it can equal a different number every day if you have faith in the party. The second front is important to make things easy for judges, as grounds the debate in knowable truths. On both, focus on the paths of faith leading to more untruths. ... Also never be afraid to Google a term someone uses.
Advice to Pro:
Before your final sentence concession, I was conflicted as to who won (I would have reread the debate as it was short). I hate ever telling someone not to concede (as way more people should), but don’t make it your first instinct, you’ve got a lot of potential to become a strong debater.
For your arguments, work on expanding things out more.
On this more references to where we could go (IDK, the great bubblegum forest?). Big thing on the current argument would be the time of false beliefs, we might live a hundred years on Earth, but if there’s an afterlife, it can be assumed an average of a million years there knowing truth (against eternity there’s reincarnation which might be fast, and annihilation would be 0 time knowing truth).
Concession. Skimmed a little, in R2 pro failed to adequately refute the birthism conspiracy theory as racially motivated; personally not liking the sources, doesn't weaken their credibility (for the politifact one for example, countering it with another fact check website that verifies Trump either didn't do it or didn't lie... if he's not racist and this is all made up, it should be easy to find).
Gist:
Massive BoP failure based around non-sequiturs.
1. Medicine
Pro builds a case around some assertions about modern medicine (which doesn't predate life, so relevance?). Con counters in a few ways, explaining why it's a non-sequitur via putting it into logical form, and outright reminding us: “No evidence is offered by PRO to establish medicine as of exclusively divine origin.” All of these are wholly dropped by pro.
2. Space
Off topic to life...
Let's see, pro tries to use the moon (which has no living organisms) as proof of God creating life, but he fails to ever connect it to life, and con proves the numbers provided are false.
Pro insists all objects in space are synced, con explains that would mean moving at the same speed which is false.
Pro offers a big Gish Gallop of random numbers, but as con reminds us "None of PRO's coincidences demand a supernatural explanation."
---
Arguments: See above. Pro never even tried to touch on the topic of where life comes from.
Sources: "This is a fact just google search it and you will get this number." Telling the audience your evidence is they can do your research for you, will always be a pretty bad hit on this... Pro denies being able to find "wear" con got his bad numbers, when the links were presented right over the numbers themselves, as con later explains (not that it was needed). Generally pro offers a bunch of off topic random sites, whereas con offers useful verifiable information... Big thing was con catching pro's own source disagreeing with pro, "...reports the sun/moon ratios are only approximate, that the Moon's orbit is elliptical and slowly escaping Earth's gravity so these ratios are never precise, and that the odds of such a configuration are unknowable because we have so little data. PRO offers this source as more reliable than Wikipedia, so let's note that PRO's second argument is soundly refuted by PRO's own source."
S&G: Pro intentionally obfuscates his points behind a wall of illegibility. Extra lines enters in the
middle of
sentences, extra spaces at random, missing punctuation, and as an example this gem: "on the site it link is from Einstein and Nutan. it is still a huge coincidence. newton discovered that god fined tuned the notion of gravity. nutan did not discover how this came to be like con seems to be saying. he discovered that this is the way it is" [sic]
Concession.
Interpreting the resolution:
Christianity’s rules are more beneficial than harmful.
Gist:
Pro wanted to debate more than con. With all arguments dropped through multiple rounds, there isn’t much to consider.
If doing a follow-up, an alternative moral system should be pointed to for comparison.
1. Homosexuality (con)
Con cites multiple parts of the bible preaching burning people to death (or worse) for non-crimes. Pro responds by saying that if they’re Christian they can do what they want... This strikes me as a dangerous standard which did not refute the problem to begin with.
2. Slavery (pro)
The bible normalizes slavery. Pro argues that was servants not slaves, and that the bible further tells people to assist runaway slaves in fleeing captivity.
Side note: Surprised I did not see reference to the principles of jubilee, or that time God commanded an abused slave to return to her master.
3. Women (tie)
We have competing interpretations of the same passages, without context for which one Christians practice (I know it’s both, but the debate should have gone to which is more often followed... a con case for any frequency of abuse would have gone a long way).
Instructing that if women get out of line to shave their heads... I’m reminded heavily of Britney Spears, and not in a good way. Granted, pro did not say she should be forced to do that, but that she should willingly do it herself (honestly, it’s really weird without more context).
4. Law of Love
Unchallenged, but really could have used some clarifications...
5. K the rules
Pro K’s the no forfeit rule,
Con weirdly brings up the no K rule, to which was specific to the resolution anyways, plus was in violation of the “Observe good sportsmanship” rule (which pro really should have mentioned...).
Continued under conduct.
---
Arguments:
See above review of key points. On #3 I am calling it tied more as a reminder of how incomplete it felt, but with it outright dropped by con through multiple rounds, it goes to pro.
Conduct:
“Violation of any of these rules merits a loss.”
Yup, it totally merits a loss of the conduct point.