Total votes: 91
Pro gives the definition. Says that humans have similar DNA to animals.
Con gives much more definitions. Refutes the argument of similarity by saying that similar does not mean same.
In round 2, Pro repeats the similarity argument, but without refuting Con's refutation of similar not being same.
Pro concedes the definitions.
Pro makes a claim that toddlers have similar intelligence to animals. I accept that argument. However, the topic does not deal with toddlers specifically, but with all humans.
Pro states that we arent different enough from animals to be classified as something different.
Pro states that we evolved from monkeys.
Con says that there are multiple points where we stopped being animals.
Con brings up many differences which make humans different from animals, such as religion, reasoning, innovation, morality, technology...
I give win to Con. There are lots of differences between humans and animals, and similarities dont negate so many differences.
Only Con made an argument. Pro just stated what the topic was.
Burden of proof was on Pro.
I am not seeing any arguments made by Pro to support his position.
"You are silly" wouldnt be accepted as an argument anywhere, with or without Con providing an argument.
Con says we should be silly, implying that being silly is the true way in this case.
Pro forfeited everything.
Here goes my vote.
Population
Pro says that there is overpopulation. Con says that Earth can support these people. Pro counters with many issues, such as:
"The existence of pollution.
The eradication of natural resources, in materials and organisms."
Population argument goes to Pro.
Honor
Pro makes a claim that care needs to be created for one's own reputation through consequences.
Con counters that by saying that reputation can be built in better ways, and that dueling might not create reputation at all. Pro counters by bringing example of person slandering someone's reputation. Con repeats that there are other ways to save honor. Pro counters by saying that duels are usually done to save honor, that duels make individuals care more for honor. Pro brings up example of Trump, which I think is a nice example.
Honor argument goes to Pro.
Freedom
Pro points out that duels are done with consent of people. They are not forced. Pro points out that many harmful things are allowed, even when they kill people, because it is freedom.
Con counters by saying that you have freedom in your life, but it shouldn't be getting to the point of recklessness where people are dying left are right.
Pro counters by saying that people have a choice to risk their life for something meaningful or for something reckless. Repeats that there is consent in dueling.
Con counters by saying that freedom should be limited if it causes harm. States that we should ban harmful things.
Pro counters by saying that freedom is more important than life.
Con counters by providing quotes which mainly point out that dueling is an overreaction, and that wise people wouldnt do it.
Pro counters by saying that people have understanding of the game.
Con counters and concludes that this freedom comes at high cost and that people should be prevented from doing stupid things.
Freedom argument goes to Con.
Immaturity
Con states that risking life for honor is immature. Pro counters by saying that if people are ready to risk life for honor, then honor means something.
Pro says that duels will eradicate reckless people.
Con counters by saying that children will die due to recklessness.
Pro counters by saying duels lower the amount of aggressive people. Mentions the example of Trump's immaturity caused by lack of dueling in society.
Pro says that dueling is a way of society to evolve by consensually getting rid of aggressive people.
Immaturity argument goes to Pro.
Children
Con states that children would be influenced by dueling and would do it themselves.
Pro counters by saying that children would learn honor.
Con counters by saying that children would die.
Pro counters by saying that government wouldnt allow children to duel and that such duels didnt happen.
Con insists that they would happen, that children copy adults.
Pro says that its not wrong to teach children honor, that it would help children.
Children argument is a tie.
Consent for whom?
Con points out that people would be pressured in some cases, and that consent wouldnt always exist.
Pro counters by saying that society already allows dangerous things that people can be pressured into, and that people can decline dueling.
Con says that people can be forced into dueling with death threats.
Pro points out that if person declines dueling, they cannot simply be murdered as it would be illegal.
Consent for whom? argument goes to Pro.
Sports - Alternative
Con points out that there is alternative in sports. Pro counters by saying there is nothing to fear in sports, therefore it cannot be serious.
Con counters by saying that you could lose something you worked hard for.
