Total votes: 1,362
Legibility: Too many missing or incorrect punctuation marks, and missing capitalization.
Conduct: Pro forfeiture a round, and needlessly went into ad hominem attacks (insulting con's intellect for not agreeing with him).
Arguments:
Pro implies a syllogism of if you like to stroke dicks, you're a homosexual man; therefore those who stroke at least one, are homosexual men. This is very simplistic but a mildly entertaining bit of humor.
Con pulls a definition, and declares that you must be attracted to other people in order to be gay (which was not within the definition). Pro counters this with the act of stroking a dick is implying sexual attraction to it. Con insists you must be attracted to people plural. ... This continues back and forth, without any evolution.
Regarding the accusation of strawmanning I don't buy it. Pro repeated the same weak argument he had been making, without twisting anything about con's which is needed for the fallacy to occur. Pro defended that merely calling something a strawman is not in itself a sensible argument related to the resolution.
While pro could have done a much better job (for example, show monogamous people as still being sexually attracted to each other, to prove that attraction to one person can define sexual preferences), I understand his (weak) case.
Con likewise could have done much better (show that most people are classified as straight in spite jacking off, so even if doing a gay activity they are at most bi), with his case resting on a single definition which leaves it ambiguous along with calling pro's case a strawman of his own case.
Pro was not pro and therefore, should not use the voting facilities for real pro.
Forfeiture
Neither side sufficiently advances a hypothesis.
Forfeiture.
Forfeiture.
Pro opens with laying out a case against common fallacious arguments.
They use Islamic scripture to show that by any standard she was a child (even playing with dolls in front of her husband).
Con effectively concedes the debate with their first line:
"While what it is true that the Prophet did have a relationship with a child, (Aisha), it must be noted that while he is a pedophile by modern standards, he most likely was not a pedophile when it comes to ancient Saudi Arabian legalities."
Pro had already addressed that ancient legalities do not change the nature of pedophila, nor did con give any reason why they would.
Con gave greater variety, whereas pro reused the same band twice.
Were I in a romantic song battle, certainly Michael Bublé is the best; but I would not expect to win for using him repeatedly.
Con, in rounds two and three all you needed to do was type “extend”
Instead you made homophobic comments followed by confessing aggressive homosexual desires toward pro. This is two thirds of the debate on that, overshadowing and distracting from everything else.
Con showed that pro would be better off if he went and touched some grass, whereas pro merely ordered con and/or the audience to go touch grass. This is a no brained.
Technically it doesn’t, since it’s intelligence which determines the measurable IQ…
But pro had a single sentence assertion against a properly warranted case. So foregone conclusion.
Interesting debate. Neither side sufficiently supported their case with evidence for their standard to be favored, so leaving it a tie.
Even without the forfeiture, con would have owned this!
BoP failure, which is well caught by con.
Pro’s case for Judas, fails to show that he is tortured according to the Bible; merely that someone regrets him being born. Even if we take him for granted, showing hell in the Bible is still needed to show the contradiction in character of God.
Forfeiture less.
I appreciate that con used a Batman movie for easier contrast.
Within the confines of this debate, I am left with the impression that DK was about The Joker, and had a shortage on character development (I loved their take on Joker; but no analysis was given to state why it was a good thing that he was a force of nature instead of a traditional character with relatable motives); in contrast GK was about Batman making mistakes and learning. Further, I got a real sense of a plot from GK with Batman injuring someone and regretting it.
Too many dangling questions were left by pro. Why was Heat not a better superhero movie if it’s what DK was based on? And why would a movie be the best merely for being live action and containing any one certain actor?
Video links would have gone a long way. The flip for example, if shown becomes a great moment, if just talked about it depends on the audience voting their bias.
Essentially BoP failure. I agree with pro’s sentiment that a ban would be a form of increased enforcement, which is best carried out at the federal level. However, they treated it as a truism falling short of proving this. A little elaboration on why it must be done at the federal level, and/or why ban is just a level of control would have given them the win.
Con for their part, did a weak semantic kritik by proposing an outright ban instead of mere increased regulation. An assertion that this falls to pros side was the right tactic but lacked the support needed to turn it into a warranted argument.
An example of why this needs support is had con proposed complete gun anarchy, that too is technically a level of gun control; yet con would have sources in support of their side. Not much is needed in the way of sources but a little when the other side is using them to enhance their points.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/4751/comments/56141
And
https://www.debateart.com/debates/4751/comments/56181
Forfeiture
Pro argued only silly people believe women can drive, which con exploited by agreeing that people should embrace the “silly” belief that women can drive.
Pro’s BoP is that women cannot drive, con’s is that they can. One may agree with an opposing argument, to use against the previous conclusion.
Con chose the route of cherry picking out of context, while wholly dropping the related contentions. This leaves the USA as not the leader of the free world (apparently 30th place or something).
As for there being some democratic ability within the USA, pro was able to show why it ended up being anti-democratic via going with the opposite result in elections. Again, this was not challenged (and trust me, there’s some easy counters to this).
Con does a good job, making a case with strong merit. There are several dimensions to which it aligns.
