Total votes: 1,362
Con called out the very thing I noticed five seconds in, that pro’s argument (in addition to not being his own) is only about some in one subset of non-Christians, not even most within said subset.
Pro uses a Bublé quote about God, which Con calls out for circular reasoning… technically it falls short of even that, as the quote refers to God, not the various books (including actual fan fiction) contained within the Bible.
Fun ethical thought experiment
Ultimately con began to lose ground with me with what he thought was a coup de grâce. That the box could potentially produce something named ‘moral justification,’ doesn’t make Ted morally justified when he risked everything for everyone without any consent other than his own.
A lot of the problem is engaging in semantics, instead of engaging with the thought experiment. While there were examples such as if you’re poor you should risk everything… Pro defended those with the simple fact of Ted knowing of the potential horrible outcomes for everyone. As for there could be a in case that isn’t named, it wasn’t named or even strongly implied to potentially exist.
The bomb analogy almost tipped it. It placed into my mind the hypothetical of a doomsday device which is ticking down; under those circumstances, it’s better to try anything than to do nothing. Leaving it with the low scale, doesn’t show me that the box is justified to use instead of just cutting a random wire on the bomb.
Pros case also could have been better. While I appreciate conciseness, it’s a gamble; even a couple more paragraphs would have clarified and therefore strengthened their case. Pro also should not have brought kindergarten into the debate, even while con embraced the ad hominems and got carried away with them.
Pros case falls back to special pleasing once coma patients feeling pain was brought up.
The source to support it was essential. Challenging it for not having a precise phrase, did not hold water since it had the gist of what con claimed of it.
“Elon Musk is from South Africa and is technically an African American so he likely isn't very smart”
Please never stop. 🤣
Pro: ever let such a garbage definition stand unchallenged. Even just explaining a better interpretation of it would go a long way
Also your case felt like it was asking the other side to make a case for you, rather than providing a few actual examples to cast doubt on the racist narro.
Con: a short reminder about how these systems feed into each other would have been nice. As an example, the justice system by not locking them all up, allows the violent ones to commit violence on their communities. Whereas a randomly selected one (Elon Musk) who spent those key years in drug treatment (basically prison for rich people) has led us into space! Therefore, racism is risking human extinction.
Chess is great and all, but con was able to challenge if it’s even truly a form of intelligence. Pros own arguments help this, since he calls it pattern recognition.
Forfeiture
Forfeited less
Pro offers a simple but logically valid case. Con counters that it’s unsound. And Pro doesn’t really defend….
https://www.debateart.com/debates/5222/comments/58038
Forfeited less
While pro gives a straightforward case that to eat an be applied more easily to either action, con counters by embracing the comed. At first con seemed senseless, but then they whipped out the math. The inputs to that formula were eloquent, and the conclusions derived were superior to my own.
Con shows God as pro infanticide, which intuitively is inconsistent with pro-life values.
Pro argues that the Bible is inconsistent on the matter…
pro-life is firmly anti-abortion, all the time, so this is a no brainer.
Pro was able to support his case with an implicit logically valid syllogism, albeit a boring one which seemed disingenuous in its reliance on semantic truisms.
Con offers a fun counter, but failed to show any likelihood to his ideas which left them grasping at straws.
It’s a BoP issue in which someone else might rule otherwise. However, I view it as the duty of they who present a line of reasoning to support it, rather than to deflect that the other side has not absolutely proven it impossible. This is much like the legal standard of reasonable doubt (not to be confused with some tiny sliver of doubt).
That said, when it came to numbers from sources con excelled at understanding them, and taking pro’s evidence away (not outright flipping them, but still noteworthy)… Said evidence just wasn’t key to the winning arguments. It was however great groundwork for an argument which didn’t quite manifest.
While the assertions were weak, pro's were a little less weak and managed to attempt to be engaging (asking the other side a question, to which there was no reply).
Foregone conclusion due to only one side presenting detailed arguments.
Also this seems intended as largely a discussion, to which the forum might be better suited.
Forfeiture,
Forfeiture,
the majority of Light Yagami's killings in Death Note were unjustified
Fun topic!
Self Defense:
Pro builds an implicant case that IF self defense, THEN justified. Therefore NOT self defense, NOT justified.
Exceptions:
Con argues that things should would intuitively not be justified, are justified by duress.
Moral Duties:
Someone's been watching The Good Place!
I wish this section had gone on longer, possibly with use of the Batman/Joker (Batman using his superpowers to bring The Joker back to life, makes him morally responsible for the likely death toll) and/or Superman/Zod (had Superman let Zod murder the planet, he would be at fault) scenarios.
Net Benefit:
Con argues that since Light does greater good than harm, he is justified.
He does very well in this by arguing both sides, the innocent's Light killed being arguably not, and IF assuming their innocence then it's still justified. The graph was an entertaining piece of evidence, even if a sub-optimal type of graph for this comparison.
Pro counters with a hypocrisy kritik against utilitarianism, and says we should instead use Ethical Egoism. He does not show why Light should refrain from killing people under Moral Egoism, and ironically that was the main fault shown of Light that he subscribed to Moral Egoism.
Con embraces Ethical Egoism, and reminds us that Light wants to kill those people; therefore under pro's own moral system it is automatically justified.
And pro for some reason doubles down on this without first defending why it would favor him...
Real World Impacts:
Pro was clever here, arguing that it's just a show so the deaths don't inherently matter, but since anime violence is the cause of real violence it is automatically unjustified for the writers to portray that... I am praising the attempt take weight away from the fictional lives saved. However, the absence of evidence hurts this (in addition to being counter to the spirit of the debate).
Con counters with Berkeley study which shows the opposite. He additionally counters that were we to dismiss Light as a cartoon character, it would mean all his actions are justified for lack of any net harm; this is why debates such as this should stay to the spirit of debate, rather than desperate tactics to ignore it.