Pro counters by saying that dueling ties honor to something of value, mentions the example of criminals and sentences being valuable.
Con counters by saying you can lose pride in sports.
Pro counters by saying sports dont risk enough.
Con brought up population being low.
Pro countered by saying that human race wont go extinct due to dueling.
Sports - Alternative argument goes to Pro.
It seems that Pro won on many grounds, and that dueling does seem beneficial to society by solving overpopulation, pollution, preserving honor and dignity, upholding consent. So I am giving win to Pro.
Pro conceded in comments.
This went from good to bad really quickly.
Pro Round 1
"after the battle you'll see her atoms unravel
she's overshadowed by my shadow castin' a shadow
she can rock a mic but the rock (Roc) is smashed into gravel
I'll bend this bitch over and whoop her ass with a paddle"
Very strong opening. Good rhyme, good flow, good lyricism, somewhat lacking diss but since its the opening, diss isnt necessary.
"I'll incinerate her skin away and then I bake and dinner plate her
integrate her into savory dishes made for exquisite tastes
when spittin' K's the innovator, a haters minced and ate
then gets saved in the refrigerator and finished later
brace your pen cause' I grace a pen with amazing splendor
make your pen cheat on you, cavin' in to your main contender
never say that K isn't clever, makin' her wetter
caught her rap folder and mine layin' together"
Good lyricism, flow and rhyme. Diss is solid.
Con round 1
"You spit 'bout the white man and the string-pullers on the label,
But you're here for black-on-black crime, guess your rappin' was a fable"
Good rhyme, lyricism, flow, but also very good diss.
"Aint a single lady listenin' thinkin' damn Rino's desirable,
Even the easy one's don't want a bitch who'll kiss and tell, rat no one admires at all,
You're underground 'cause you're stuck spittin' 'bout how you hate life, you're small,
I was underground but I stood up tall,
I'm the one no label would hire at all, you had offers, turned 'em down and still act appaled,
If I had all the opportunities you did, stupid, I'd be big as Em,
You're too busy bitchin' at the man in a diss than tryna refine your style to finally be that gem,
I pity you Rino, just another example of toxic men that can't handle the hand life tossed to 'em,
All the whining 'bout everybody every album aint even masculine,
So, when you got somethin' to diss me for 'cept my V, then maybe you'll have a chance to win"
Good rhyme, lyricism and flow. Solid diss.
Pro round 2
"I'll smack the cunt out of this whore
and rape her pussy with a sword
then rape her butt hole with her own vocal cords
I've gone postal towards toast records"
Somewhat weak rhyming and diss. Good flow. Not so good lyricism.
"fish like to gather underneath Piers Morgan for shelter
I'm sorry but pussies use a similar tactic
A confusing mass forms a sphere around my brain
Now I'm rapping like Lancelot without rhyming"
This is where it starts being bad. No rhyming, no flow, somewhat good lyricism, diss is working against pro in this one.
"I'm going to wipe out your filthy skank cunt
and smoke an utmost dank blunt
maybe once I do I'll be able to make up
some actual lyrics, but for now they suck"
Okay, saying that your own lyrics suck is a bit too much. You are criticizing yourself instead of your opponent.
Con round 2
Forfeited
Pro round 3
Skipped
Con round 3
"I'll show you claws with the meow to your neck, Rino the rat is shiverin',
You act like an entitled pharaoh so I'll leave you in a pyramid and got a case to put the liver in,
Think you funny, nigga, you're a clown with black skin tryna act so white it's belittlin'"
Strong finisher, with perfect flow, rhyme, and lyricism. Somewhat solid diss.
Overall, I am giving win to Con despite that he forfeited one round. Pro attacked himself, basically. While the first round was strong on both sides, the second round from Pro simply doesnt match up to third round from Con.
