Just FYI, the evidence you are presenting in your debate doesn't say that lockdowns don't slow the spread of viruses. Some of it says the lockdowns that were imposed were not very effective because 1) people did not follow them in western countries as stringently as they did in Asian countries; 2) by the time some lockdowns were implemented, the virus had already spread among the population. That might prove the lockdowns were not useful or necessary, but it doesn't prove they have no impact on transmission. I don't have time to skim all the links at the moment nor do I feel compelled to help your opponent by making his case for him. That seems like a really bitch-ass thing to do 🙂 I just wanted to warn that I think you may be misinterpreting what the data says. Send me the link when it's done as it will be interesting to see how it turns out.
We both know there is nothing about you that could ever make me nervous. I'd just like for you to explain to everyone why you felt the need to go out of your way to try to assist my opponent. At first I was flattered, but then I realized giving that much feedback on a debate you believe he is already favored to win is actually more of an insult to him than a compliment to me. I wanted to clarify if you thought he was really bad or I am really good. It's a bit egotistical of me to just assume it's the latter which is why I asked.
Lol your stale ham sandwich of a "debate" wasn't inspirational so much as demoralizing, hence the need for some comic relief. But here's what's funnier. In response to me highlighting all of the ridiculous handicaps you oh so pathetically imposed on your opponent (with me noting arguments they cannot make, thereby offering no guidance to them at all), you decided to go out of your way to try to assist my opponent by citing arguments they can make and encouraged them to make. Why don't you explain to everyone why you would do that? 😎
Maybe you would be interested in this debate - https://www.debateart.com/debates/2988-controversial-debate-topic-series-donald-trump-was-a-good-u-s-president
The primary reasons schools should definitely not allow corporal punishment is because #1 there's potential for abuse -- you've forbidden Con from arguing that; #2 disparate application of force and/or frequency -- you've forbidden Con from arguing that; #3 potential discrimination -- you've forbidden Con from arguing that; #4 some parents not giving permission or having the potential to opt out -- you've forbidden Con from arguing that; #5 significant discrepancies on what could be considered reasonable -- you've forbidden Con from arguing that. And you said you don't have to address any questions regarding implementation lol. Preventing your opponent from arguing ***the most significant and relevant aspects*** of corporal punishment as it relates to schools, specifically, and then turning around and saying "hrrr drr drr drr LoOkS LiKe nOBoDy WaNtS tO dEbAtE thE MeRiTs oF tHiS" is truly 😂😂😂😂
I completely agree. The parameters are structured in such a way that Pro would dispute every single issue pertinent to corporal punishment regarding SCHOOLS in particular (potential discrimination, abuse, excess, opting out) is outside the scope of what Con is allowed to argue. That is ridiculous. The only thing Con is allowed to argue is that there are long-term or net harms to corporal punishment. That is what the resolution of this debate should be then. It's nonsensical to make this about schools while prohibiting Con from arguing almost every single reason why c.p. might not a good idea for schools in particular, even if there was potential utility. There is potential utility to contact sports but reasons they are not played in schools (phys ed). There is potential utility to having sex and smoking pot but reasons that should not be done in school. There could be utility to praying but reasons not to encourage that in public schools. There could be utility in taking a fat kid's candy away but reasons teachers should not do that in schools.
A good faith debate regarding schools would not disqualify virtually every single reason why schools, with unique challenges and liability concerns, would choose not to utilize c.p. even if some benefits could be identified. Con is being forced to argue against a policy where they must accept there could be no potential problems at all lol... good luck.
That is a very bad RFD by Roy. YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO INSERT YOUR OWN ARGUMENTS INTO THE RFD. I've explained why I agree with Pro and thought he failed to include several good points. Roy's RFD is littered with his own rebuttals. He said things like "Saying that games are not necessary is not a good argument. Books, computers, videos, schools, and professional teachers are not necessary for learning"-- and-- "Con's argument that special equipment is required is not a strong one, because games can be done on computers and that's pretty standard these days." But UNLESS PRO MADE THAT POINT HIMSELF, HE SHOULD NOT BE AWARDED POINTS FOR IT. Roy responded to the debater's points in his RFD rather than judge solely based on what THEY themselves articulated. That is bad judging and you should not be able to vote in other people's place anyway.
It is not poor conduct for Pro to introduce new arguments in the last round unless explicitly stated otherwise. Con can respond to Pro's points. In fact, it is risky for Pro to introduce new arguments in the last round because they won't be able to reply to Con's rebuttal. But there is nothing on DART or even within formal debating that makes it poor conduct for Pro to introduce a new argument in the last around when Con has the opportunity to not only reply but give the last word.