The biggest weakness in cons case was repeatedly calling a statement that if they removed the inaccurate parts it would then be accurate to be a concession.
The problem pro is able to exploit is that details and scales are not irrelevant when in comes to determining accuracy; even more so with it being on balance, rather than some subsection which has an overwhelmingly high death rate. It’s a fun caricature, which offers insight, but falls well short of being accurate.
I will add that exaggeration does not guarantee inaccuracy; but as seen with the human body and the 0.0something death rate being turned into 96%, it’s too far of a stretch.
This debate really needed a description stating it was to be from a purely religious perspective.
Con does a fun argument that life is pain, pro counters that pain is a gift from God and that God will torture any abortion victim for all eternity for the sin of having been aborted… Con questions the mental state of said God, leaving pros own arguments implying that God is evil.
Sources to pro for incredible depth of research, even if it was used against him.
FGM.
Con makes the point rather clearly, and pro offers no defense.?therefore we have a wholly evil action without any good consequence.
Pro proposes we’re in a simulation, and if in a simulation it’s more likely the map in flat like in RTS games.
While pro is able to defend mountains due to hills, tops of windmills over the ocean have no explanation within the proposed model (same with seasonality, etc.).
Conduct for forfeiture.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/4682/comments/55605
Cons assertions getting racist in the final round does not change the core of how much he lost by. Some reason for something to be illegal is needed beyond it merely being illegal; which is self evidently a circular argument, no better than defining something by itself.
very interesting read. I don’t think accurate is the right word for it but it’s a decent or even good allegory.
Pros best attack came from the glass floor game, which ruthlessly kills whomever goes first. Con defended this as a depiction of raising suicide rates. Had pro come back, I’m sure he would have hammered this for the win due to most of the country not killing themselves.
Ultimately, with pro only making arguments in a single round, he’s technically dropped every defense con raised, reducing this to a foregone conclusion.
Pro made a simple case, and fortified it with being willing to be terminated if brain dead. Con thought this was somehow a checkmate, which makes no sense to me.
In the end, we have clear reasons to believe it's ok (no brain, no related brain stuff), without a clear reason it would not be ok. Coma people exist but pro was able to show how there's a difference.
Making this debate worse, con kept obsessing over another debate. This is not said other debate, this is debate 4,666;
Conduct to pro for putting some of cons material into his own round by request.
Arguments go to con by a wide margin. Pro has the implicit metric of if already a fan, whereas con had several in a likely attempt to broaden our music taste.
I’m predictable, I love Eminem; but that appeal to what I already know for no reasons I don’t already have, are not valid for voting on a debate.
Regarding argumentation… asking how someone can argue something, is a fine bit of rhetoric, and yet it actually drops the point when someone just did.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/4552/comments/55422
In short:
Aside from pro repeating "Sex and gender are the same" like a broken record, he attempts to flip con's evidence which states "male, female or nonbinary" as proof there are only two. That set obviously contains three. While con doesn't explicitly mention it, 3 <> 2. Con hammers this home, and pro drops it, leaving "intersex" as a third gender by their own standards.
At length:
Pro makes a case reliant upon sex and gender being identical. Con dismantles this with definitions, and shows that gender is a variable social construct.
Pro counters that social constructs aren't real... This is a line of reasoning which cannot go anywhere, since language is a social construct. Misrepresenting cons definitions (which con caught and well defended) does not help this at all.
Pro points out hermaphrodites exist, con points back to sex and gender being different words.
Pro does better later with pointing out perception and reality differ. A major weakness to their case is not leading with this. As is, it's presented as a sub point mid-way into their case, after arguing people cannot do things people self-evidently do. He goes on to argue gender should be "male, female, or sometimes intersex" ... Con wastes no time in catching this, even while pointing out it's wrong when applied to gender.
Pro argues non-cisgendered people are offensive (after arguing cis-gendered shouldn't exist, which leaves me scratching my head since if we got rid of everyone not trans... 🤯). It spirals off on this side tangent, including a video of a very beautiful woman complaining about the term cis (ok, some women are offended; this doesn't support the resolution).
Conduct for forfeiture.
Forfeiture.
Call it a forfeiture or a foregone conclusion. Pro effectively missed over half the debate, leaving con to just extend repeatedly dropped points.
Null............
Con dropped the framework that Anakin is distinct from Vader, then made a lot of points against Vader... This would be like a prosecution trying to focus on how vile a crime was, and ignoring all the evidence that someone else committed it (a little like The Central Park Five).
Con also tried to argue there is more evil in him than good, and yet the definition we have for redemption is about rejecting the evil. With him dying before he could turn back to evil, redemption was attained; and pretty much if attained than it was deserved (as much as it cannot be earned).
Null......
Concession.
Concession. Also a much better setup and R1 than last time.
An angle I am surprised is not being raised in these debates, is pleasure for women.
Null......
The debate is a truism, for which con attempts to move the goalpost but fails to list any reasons why his standard should be preferred. Had Con done so, his proofs would have won out.
Massive BoP failure (which con highlighted), followed by forfeiture.
The very premises pro tried to use, reminded me of the one great scene from a Uwe Boll film:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt_tv7t79WY
Forfeiture.