Round 1
Pro
Lyricism: 4
Flow: 2
Diss: 3
Rhyme: 3
Total points: 12
Con
Lyricism: 4
Flow:4
Diss:3
Rhyme: 2
Total points: 13
Winner: Con
Round 2
Pro
Lyricism: 3
Flow: 2
Diss: 4
Rhyme: 2
Total points: 11
Con
Lyricism: 3
Flow: 4
Diss: 4
Rhyme: 3
Total points: 14
Winner: Con
Round 3
Pro
Lyricism: 3
Flow: 4
Diss:4
Rhyme: 2
Total points: 13
Con
Lyricism: 4
Flow: 4
Diss: 4
Rhyme: 4
Total points: 16
Winner: Con
Round 4
Pro
Lyricism: 4
Flow: 4
Diss: 4
Rhyme: 2
Total points: 14
Con
Lyricism: 3
Flow: 3
Diss: 3
Rhyme: 4
Total points: 13
Winner: Pro
Con won 3 out of 4 rounds and scored in total 3 points more in flow and 4 points more in rhyme. Lyricism is equal and Pro had 1 point more in diss.
Con's best round was round 3. Con's round 3 is the best overall round. Pro's best round was round 4.
"You called for me to unleash my wrath.
Now it’s gonna be a fucking bloodbath.
And I’m mopping the floor with you."
Very strong opening from Pro. Sends strong message right at the start, and is one reason why Pro got Lyricism 4 in round 1.
"You try rated rap battles 'cause you liked my idea and I challenged you and you knew the last win wasn't real 'cause Bella held back a vote, you're easy to provoke and just can't hide it,
You run around trying to get under everyone's skin, but under yours is only trauma and overcompensation, my bad I already discussed my dick,
I got my debate count by genuinely efficient moves, you do troll debates for votes to undermine the system I protested and instead of fight it you gave up instantly and decided to act in bad faith and override it"
Very good flow in this one. Lyricism too. However, rhyming is kinda not sensed at all.
"“OMG Barney, you're such a manly man!! 😍😍😍”
“You are the most impressive debater ever! Let me put you on a pedestal so I get your autograph!”
When it comes to bootlicking, this little piggy gives VP Weasel a run for his money.
Always thought he could attract more flies with honey.
Imagine tryna act alpha but doing all that fangirling over Barney and blamonkey."
Very strong diss, although flow didnt continue well after.
"Was bouta vote for you in the Election.
Until you unfriended me over some petty-ass bullshit.
So fuck you. I don’t owe you jack.
How bout you quit smoking that crack."
Probably the strongest diss in entire battle. This is where Pro started having good flow.
"Whiteflame responds to me with care when he aint even mentioned,
Road to hell's paved with you standin' up to the baddest in the land, what good intentions,
I call the shots, Chief mod gets to bendin', I'm the shotcaller you wish you backed, that wilted cunt's got a shrivelled clit, ditched the site to ressurect me, even to my worst enemies, I'm trendin',
Do you see this syllable mastery? Think you can outclass me? I'll smack your face in with a wrench till your jawbone's bendin',"
This is where Con scores perfect in all areas.
"Must hurt that The People chose an anti-semitic racist as President just so they didn't get stuck with you.
Couldn’t even woo them with your charm and charisma, everyone was better off when you left.
Only a small demographic wanted you back.
Stepping to me was a Death Sentence. Warned you it would be a fucking bloodbath, looks like I've had the last laugh.
Don’t you dare wage war on those that vote for me or you’ll quickly regret it."
Strong diss, flow and lyricism. However, surprising lack of rhyme. Still, Pro's strongest round.
Pro was struggling a lot with flow and rhyme. At many places, there is no rhyme at all. At others, the rhyme didnt exactly work out.
In the first two rounds, Pro's flow is basically non-existent. Flow changes in the middle of the round, and doesnt fit with the previous flow. It feels out of place.
Pro scored better in diss. Slightly better than Con.
The lyricism, when we ignore the flow, was great on both sides.
Con had consistently good flow and lyricism in first three rounds. He only seemed to lose flow in round 4.