Pro did point out the potential for video games in R1 which I noted in my RFD. But something having potential or even "unlimited possibilities" is not reason enough to mandate changes in a school curriculum. There should have been a more expansive and/or specific explanation as to how and why those possibilities create a unique experience that justifies a state mandate. It was Pro's burden to convince the audience that the educational benefits don't just exist (like Con acknowledges), but make it worthwhile to apply to everyone in public school. For instance Pro notes teachers can evaluate teamwork, game spirit, and motivation with video games and that is true. But a teacher can do the same by mandating their students play kickball. I don't think there was enough attention paid to the benefits of video games or again what makes video games superior to alternative methods.
In Round 1, Pro argues that various research proves video games have an educational benefit. Con does not respond directly to this point. Instead, he argues that video games are not necessary. He also argues that video games will drive harmful competition, and the cost to introduce video games to the classroom would be too expensive.
In R2, Pro notes that problems with competitiveness among students are not limited to video games, and that teachers walking kids through a gaming experience may foster positive aspects of competition or growth. He also explains why video games are particularly useful. Con responds that if the positive aspects of video games can be replicated without them, we should pursue that to mitigate costs. Con also suggests that video games are more about competition than learning, and students distracted by video games after school will not focus on their studies. He concludes that video materials are acceptable in the classroom, but should not be a mandatory part of the state curriculum.
In the final round, the argument about harmful competition is dropped. Pro points out that Con's source bolsters Pro's argument about the educational utility of video games. He reiterates that teachers may evaluate teamwork, game spirit, and motivation. Con responds by accepting Pro's contention that video games have educational utility. However, his rebuttal is premised on the fact that just because video games can be useful does not mean they should be mandatory. He argues that the negatives (i.e. decreased social interaction) could outweigh the benefits. However, Con does not elaborate on how and why we should assume his position is the right one on a cost-benefit analysis. He did not expand on potential harms which could have really helped his case. Instead Con argues "My opponent [has] yet to give ONE example of games that trains our social skills at the same time learning without losing other aspects of learning." But I would venture to say Pro addressed this when he said twice that teachers can evaluate students on their teamwork among other capabilities.
In conclusion, Con states that "in order to prove why games should be in the curriculum, might as well prove what ACADEMIC benefits it has, compared to that it just helps kids learn while having nothing crucial that it is worth being included." First, let's note that Con has already conceded academic benefits to video games. This forces us to consider his other point: that video games should not be mandated by the state as part of the curriculum, because there is nothing specifically "necessary" or significantly important kids need to learn via video games that they aren't learning now. He claims Pro therefore has to explain why video games teach something specific or in a specific way that cannot be achieved through other means (without state mandates), and I agree this is a fair way to see if Pro has fulfilled his burden.
Pro has proven the utility of video games, but I don't think he fulfilled the burden of explaining why they should be put into the curriculum -- as in why video games provide specific value that cannot be replicated by other means. There are a lot of arguments I think Pro could have made and should have made. 1) Video games or other forms of AI are likely going to be an integral part of the future; 2) video games teach specific skill sets you can't replicate through other means; 3) virtual tools could be used in place of humans or rather out-dated other tools to mitigate the cost of introducing new tech, etc. 4) Video games can measure things that traditional forms of learning cannot, such as XYZ.
I am voting for Con's arguments due to Pro not meeting his burden. To be clear I think Con missed some good arguments and rebuttals as well.
I am voting for Pro's sources because Con did not utilize sources as effectively, and included a source that discounted his own position.
Lol saying "no body is accepting of homosexuality" to make some dumb ass point about how BODIES are not "accepting" of homosexuality is pathologically stupid and also false. My female body is perfectly accepting of sexual activity with other female bodies. And my mind, being inextricable from my body (brain) also accepts homosexuality. This is an incredibly useless topic that nobody will accept to debate because it's low hanging fruit that's too easy to win, based on some really poor and weak attempt at playing semantics. Yawn.
This is yet another incredibly stupid framing of an incredibly stupid debate topic. There's no clear resolution which is why the instigator has to spend so much time explaining what they mean (and still did a very poor job). It looks like he's saying you need a sperm and egg to procreate which has nothing to do with the topic he proposed. Lame.
I want to vote on this debate because I know what it's like to put time and effort into crafting a good argument. Unfortunately after skimming I agree with Con that the debate wasn't framed in such a way that both debaters understood the resolution properly. Still I'd like to give a fair analysis so hopefully I can re-read and write a sufficient RFD before the voting period ends.
This is a horrible debate resolution that no intelligible person would accept. It's impossible to be able to convince everyone to accept homosexuality so it's an impossible standard and automatic loss to the contender. Pick a better topic if you have a serious intention of debating the subject.