Foregone conclusion and forfeit
Concession
No case from either side until the final round…
Pro calls Israel hypocritical for being Nazi-like, and says they’re actively creating the next generation of enemies (intuitively, genocide would prevent that).
Con replies with grammar-Nazidom, and accuses pro of gosh-galloping leaving him unable to respond to all the arguments.
I feel neither actually touches the precise topic of aid, reducing the debate down to anti-Israel vs pro-Israel.
I am not seeing any Gish gallop, merely a weak assertion which could have been easily challenged in any number of ways.
While con tried the Ted Lasso defense, it failed to actually elevate himself to be equal or better than pro, all he did was show that pro could have done better at insulting con.
As entertaining as pro’s trolling was, he gave no justification for any of his single line ideas. Against a true vacuum they would win but con rose a little above that.
Con argued (well mostly asserted) Israel should be more precise in their attacks, and focus a war on localized propaganda (hearts and minds) to prevent the next generation from continuing this trend of violence.
All that said, pro did make a case that con was cheating to have been offered any advice in the comment section, and as I am specificity named in that I will leave it as a tie. Don’t get me wrong, had con copy pasted or even paraphrased any counter plan from the comments (such as Brother.D’s religious call to bomb them) I would be voting against him, but such was clearly not the case.
I expect con to win this, due to pros answers being so short as to fairly dismiss his case as a foregone conclusion.
…
Fob makes the case that an example of justification is to prevent greater violence (kill a murderer before they can kill you and/or others), but should there be another option than it is not justified.
Pro argues for decreased violence, which con counters that there are unnamed other places kids could be thought to get the same effect; pro is able to flip this with the logic that more decreased violence is better. Without anything to at least imply a better path, I have to give this to pro.
If debating this again I advise focusing a bit on the reliability of most the population being thought subjects at school. Some statistics on low rates of violence against gays in school would be a good counterpoint, and/or references to better uses of their time while at school.
Forfeiture
Conduct for needless insults.
Arguments… I actually really appreciate cons case of cause and effect; but when pro dismisses it as the human mind is the ultimate cause, he does not defend that the human mind is formed based on experience outside our control making it not the cause of itself. Thus with that defense in place, pro is able to hold the initiative.
Got to say that I am really lost as to the bit of pros case about random monoculars actively making any choices, just because we observe them. Choice implies a will, for which pros own arguments call upon a mind as the source. Still, he comes ahead l.
Sources should reply be used when challenging official stuff. Con could have taken the definition battle, had he just said who he was quoting.
Nice R1 from pro but ultimately an FF.
Con wisely calls out the definition for special pleading. Additionally it’s an absurd definition, which reduced self defense and everyone involved in convicting and executing a mass murderer as murderers themselves.
Flipping pros own appeal to authority was well executed (pun intended, murderer!). While I see defenses which could be done on that front, they were not.
Forfeiture
Concessions
This is a fine example of a foregone conclusion.
Pro makes a well researched case, with plenty of professionally cited sources, and con offers literally one single sentence reply with no reason why his counterplan would be better or even mutually exclusive.
Pro attempts to twist definitions into meaninglessness (by his definition, kicking someone in the balls is outright genocide), which con does not directly challenge but rather makes a counterpoint that at least half of all abortions are to save the mother... Pro wholly drops this, in spite of the source only supporting rare instances.
Brother!!!
Forfeiture.
Forfiture.
Forfeiture.
Forfeiture.
Communism is garbage. At R1 I fully expected my vote would go to con, with so many of pro's points being kinda BS (everything is theft, NK is ideal...)
That said, pro was able to show that applesauce is better for the people by utilitarian standards (to include that morally we ought to not give special status based on blood relation). Con's replies boil down to applesauce being a taboo word; yet failed to show that in the form suggested it wouldn't be better (indeed with countries we instinctively favor being more applesauce than capitalist).
One of the smarter things pro did was not going for absolute governments oversight but rather just a few vital areas, as seen with saying cars are outside the scope of consideration.
I'd have been more likely to buy con's lawyering, had it not waited so long. A key flaw in the execution is that I have no difficulty with the substitutions (e.g., applesauce above), so with pro's case not being reduced to word salad with confusing and/or contradictory definitions it holds.
Sources:
They lean to con for the effort put into research. None of them clicked with me to tip anything but with arguments to pro I am more liberally mitigating said victory.
Legibility:
Con had two full rounds all bolded, and one most nearly all bolded. A little bit of bold text can help, but acting like it is all special and super important means none of it is, and of course this distracts from reading his points.
Conduct:
Pro used a tactic of not answering anything from con in the final two rounds. While this carried the day, it was disrespectful... That said, con's kritik against the debate setup was also problematic; but it seems a fair point mitigation against the side whose tactic of questionable sportsmanship was successful.
Forfeiture
AI writing and plagiarism. This got better towards the end,
https://celitia.com/period-equity-what-it-is-and-why-it-matters/
Additionally, con gave his sources and understood the problems of government programs. When referencing a study that says x% of whatever, a citation should always be given.
Con also nailed things with a good kritik of the topic which pro inspired, via pads should be the free item (if arguing this again, I suggest FHP in general, instead of any specific one. Additionally, arguing for a free option should be clearly done with the premium options still available to purchase... Hell have single ply sandpaper TP available, almost everyone will still buy good TP).
Forfeiture
Pro was swiftly able to show a much greater magnitude of damage. Con countered with intended harm but refused to support said intent, and had no real defense when pro raised the intent of many of the riots to destroy government buildings.
A better tactic for con would have been to focus on the net benefit of the BLM riots, to outweigh their harm.
Forfeiture.