Overall, Con scored more points and won 3/4 rounds, which is why I am giving win to Con.
Con forfeited over 40% of debate.
"It's possible that few may achieve it..."
It seems that both Pro and Con agree on this point.
Now, I am not sure if this debate is about:
"All men can achieve it"
"Most men can achieve it"
"Half of men can achieve it"
"Some men can achieve it"
Because only the last one gives win to Pro. Since the topic is unclear about which of these is being discussed, I cannot make a vote properly. Therefore, I leave it as a tie in order to not make a voting mistake.
"That is why I am surrendering."
They both suck. Literally couldnt bother to read past round 1.
Pro conceded
"Frequent sex has proven to cause depression, is unhygienic, and at least with traditional standards is seen as shameful."
I mean, this argument alone proves the topic correct. However, Pro forfeited 2 rounds, which is 2/4 of debate and Con forfeited 1 round. So I am not sure what to do with this. I will leave it as tie.
The topic was "American men cutting dick".
Pro talked about circumcision. Since circumcision is not the only thing included in dick cutting, it follows that Pro didnt satisfy the burden of proof there.
However, the right to mutilate bodies does seem like an argument that works, about as good as the argument about the right to suicide. It was funny that someone actually advocates about the right to suicide. Based on being funny, I give it a tie.
Morality and meaning need to be better defined. I dont know what Pro means by "meaning". Plus, Pro forfeited. I would say that writing long text without proper spacing can lose you debates, since it makes it much harder for voters to read arguments.
Con's case:
P1) Children cant consent
P2) Aisha was a child
C) Aisha could not have consented
P1) Marriage without consent isnt normal
P2) Aisha's marriage was without consent
C) Aisha's marriage was not normal
This entire case falls apart, since Con didnt explain how is consent determined, therefore destroying the premise that Aisha was a child who is unable to give consent. Con says consent is determined by brain development, then he says brain fully develops at age 25. Clearly, the age of consent cannot be 25, otherwise every second person would be in prison.
Pro, on the other hand, gives clear case about how consent is determined. High intelligence, menstruation and ability to give birth means the person is no longer a child and is able to consent to marriage. Thats how it works in nature. Pro gives proper way to to determine ability of a person to give consent. Further, Pro points out that Aisha was considered very smart, consented to marriage and was happy about it for her whole life. She never changed her mind. Pro points out that some children are smarter than adults.
This pretty much negates the argument of marriage being forced, unconsensual or physically harmful. It also negates the argument of grooming, which I find a bit irrelevant to the topic anyway. If we know that Aisha was highly intelligent, able to give birth, able to consent, and consented to marriage, then grooming doesnt apply.
Regarding trauma, Pro gives plenty of evidence that there was no trauma for Aisha, that she loved being in that marriage. We cant just assume that there was trauma, when all historical records point to opposite. Con presents evidence from other cases, but such evidence simply doesnt apply to this topic since this case has clear evidence of Aisha being 1) happy, 2) being different, since she matured much faster.
So I think Pro wins this. The last two rounds got a bit dirty. Pro probably shouldnt have used so many insults in conclusion, but I dont think it harms their case. A conduct point would be lost if it was 4 point system.
I am not sure what this debate is about, but this is funny:
"What are you? A fridge? Perhaps a furry?"
Pro started funny, but then forfeited a lot and it wasnt funny anymore.
Con obviously lost this debate in the final round if we consider definitions in it, because
1) Con fails to define what is a woman throughout this entire debate. Saying "a woman is someone who identifies as a woman" does not tell us what a woman is. It is the same as saying "woman is a woman". Its not even a definition, because no definition should use word it tries to define as a definition of the word it tries to define.
2) Con's refutation of Pro's definition is based upon assuming that some person is a woman, and then using that assumption as refutation to definition. First, assumptions dont refute definitions. Second, if you are unable to define a woman, then you cannot know if someone who cant have children is a woman.
