You're saying the man can't go around the monkey because the monkey is on the pole? If the monkey were on the ground, it would have been possible to go around?
I don't understand the distinction, please clarify.
Pro's position is objectively wrong, and Con's example of the moon going around Earth clearly proves the point.
How can zedvictor4 say the proposition is irrefutable? No idea. Basic physics (and common sense) tells us this: For the monkey to remain motionless relative to the man, the monkey would also have to move in the x & y axis. In other words, the monkey has to move in a circle just as the man moves in a circle, thus remaining motionless in relation to the man.
Changing direction isn't the same as moving in a circle. Changing direction doesn't stop the man from walking around a fixed point. This is basic physics...
You wrote: "Price was clearly a part of his argument, specifically that there are cheaper alternatives to video games and that schools have limited funding. And he showed that virtual workspaces (see the DNA example) provide a cheaper alternative to video games."
This is a distortion of what Con actually argued. In R1, Con argued that video-playing devices cost money, so it would be cheaper to have "teachers" do their job without video devices. By R2 & R3, however, Con drops this argument, conceding that video-playing devices could play a beneficial role in education.
I asked you to point me to specific language in the debate where Con makes the argument that "virtual workspaces" are "cheaper than video games." You're unable to do so precisely because Con didn't make that argument.
Let's say Con establishes that there's a difference between video games & virtual workspaces.
So what?
Con never offers any reason to exclusively implement virtual workspaces. The "less government spending" argument isn't made. Yet somehow that was the basis of your decision...
Con didn't argue that virtual workspaces provide same results with less government spending.
Con argued that virtual workspaces render video games unnecessary, without any reason to prefer virtual workspaces or exclude video games, all while admitting that video games are beneficial.
Your RFD relies on arguments that weren't made in the debate.
Please direct me to Con's specific language in the debate showing that virtual workspaces provide the same benefits & results as video games at a lower cost.
Thanks for the vote. Though I doubt reading the debate was insightful for you, so I'm sorry about that. I thought Con's approach to the debate wasn't very honorable. It obviously wasn't the type of debate I wanted to have here.
I refer to "mindless obedience" in R1. Why do you claim otherwise?
My concluding remarks from R3 are in R1. It's the first sentences in the whole debate. Why do you claim otherwise?
You don't know that Coal lacked characters. Why do you assume this?
Character management is part of debating. Why punish me for Coal's failures to manage characters? This doesn't make sense to me.
RJ isn't CP. Coal says RJ is "punitive." But empirical literature says it's "non-punitive." In my view, doesn't matter what you call it. The point is that they're different, and you can have RJ without CP.
Ragnar's vote doesn't make sense at all. He bends over backwards trying to justify his vote for Coal. I strongly recommend you don't model your voting behavior on Ragnar. Better models are Spacetime, the guy whose vote Ragnar removed.
Maybe you missed it, but this was the structure of the debate:
"Structure. The structure of this debate shall follow as such:
Round 1: debaters shall make their affirmative cases (absent any specific refutation of arguments made by the opposing side).
Round 2: debaters shall rebut the affirmative cases raised in round 1 (and may introduce new evidence in support of such rebuttals).
Round 3: debaters shall reply to the rebuttals provided in round 2 and provide any reconstructive arguments in support of arguments initially raised in round 1 (but may not introduce new evidence in support of such replies or reconstructive arguments)."
This structure expressly allows me to rebut things from R1 in R2 by introducing "new evidence," as well as to rebut things from R2 in R3 as long as I don't introduce "new evidence." I did precisely this, per the terms of the debate. Why do you judge the debate under the belief I'm wrong to do this?
You say I should have done a bunch of stuff in R1 that, as far as I can tell, was done in R1.
What's the "ultimatum" that I should have delivered in R1?
I expressly argued in favor of "restorative justice" in R1. Why do you suggest otherwise?
I expressly discussed the "American values" in R1, noting that my system promotes them while corporal punishment doesn't. Why do you claim otherwise? (Also, why do you claim this stuff is useless?)
I rebutted in R2 by noting parent-child context. Pro was able to address this in R3. It was the structure of the debate to rebut in R2, not R1. Why do you say I was too late to make this argument, if I made it as early as allowed by the rules, and Pro had an opportunity to rebut in R3?
Coal didn't argue that RJ harms students. That's an argument of your own creation. Why do you make this argument in Coal's defense, when he didn't make it himself?