This "tricky" debate doesn't seem as fun as the other. What does this even mean: "So what could you say that would make homosexuality undeniable period?"
Should we try to finish it tonight?! Lol. I wanted to submit something earlier but I had to set up my mafia game. If I finish dinner early I'ma try to get something in.
Hi everyone! Do people vote on "conduct" on DART or is it just a straight up win/loss vote?
I think I debated Roy twice and lost on topics like "Rush Limbaugh was slandered by racist charges," in which I took the position that Rush wasn't slandered because he IS racist. Limbaugh made statements like professional football looking like a game between "the Bloods and the Crips;" he said a black QB was only praised because the media wanted to see a black person do well; he constantly compared Obama to a monkey; he said the NAACP should have riot rehearsal and practice robberies; he said composite pics of wanted criminals all resemble Jesse Jackson - etc. So while I proved that Rush did in fact make racist remarks, there are some quotes that people attribute to him (I did not mention any here) that have never been sourced - and therefore technically Limbaugh WAS slandered if people made false or unsubstantiated claims about things he allegedly said but they can't prove. I didn't think about that technicality so I deserved to lose the debate, but not because Roy is a better debater ;) He did out perform me in that debate though because I should have realized that 'gotcha' argument and I didn't. So Roy definitely won that debate but I maintain Limbaugh is racist.
I also debated him on whether the humanities were underrated in education, and he won despite making arguments like "teaching Philosophy would be child abuse" so there's that. I did not lose that debate. I think a lot of people just really wanted to see me lose and that's fine. I get it! I personally like to challenge myself and tend to take a lot of devil's advocate positions. For this debate I really do think criminalizing cigarettes would be terrible so I'm looking forward to a thought provoking discussion. I don't care about winning and losing cuz I realized all the wins in the world don't translate to any real world success lol. I'm just happy to chat with you guys and look forward to a great conversation. I could see why Pro takes the position he does and hopefully I can get him to consider my POV as well.
Just FYI, the evidence you are presenting in your debate doesn't say that lockdowns don't slow the spread of viruses. Some of it says the lockdowns that were imposed were not very effective because 1) people did not follow them in western countries as stringently as they did in Asian countries; 2) by the time some lockdowns were implemented, the virus had already spread among the population. That might prove the lockdowns were not useful or necessary, but it doesn't prove they have no impact on transmission. I don't have time to skim all the links at the moment nor do I feel compelled to help your opponent by making his case for him. That seems like a really bitch-ass thing to do 🙂 I just wanted to warn that I think you may be misinterpreting what the data says. Send me the link when it's done as it will be interesting to see how it turns out.
We both know there is nothing about you that could ever make me nervous. I'd just like for you to explain to everyone why you felt the need to go out of your way to try to assist my opponent. At first I was flattered, but then I realized giving that much feedback on a debate you believe he is already favored to win is actually more of an insult to him than a compliment to me. I wanted to clarify if you thought he was really bad or I am really good. It's a bit egotistical of me to just assume it's the latter which is why I asked.
Lol your stale ham sandwich of a "debate" wasn't inspirational so much as demoralizing, hence the need for some comic relief. But here's what's funnier. In response to me highlighting all of the ridiculous handicaps you oh so pathetically imposed on your opponent (with me noting arguments they cannot make, thereby offering no guidance to them at all), you decided to go out of your way to try to assist my opponent by citing arguments they can make and encouraged them to make. Why don't you explain to everyone why you would do that? 😎
So true! Good thing I never said Pro couldn't talk about them.
Maybe you would be interested in this debate - https://www.debateart.com/debates/2988-controversial-debate-topic-series-donald-trump-was-a-good-u-s-president
The primary reasons schools should definitely not allow corporal punishment is because #1 there's potential for abuse -- you've forbidden Con from arguing that; #2 disparate application of force and/or frequency -- you've forbidden Con from arguing that; #3 potential discrimination -- you've forbidden Con from arguing that; #4 some parents not giving permission or having the potential to opt out -- you've forbidden Con from arguing that; #5 significant discrepancies on what could be considered reasonable -- you've forbidden Con from arguing that. And you said you don't have to address any questions regarding implementation lol. Preventing your opponent from arguing ***the most significant and relevant aspects*** of corporal punishment as it relates to schools, specifically, and then turning around and saying "hrrr drr drr drr LoOkS LiKe nOBoDy WaNtS tO dEbAtE thE MeRiTs oF tHiS" is truly 😂😂😂😂
I completely agree. The parameters are structured in such a way that Pro would dispute every single issue pertinent to corporal punishment regarding SCHOOLS in particular (potential discrimination, abuse, excess, opting out) is outside the scope of what Con is allowed to argue. That is ridiculous. The only thing Con is allowed to argue is that there are long-term or net harms to corporal punishment. That is what the resolution of this debate should be then. It's nonsensical to make this about schools while prohibiting Con from arguing almost every single reason why c.p. might not a good idea for schools in particular, even if there was potential utility. There is potential utility to contact sports but reasons they are not played in schools (phys ed). There is potential utility to having sex and smoking pot but reasons that should not be done in school. There could be utility to praying but reasons not to encourage that in public schools. There could be utility in taking a fat kid's candy away but reasons teachers should not do that in schools.