3) Con fails to understand the topic.
The topic is:
All trans women =/= real women.
So any arguments of "most of them are real women" dont apply to all of them, even if those arguments were true.
4) This topic was about definitions, and Con's unclear definitions about characteristics are useless in disproving the topic because a definition of women must include all transwomen. Con's definition didnt do that.
5) Pro explained the absurdity of Con's definition where Con says that identifying as something means being something. Con retreats from such definition, and fails to give any other definition.
6) Con uses emotional arguments, such as "doesnt mean that such person should be called a man". Con seems to not understand that "not woman =/= a man".
The only reason why I am not giving Pro the win here is because Pro didnt define women and transwomen consistently from the start, and burden of proof is on Pro, not on Con. Pro seems to come up with a different definition in each round, giving up on previous definitions. Now, the definition given in the last round does win the arguments. Reproduction by giving birth does determine what a woman is. Transwomen are not capable of giving birth, therefore they lack that which real women have. Yet this definition only came up in last round. Last round is supposed to be for conclusions, not for new definitions. So I decided not to accept it and leave arguments as tie, along with everything else.
Sadly, Con missed the entire whole debate.
By the choice of Pro to miss 2/5 of debate.
By the choice of Pro to miss 2/5 of debate.
While the topic is almost like truism, Pro missed 2/3 of debate.
By the choice of Pro to miss 40% of the debate.
By the choice of one side to forfeit every round.
I said I will vote, so here it goes. I am leaving everything as a tie.
My comment on this debate is:
A debate about objective morality shouldnt turn into a debate about dolphins attacking sharks, chess rules, math, laws, obedience...
I think we can all agree that none of those are examples of objective morality as defined in the description.
By the Con's choice to forfeit the entire debate.
While I do think that Pro had much superior arguments, sadly Pro missed 50% of debate. Thats a loss.
By the choice of one side to forfeit the entire debate, the other side who didnt forfeit at all becomes the winner.
Pro brings up plenty of arguments:
1) Condemned by international community, 2) Ukraine became independent in 1991, 3) Russia agreed to respect Ukraine's independence if Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons, 4) Ukraine is more democratic and free than Russia, 5) Putin's political opponents continue to die under mysterious circumstances, 6) Russian violation of human rights, 7) Fighting a bloody war so that Ukranian citizens have less freedom is unjustified, 8) Russia violated the international law, 9) Russia committed war crimes, 10) Russia lied about self defense, 11) Ukraine posing no military threat to Russia, 12) Russia avoided diplomatic solutions and peace, 13) banned criticism of war, 14) unjustified conscription, 15) cost to Russian citizens, 16) destabilization of international peace, 17) nuclear threats, 18) refugee crisis cost, 19) People disagree about what proper justification is,
20) Do these provocations justify the specific kind of invasion that Russia has been carrying out? No.
21) We are not discussing other countries, 22) president Yanukovych only has authority to make claims about what he will do, 23) Russia does not have the authority to say Ukraine cannot make deals, 24) Referendum in Crimea was rigged, 25) Russia violated the Minsk agreements much more, 26) the agreements were unfair to Ukraine, 27) none of the things Con listed show that Ukraine poses any military threat to Russia, 28) Russia could admit that Donbas belongs to Ukraine like they admitted twice already, 29) killing innocent civilians, full-scale invasion do not solve any of the problems between Russia and Ukraine, 30) consequences of an invasion, 31) Russia has consistently lied about whether they would invade and about what parts of Ukraine belong to them, 32) NATO is a defensive alliance, 33) Russia is giving other countries a reason to fear military conflict.
Pro's arguments are diminished.