Coal says RJ extends to families because he misunderstood my argument. This was clarified in R3. Nowhere in R1 do I say families must participate. The benefit was that they "could" participate; it gives them opportunity. Why do you ignore this? Why don't I have the right to define the terms of my counter proposal? Why do you allow Coal to define it for me? I don't understand how this is even an issue in your mind.
Why do you say benefits of RJ aren't clear? Why aren't the studies sufficient? Did Coal contest the findings in these studies at all?
What's the purpose of R2 & R3 if I'm supposed to say EVERYTHING in R1? Don't understand this judging philosophy at all. Please explain.
Lol I'll discuss these rfds layer. It's shameful for you to call these good, yyw. Especially after calling undefeatable RFD bad, and saying spacetime should be removed. Disappointing from you to just assume they're good because they are in your favor.
I don't follow what you mean. "Path for legality" (presumably you mean licensing?) is not "opposed" to "general legality." It's how the regulated space of driving already works.
The issue isn't lack of character space. The issue is conceptual. Please review Con's response to your framework, and work on responding directly to those issues.
I don't think Pro had a clear grasp of what systemic racism is, and Con made that quite clear in his attacks on Pro's framework.
Lack of conceptual clarity also made it difficult to evaluate empirical evidence. But I'm a casual reader who isn't thinking about this debate too hard. Big picture, seems like a fairly clear win for Con.
You're saying the man can't go around the monkey because the monkey is on the pole? If the monkey were on the ground, it would have been possible to go around?
I don't understand the distinction, please clarify.
Pro's position is objectively wrong, and Con's example of the moon going around Earth clearly proves the point.
How can zedvictor4 say the proposition is irrefutable? No idea. Basic physics (and common sense) tells us this: For the monkey to remain motionless relative to the man, the monkey would also have to move in the x & y axis. In other words, the monkey has to move in a circle just as the man moves in a circle, thus remaining motionless in relation to the man.
Changing direction isn't the same as moving in a circle. Changing direction doesn't stop the man from walking around a fixed point. This is basic physics...
You wrote: "Price was clearly a part of his argument, specifically that there are cheaper alternatives to video games and that schools have limited funding. And he showed that virtual workspaces (see the DNA example) provide a cheaper alternative to video games."
This is a distortion of what Con actually argued. In R1, Con argued that video-playing devices cost money, so it would be cheaper to have "teachers" do their job without video devices. By R2 & R3, however, Con drops this argument, conceding that video-playing devices could play a beneficial role in education.
I asked you to point me to specific language in the debate where Con makes the argument that "virtual workspaces" are "cheaper than video games." You're unable to do so precisely because Con didn't make that argument.
Let's say Con establishes that there's a difference between video games & virtual workspaces.
So what?
Con never offers any reason to exclusively implement virtual workspaces. The "less government spending" argument isn't made. Yet somehow that was the basis of your decision...
Con didn't argue that virtual workspaces provide same results with less government spending.
Con argued that virtual workspaces render video games unnecessary, without any reason to prefer virtual workspaces or exclude video games, all while admitting that video games are beneficial.
The language you cite does not make the argument you claim it makes.
Maybe the argument could be made based on sources. But it wasn't here.
Debates should be judged based on arguments in the debate, not based on arguments that could have been made but weren't.
I cannot find where Con argued that virtual workspace leads requires less government spending to achieve the same results as video games.
Your RFD relies on arguments that weren't made in the debate.
Please direct me to Con's specific language in the debate showing that virtual workspaces provide the same benefits & results as video games at a lower cost.
I eat variety of foods. If truffles are healthy, it's probably a good idea to eat them sometimes, even if doing so is unnecessary. Variety is best.
Variety of learning methods outperforms singular method.
Video games aren't necessary; they add variety, with proven benefit. This is reason to include, not exclude.
Con states: "Video games can be beneficial, but not necessary." Yet somehow gets votes? Absurd.
Con's necessity argument is one of the worst arguments I've seen in a long time. No idea how anyone voted Con here.
Win for Pro.
If I really strain, maybe.
Thanks for the vote. Though I doubt reading the debate was insightful for you, so I'm sorry about that. I thought Con's approach to the debate wasn't very honorable. It obviously wasn't the type of debate I wanted to have here.
Con's definition of "proof" wasn't even "hinted" in R2. It's entirely new to R3.
Feel free.
Why do you need five rounds?
I'd accept if time for argument is changed to two weeks, and no more than 4 rounds of debate.
I'd like to know your deal with the Oxford comma.
I can't help but wonder if Username & spacetime are the same person. Trolling us onlookers.