A good faith debate regarding schools would not disqualify virtually every single reason why schools, with unique challenges and liability concerns, would choose not to utilize c.p. even if some benefits could be identified. Con is being forced to argue against a policy where they must accept there could be no potential problems at all lol... good luck.
I misread that, oops. Definitely poor conduct for Con to introduce new args in the final round. I'm surprised I missed that if true.
That is a very bad RFD by Roy. YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO INSERT YOUR OWN ARGUMENTS INTO THE RFD. I've explained why I agree with Pro and thought he failed to include several good points. Roy's RFD is littered with his own rebuttals. He said things like "Saying that games are not necessary is not a good argument. Books, computers, videos, schools, and professional teachers are not necessary for learning"-- and-- "Con's argument that special equipment is required is not a strong one, because games can be done on computers and that's pretty standard these days." But UNLESS PRO MADE THAT POINT HIMSELF, HE SHOULD NOT BE AWARDED POINTS FOR IT. Roy responded to the debater's points in his RFD rather than judge solely based on what THEY themselves articulated. That is bad judging and you should not be able to vote in other people's place anyway.
It is not poor conduct for Pro to introduce new arguments in the last round unless explicitly stated otherwise. Con can respond to Pro's points. In fact, it is risky for Pro to introduce new arguments in the last round because they won't be able to reply to Con's rebuttal. But there is nothing on DART or even within formal debating that makes it poor conduct for Pro to introduce a new argument in the last around when Con has the opportunity to not only reply but give the last word.
Pro did point out the potential for video games in R1 which I noted in my RFD. But something having potential or even "unlimited possibilities" is not reason enough to mandate changes in a school curriculum. There should have been a more expansive and/or specific explanation as to how and why those possibilities create a unique experience that justifies a state mandate. It was Pro's burden to convince the audience that the educational benefits don't just exist (like Con acknowledges), but make it worthwhile to apply to everyone in public school. For instance Pro notes teachers can evaluate teamwork, game spirit, and motivation with video games and that is true. But a teacher can do the same by mandating their students play kickball. I don't think there was enough attention paid to the benefits of video games or again what makes video games superior to alternative methods.
In Round 1, Pro argues that various research proves video games have an educational benefit. Con does not respond directly to this point. Instead, he argues that video games are not necessary. He also argues that video games will drive harmful competition, and the cost to introduce video games to the classroom would be too expensive.
In R2, Pro notes that problems with competitiveness among students are not limited to video games, and that teachers walking kids through a gaming experience may foster positive aspects of competition or growth. He also explains why video games are particularly useful. Con responds that if the positive aspects of video games can be replicated without them, we should pursue that to mitigate costs. Con also suggests that video games are more about competition than learning, and students distracted by video games after school will not focus on their studies. He concludes that video materials are acceptable in the classroom, but should not be a mandatory part of the state curriculum.
In the final round, the argument about harmful competition is dropped. Pro points out that Con's source bolsters Pro's argument about the educational utility of video games. He reiterates that teachers may evaluate teamwork, game spirit, and motivation. Con responds by accepting Pro's contention that video games have educational utility. However, his rebuttal is premised on the fact that just because video games can be useful does not mean they should be mandatory. He argues that the negatives (i.e. decreased social interaction) could outweigh the benefits. However, Con does not elaborate on how and why we should assume his position is the right one on a cost-benefit analysis. He did not expand on potential harms which could have really helped his case. Instead Con argues "My opponent [has] yet to give ONE example of games that trains our social skills at the same time learning without losing other aspects of learning." But I would venture to say Pro addressed this when he said twice that teachers can evaluate students on their teamwork among other capabilities.