1) Subjectivity attached to justified, 2) Continuosly doing what someone doesnt like. That is provocation. 3) Ukraine would not be a cooperative neighbour because of NATO influence, 4) Ukraine were invited to join NATO, 5) NATO's expansion was a provocation to Russia, 6) Pro's claim Russia is a repressive regime, they cannot be provoked. Appeal to emotions. 7) Sovereignty in on itself, does not eliminate or negate justification for military actions, 8) setting a standard that a country must have its own borders in complete order, to some external standard, before they can claim a justification for military force is nonsensical, 9) Clearly from Russian perspective, there was a justification, 10) Pro seems to believe that the expansion of NATO, despite assurances, is not a provocation, and that NATO is just a defensive alliance. Tell that to the people of Serbia, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and Iraq. Hardly a defense only organization, 11) Pro-Russian separatists in Donbas protested. The Ukrainian government used a military response, 12) Ukraine refused to honor the Minsk accords, 13) Russia's military action protects Russian speakers, 14) Both Russia and Ukraine have troops that are not playing by the rules.
"Ukraine became independent in 1991, Russia agreed to respect Ukraine's independence if Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons" is diminished. "Ukraine were invited to join NATO." "Ukraine would not be a cooperative neighbour because of NATO influence". "NATO's expansion was a provocation to Russia".
"NATO is a defensive alliance" is diminished. "Tell that to the people of Serbia, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and Iraq". "NATO's expansion was a provocation to Russia".
"Fighting a bloody war so that Ukranian citizens have less freedom is unjustified" and "Russia committed war crimes" are diminished arguments.
"No UN accusations of genocide have been levied".
"Pro-Russian separatists in Donbas protested. The Ukrainian government used a military response."
"Simmons was placed on the notorious Myrotvorets kill list which has seen several of its targets assasinated by Ukrainian death squads".
"killing innocent civilians, full-scale invasion do not solve any of the problems between Russia and Ukraine" is diminished.
"Pro-Russian separatists in Donbas protested. The Ukrainian government used a military response.", "Subjectivity attached to justified", "setting a standard that a country must have its own borders in complete order, to some external standard, before they can claim a justification for military force is nonsensical", "Governments have historically used ethnic protection elements as justification for military intervention.", "Russia's military action protects Russian speakers", and "NATO's expansion was a provocation to Russia"
prove the topic "THBT: Russia's invasion of Ukraine beginning in 2022 was unjustified" in Con's favor. Arguments go to Con.
Plenty of sources used by both sides. Sources are tie.
Legibility was solid on both sides. Legibility is a tie.
Conduct was good. Conduct is tie.
Con's arguments:
1) different feeling of speaking to a robot,
2) the personal touch,
3) we may lose out on valuable personal interactions,
4) a robot leads a mass in pollution,
5) increasing temperatures causing global warming,
6) disregarding the fact of exercise,
7) unsustainable exploitation of natural resources
8) dependency on rare metals for production of electronic equipment further deepens
9) new challenges for recycling and waste management.
Pro's arguments:
1) deaths could've been avoided if we simply had robots carry out difficult jobs,
2) we humans will find a way to minimise pollution, just like how we've seen in the past with electric cars emitting less greenhouse gases then engine cars.
3) "exploitation of natural resources" and usage of "rare metals", just like with pollution we will surely find a way to optimise recycling and invent new "waste management" technologies which can be further utilized to save so much more resources other than just metal used for robots/electronics.
I am leaving arguments as a tie. This is because there is no way for me to compare the results of robots and pollution, when no numbers were given by either side.
Sources werent used. Tie.
Legibility was good on both sides. Easy to read. Tie.
Conduct was fine on both sides. Tie.
Pro starts by saying that fetus is a human being, that human life begins at fertilization and that human zygote is most certainly a human being.
Pro gives the definition of an abortion and an in-clinic abortion. Pro concludes that abortion is homicide.
Con brings up arguments "1) animal abortions, 2) AI abortions, 3) metal beam abortions, 4) problem of Inheritance, 5) Accidental abortion 6) Abortion not caused by humans, 7) homicide but not abortion, 8) abortion when the fetus survives, 9) Dead fetus not killed by abortion, 10) Fetus being killed by acid 11) Tree trunk abortion".