I refer to "mindless obedience" in R1. Why do you claim otherwise?
My concluding remarks from R3 are in R1. It's the first sentences in the whole debate. Why do you claim otherwise?
You don't know that Coal lacked characters. Why do you assume this?
Character management is part of debating. Why punish me for Coal's failures to manage characters? This doesn't make sense to me.
RJ isn't CP. Coal says RJ is "punitive." But empirical literature says it's "non-punitive." In my view, doesn't matter what you call it. The point is that they're different, and you can have RJ without CP.
Ragnar's vote doesn't make sense at all. He bends over backwards trying to justify his vote for Coal. I strongly recommend you don't model your voting behavior on Ragnar. Better models are Spacetime, the guy whose vote Ragnar removed.
Maybe you missed it, but this was the structure of the debate:
"Structure. The structure of this debate shall follow as such:
Round 1: debaters shall make their affirmative cases (absent any specific refutation of arguments made by the opposing side).
Round 2: debaters shall rebut the affirmative cases raised in round 1 (and may introduce new evidence in support of such rebuttals).
Round 3: debaters shall reply to the rebuttals provided in round 2 and provide any reconstructive arguments in support of arguments initially raised in round 1 (but may not introduce new evidence in support of such replies or reconstructive arguments)."
This structure expressly allows me to rebut things from R1 in R2 by introducing "new evidence," as well as to rebut things from R2 in R3 as long as I don't introduce "new evidence." I did precisely this, per the terms of the debate. Why do you judge the debate under the belief I'm wrong to do this?
I don't understand your take.
You say I should have done a bunch of stuff in R1 that, as far as I can tell, was done in R1.
What's the "ultimatum" that I should have delivered in R1?
I expressly argued in favor of "restorative justice" in R1. Why do you suggest otherwise?
I expressly discussed the "American values" in R1, noting that my system promotes them while corporal punishment doesn't. Why do you claim otherwise? (Also, why do you claim this stuff is useless?)
I rebutted in R2 by noting parent-child context. Pro was able to address this in R3. It was the structure of the debate to rebut in R2, not R1. Why do you say I was too late to make this argument, if I made it as early as allowed by the rules, and Pro had an opportunity to rebut in R3?
Coal didn't argue that RJ harms students. That's an argument of your own creation. Why do you make this argument in Coal's defense, when he didn't make it himself?
Coal says RJ extends to families because he misunderstood my argument. This was clarified in R3. Nowhere in R1 do I say families must participate. The benefit was that they "could" participate; it gives them opportunity. Why do you ignore this? Why don't I have the right to define the terms of my counter proposal? Why do you allow Coal to define it for me? I don't understand how this is even an issue in your mind.
Why do you say benefits of RJ aren't clear? Why aren't the studies sufficient? Did Coal contest the findings in these studies at all?
What's the purpose of R2 & R3 if I'm supposed to say EVERYTHING in R1? Don't understand this judging philosophy at all. Please explain.
Thank you whiteflame. Your decision & feedback is appreciated.
Lol I'll discuss these rfds layer. It's shameful for you to call these good, yyw. Especially after calling undefeatable RFD bad, and saying spacetime should be removed. Disappointing from you to just assume they're good because they are in your favor.
Ragnar and Pies rfds are terrible.
Ragnar shouldn't even be allowed to vote on this.
Thanks for the debate.
We'll see what the voters think now.
I don't follow what you mean. "Path for legality" (presumably you mean licensing?) is not "opposed" to "general legality." It's how the regulated space of driving already works.
Let me know if you have questions about my vote. I didn't cover anything too in-depth as I wanted to get a decision out.
Nice argument. This will be a fun debate.
I actually have another couple debates going already. So I'm happy to wait.
Did you read my argument? Do you actually support mandatory vaccination, or just interested in the topic debate-wise?
I wish I knew you were interested. Still could do it.
RM, I'm already debating you...
That was quick.
To be clear, Round 2 is for rebuttals to Round 1? I'm not supposed to respond to your rebuttals yet?
I was on DDO, yeah.
The issue isn't lack of character space. The issue is conceptual. Please review Con's response to your framework, and work on responding directly to those issues.
I don't think Pro had a clear grasp of what systemic racism is, and Con made that quite clear in his attacks on Pro's framework.
Lack of conceptual clarity also made it difficult to evaluate empirical evidence. But I'm a casual reader who isn't thinking about this debate too hard. Big picture, seems like a fairly clear win for Con.