In conclusion, Con states that "in order to prove why games should be in the curriculum, might as well prove what ACADEMIC benefits it has, compared to that it just helps kids learn while having nothing crucial that it is worth being included." First, let's note that Con has already conceded academic benefits to video games. This forces us to consider his other point: that video games should not be mandated by the state as part of the curriculum, because there is nothing specifically "necessary" or significantly important kids need to learn via video games that they aren't learning now. He claims Pro therefore has to explain why video games teach something specific or in a specific way that cannot be achieved through other means (without state mandates), and I agree this is a fair way to see if Pro has fulfilled his burden.
Pro has proven the utility of video games, but I don't think he fulfilled the burden of explaining why they should be put into the curriculum -- as in why video games provide specific value that cannot be replicated by other means. There are a lot of arguments I think Pro could have made and should have made. 1) Video games or other forms of AI are likely going to be an integral part of the future; 2) video games teach specific skill sets you can't replicate through other means; 3) virtual tools could be used in place of humans or rather out-dated other tools to mitigate the cost of introducing new tech, etc. 4) Video games can measure things that traditional forms of learning cannot, such as XYZ.
I am voting for Con's arguments due to Pro not meeting his burden. To be clear I think Con missed some good arguments and rebuttals as well.
I am voting for Pro's sources because Con did not utilize sources as effectively, and included a source that discounted his own position.
lol well I am Here for it :)
Lol saying "no body is accepting of homosexuality" to make some dumb ass point about how BODIES are not "accepting" of homosexuality is pathologically stupid and also false. My female body is perfectly accepting of sexual activity with other female bodies. And my mind, being inextricable from my body (brain) also accepts homosexuality. This is an incredibly useless topic that nobody will accept to debate because it's low hanging fruit that's too easy to win, based on some really poor and weak attempt at playing semantics. Yawn.
This is yet another incredibly stupid framing of an incredibly stupid debate topic. There's no clear resolution which is why the instigator has to spend so much time explaining what they mean (and still did a very poor job). It looks like he's saying you need a sperm and egg to procreate which has nothing to do with the topic he proposed. Lame.
I want to vote on this debate because I know what it's like to put time and effort into crafting a good argument. Unfortunately after skimming I agree with Con that the debate wasn't framed in such a way that both debaters understood the resolution properly. Still I'd like to give a fair analysis so hopefully I can re-read and write a sufficient RFD before the voting period ends.
This is a horrible debate resolution that no intelligible person would accept. It's impossible to be able to convince everyone to accept homosexuality so it's an impossible standard and automatic loss to the contender. Pick a better topic if you have a serious intention of debating the subject.
This "tricky" debate doesn't seem as fun as the other. What does this even mean: "So what could you say that would make homosexuality undeniable period?"
I want to accept the debate just for the amusing opportunity to play devil's advocate on whatever his position is lol.
Should we try to finish it tonight?! Lol. I wanted to submit something earlier but I had to set up my mafia game. If I finish dinner early I'ma try to get something in.
Haha thanks. I have done battles before and hope to have some fun with it. I'd like to do another one where I play Biden :)
Why do you ask :)
Hi everyone! Do people vote on "conduct" on DART or is it just a straight up win/loss vote?
I think I debated Roy twice and lost on topics like "Rush Limbaugh was slandered by racist charges," in which I took the position that Rush wasn't slandered because he IS racist. Limbaugh made statements like professional football looking like a game between "the Bloods and the Crips;" he said a black QB was only praised because the media wanted to see a black person do well; he constantly compared Obama to a monkey; he said the NAACP should have riot rehearsal and practice robberies; he said composite pics of wanted criminals all resemble Jesse Jackson - etc. So while I proved that Rush did in fact make racist remarks, there are some quotes that people attribute to him (I did not mention any here) that have never been sourced - and therefore technically Limbaugh WAS slandered if people made false or unsubstantiated claims about things he allegedly said but they can't prove. I didn't think about that technicality so I deserved to lose the debate, but not because Roy is a better debater ;) He did out perform me in that debate though because I should have realized that 'gotcha' argument and I didn't. So Roy definitely won that debate but I maintain Limbaugh is racist.
I also debated him on whether the humanities were underrated in education, and he won despite making arguments like "teaching Philosophy would be child abuse" so there's that. I did not lose that debate. I think a lot of people just really wanted to see me lose and that's fine. I get it! I personally like to challenge myself and tend to take a lot of devil's advocate positions. For this debate I really do think criminalizing cigarettes would be terrible so I'm looking forward to a thought provoking discussion. I don't care about winning and losing cuz I realized all the wins in the world don't translate to any real world success lol. I'm just happy to chat with you guys and look forward to a great conversation. I could see why Pro takes the position he does and hopefully I can get him to consider my POV as well.
Thanks! It's my first one on DART.
Am I supposed to post the first arguments?
I'm interested in reading this when it's done.