These arguments are proven incorrect by definitions given by Pro:
"fetus is a human being"
"Merriam-Webster defines Abortion as.:
The termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus."
"An in-clinic abortion is a minor medical procedure to end a pregnancy. The most common type is vacuum aspiration. The doctor puts a tube in the uterus."
Con says "Pro ignores every single fetus that isn't a part of the Homo Sapien species".
Pro's definitions are proven true when Pro says: "But it should be considered that when people discuss abortion in the general sense, this includes majority of scientific conversations, political discourse, or the discussion of ethics, it only refers to females of the human population.",
"Extend that in all instances of a human professional performing an abortion on a human mother with a living fetus is an act of homicide."
Con defends his AI argument: "Seeing the growth of what AI is, an allowance to learn what in-clinic abortion is and how it can be done is enough for them to be able to perform it."
Pro did refute the AI argument before: "Since it was man who designed artificial intelligence with the specific command of terminating a human fetus, then it's as good as a human holding a gun to someone and pulling the trigger. Yes technically, it was the gun and the bullet that did the killing, not the person. But as the specific command is automated for a purpose, then it stands to reason that this act was premeditated. And not just for one person, but multiple people. So whoever invented this murder machine is not only committing homicide, but genocide. And even if they did not commit the homicide themselves, they are still an accomplice and thereby an accessory.".
Since Pro proved his definitions to be true, the resolution is proved in Pro's favor. Argument points are given to Pro.
Both Pro and Con used sources. Sources are tie.
Legibility was similar. Legibility is tie.
Conduct was good on both sides. Conduct is a tie.
Forfeit 50% of the debate = loss
Con needed to explain where the contradiction is in verses about Sabath. "I am not getting what the contradiction is".
The verses about "Earth" being contradictive is not true. There will always be something called Earth.
The verses about seeing God are not contradictions. "So no man has seen God . That is until the exception by the mercy of God.".
The verses about iniquity are not contradictions. "Many times when these things aren't read as written allowing the mind to presuppose, your interpretation creates the contradictions in your understanding."
Con claimed God was powerless, which was proven false. "If God is omnipotent, why was he powerless against men with iron chariots?" "In short, verse 19 in the first chapter book of Judges didn't say He was."
"We don't see the words "GOD WAS POWERLESS " in that verse. You have to add those words to read that which is called reading into the text. This is how you arrive at your phony contradictions ."
Con made a claim about "Honor thy father and thy mother" being a contradiction. Proven false. "I can strongly dislike you while keeping respect for you.".
"I'm going to show what I believe of the "hate" you're thinking about because apparently you think"hate" and honor are opposites. No, love and hate are opposites. That's why I asked which words of these verses are contradicting to you."
Pro proved that Con was unable to find contradiction in the scriptures. Therefore, Pro wins the arguments.
Pro and Con both used Bible as a source. Therefore, sources are tied.
Both Pro and Con had arguments that were easy to read. Tie in legibility.
Conduct was good in both Pro and Con.
Forfeit. The Con's case was strong. The example of unfair distribution and what happens when limited resources are left to be managed by greed proved the topic in Con's favor.
Topic: "Is abortion murder from the point of conception?"
Pro starts arguing that human life begins at conception, and that abortion starts being murder from that point.
Con counters this by explaining that abortion doesnt start being murder from that point, because human life doesnt start at conception. It starts before conception, so abortion starts being murder before conception.
Pro tries to counter this by saying sperm isnt human because dismembered limb isnt human.
Con counters by saying "We run into a paradoxical problem when arguing that it shouldn't be called murder before the stage of conception.
Due to this paradoxical problem, we have to draw the line where there's no conflict.
This is why we have this controversy over abortion and pro life. On the one hand , the argument is not to perform an abortion on what's called a cluster of cells. On the other side, perform one on a cluster of cells as the stage hasn't been reached to look at the cells any different."
Con continues:
"That's why the weight , the WEIGHT of murder still weighs the same. If I have a house, the house is valuable put together just as the individual parts used to put it together were as separated."
Pro does not counter this in any way, and offers no response.
Con concludes in the final round that we dont survive if contraception is used.
The topic is proved in Con's favor. It is not true that abortion is murder from the point of conception, since abortion is murder before the point of conception.
The crucial contention in the debate is one which lies far from the topical stipulations. We can all agree that, in the intended debate regarding the moral aspects of animals, Novice_II clearly wins - however, this was not how the contest panned out. Oromagi opts to instead critique the fundamentals of the instigator's case, by exposing that the definition results in a tautological impossibility. It’s a risky strategy - let’s see if it pays off.
R1. PRO
Nothing which will be substantive in the overall decision is said here because Oromagi will undermine the entire argument. Thus, I need not make any comment.
R1. CON
Nothing much needs to be said here either - CON establishes the beginning of their Kritik - that the term “another” implies “in addition”, which further implies that according to the provided definitions, slavery is that which must include at least two agents. Thus, the rest of the instigators case is null, for they apply to animals as opposed to “another” human being.
R2. PRO
PRO responds compellingly here (personally, I had thought the debate was over already and that CON had won). They argue that “person” refers to “that who has personhood” and further compliments this by showing examples, where in the traditional definition of “person” is insufficient (ie, the abortion debate is one where “person” is in contention, there was once a time when the status of African’s or Jew’s were questioned etc).
R2. CON
CON replies by arguing that PRO’s definitions fall prey to the stipulative fallacy, wherein the ambiguous defining of a term is done so in order to bolster one’s own argument. They also claim that PRO does not use the most common of definitions. I don’t buy this - if it were the case that we can only use surface level definitions, debates regarding abortion and the rights of minorities could never be accelerated, as PRO observes in both rounds.
R3. PRO
Much of the same here, though PRO adds that CON’s reliance on “common sense” defines an argument from incredulity. I buy this - once upon a time, common sense determined the subjugation of African Americans, a point which PRO made in the prior round and also supplements when stipulating “ When discussing ethical issues regarding how we ought to treat entities, we discuss whether or not these entities are persons”
R3. CON
CON refutes the charges of an appeal to incredulity by arguing that the definitions are not “common place”, but this is exactly what PRO had charged as being an appeal to incredulity - the sentiment that “we ought use the common place definition” is exactly what PRO described as being incredulous. Furthermore, critiquing the notion that the "personhood" doctrine is uncommon isn't actually an engagement with the argument, merely a stipulation that it isn't very common (might I add as an example that it was once uncommon to hold that African Americans had rights). CON could have very easily argued that animals do not qualify for moral calculation, however, they did not.
-
Overview of arguments
CON's entire argument is that PRO does not conform to most dictionaries. In a clearly philosophical debate, it is clear you must do more than this (e.g. arguing abortion is wrong because it is illegal is akin to this level of argumentation). PRO correctly argues that, adopting the narrow view of CON's case, we would never have been able to further the rights of Africans and Jews, or have any dialectic in the abortion debate. CON could have won the debate if they had invested more into the moral aspect, as they did in round two, but it must be admitted that the majority of their case is semantics, and as the semantics was nullified by PRO's personhood doctrine, the argument is neutralised and the rest of PRO's arguments go untouched. Like Whiteflames said, it is clear that in a debate like this, crucial terms like "person" are up for grabs (especially in a distinctly morally grounded debate) , and I ultimately favoured the engagement of the personhood definition when compared to the regurgitation of dictionaries.
Conduct
I don’t appreciate that CON hinges their entire argument on semantical grounds - a kritik here and there as a supplementary riddle for the opponent to address is fine, but when you base your entire case on semantics, it’s quite annoying. Nonetheless, my personal dissatisfaction does not constitute enough of a justification to deduct a conduct point.
Reasons fully explained in comments.