Total votes: 10
I will not use the established framework because it is very subjective and to prove which is more desirable would require showing a statistical analysis of the support of both systems to determine which demographic is bigger.
That said, I shall judge which healthcare system is more effective, in terms of functionality & morals.
I will state that I don't buy Pro's argument that Cuba's healthcare system "would" be better than the US's healthcare system if it had the same amount of funding because this is arguing potentiality and a hypothetical, this is off-topic and isn't comparing what is current.
That said, Pro mentions that Cuba's healthcare's principles value the lives and satisfaction of the people, and grant accessibility to all of its citizens ensuring they all receive the same quality treatment. And that the healthcare industry in Cuba is more effective in ensuring doctors get employment stability. When Pro says that Cuba's healthcare system is simplistic and that American's healthcare system is too complicated, what he means is that Cuba is more competent at accomplishing more with minimal resources than America is with their huge supply of resources. Pro criticizes America's healthcare system as being too apathetic and insensitive, and that veterans and other people are unable to obtain insurance. Pro also mentions that America has a higher body count because they mistreat their doctors, and the overworked doctors are more prone to making mistakes and suffering a chronic lapsee in judgment because of this labor abuse, contributing to the death toll. Conversely, Cuba treats their doctors better.
Con counters that the complications of the American healthcare system are not the faults of the United States and are due to unrelated factors. Con makes the case that the American healthcare system has more money and resources and have been able to access better technology and medicine to treat illness whereas Cuba failed to develop a Covid vaccine, and that there is a minimal supply of doctors in Cuba. However, Con concedes to Pro's argument about the 8% of people that die. Con mentions that patients have more choices and control about which treatment they choose. However even with these comparisons, Con fails to convince me that the United States's healthcare is efficient mechanically, despite their superior clout & resources. So the win does ultimately go to Pro for arguments.
As for conduct, Con does get the point because of Pro's insults.:
1. "RM's laziness apparently knows no bounds. Another completely copy pasted round. And he complains about character limit, but it is his own laziness than reduces his argument density."
2. "RationalMadman stays true to the latter half of his name by citing a study that clearly refuted his argument right in the motherfucking abstract."
Based on my previous observation and reading of past debates, Bones is a rhetorical & linguistic heavyweight. Savant is a walking encyclopedia and an expert on subject matter, so I came into this expecting Savant to give Bones a run for his money and Bones pulling through.
However, Savant wins this in my opinion. Here's why.
Pro's side makes a lot of unsubstantiated claims and exaggerations. Savant's framing of the debate sets the stage for more concrete impacts with specific examples. In a simplified version, this debate is about the obligations of freedom versus the mutual stability of the human population. Pro argues that the State is a system of evil, using arguments that they violate bodily autonomy by limiting gender selection in marriage, their use of law enforcement is ethically inconsistent & hypocritical as they penalize people for not following the rules while certain people are exempt (as in above the law.), and that taxation is slavery because the government forces people to give up their wages after volunteering their hard labor. Con counters this by stating that whether abolishing the state is ideal is whether the proportional pros/cons result in a global net positive for the human population. Con goes into a lot of detail about the need for the state, such as that Pro's suggestion for private agencies are ill-equipped and unprepared to handle the violation of human rights compared to a powerful organization like the Police Force. That a stateless society is bad for the economy because private companies are unable to provide children with the adequate skills for the workforce or basic education, and that an organized society (The State) handles this easily. Con also mentions that taxation is not slavery because slavery is defined as the owning of an actual person, but he concedes that taxation could be theft. However, Con argues that taxation is an exception, an acceptable form of theft in order to assist people with disabilities and the poor, even using examples that they were privileged enough as children to get the help they needed and without it, they would not have survived. The argument goes back and forth from here and Pro continues to refer to the State as an evil organization, still insisting that taxation is slavery without pushing back against Con's definition, thus dropping it. Con's arguments have a more solid consistency with real-world accounts justifying them that ultimately makes them superior to Pro's arguments that appeal to philosophical reasoning. Which is enough for me to give Con the point for arguments.
Pro concedes
Both debaters aren't arguing the resolution. When I read or skim the debate, it is clear they are arguing over whether abortion is murder and therefore wrong or not wrong. That is not the subject of the debate, the subject of the debate is whether personhood begins at conception or not.
We are not here to argue whether abortion is wrong or not wrong. Therefore, whoever stays on topic and argues the resolution the best will get the point for arguments.
Pro starts off appealing to examples of moral consistency and semantics. Personhood begins at conception because the lifeform is already human and will eventually develop to have consciousness, sentience, and emotions. If an action interferes with this potential by stopping it, then this action is defined as a harm. Pro argues that a fetus deserves the same moral consideration as an adult because their value and worth are not different. If killing an adult human or an infant is wrong, then the same is true for fetuses. Pro contends with the idea that abortion is acceptable, but euthanizing coma patients is murder by pointing out that any justification or argument someone applies to not killing a coma patient can also be used to save the life of a fetus. That intelligence and sentience do not determine whether a person is worthy of moral consideration.
(Pro doesn't give a strong justification for why murder is wrong and why humans fall into the category of personhoods, even if I buy that fetuses are human. We could also use a judging criteria for what to consider moral consideration. Proportional harm/benefit, context, and the method is too vaguely defined.)
Con begins very strongly. Con cleverly points out that Pro's own concept he gives for personhood is self-refuting. Specifically, the example where murdering a human is worse than murdering a pig. Con's point here is that pro's version of personhood contains qualities of exceptionalism that give it unfair privilege over other species. Con defines the qualities that constitute personhood.: Sentience, autonomy, and critical thinking. Con reasons that a zygote possesses none of these qualities and therefore has no moral value. Con's arguments also begin to go off-topic and are irrelevant, such as when he mentions that banning abortion harms women. This is outside the scope of the debate because this does nothing to tell me why or why zygotes aren't persons. Con's rebuttal against Pro's Uncertainty Principle does not refute the example. While Pro didn't define what he considers personhood, he did clearly describe an example of harm as something that ends life.) Con also breaks the conduct rule by describing Pro's example as moronic and name-dropping him directly to accuse him of lying.
Pro argues that all humans are persons, regardless of their stage of development. And that according to the social contract, a human killing another human is more immoral than a human killing another pig and that the consensus for moral value is not defined by an intelligence gap. Pro defends that fetuses are worthy of moral consideration by mentioning their potentiality. Con argues there is no reason to give moral consideration to imaginary future people, but Pro has refuted this by explaining that fetuses are already living people.
Given the debate, the victory does seem to be slightly in Pro's favor but only slightly, as this debate could have went any way. Pro didn't need to define killing as wrong, he needed to establish a criteria regarding what makes someone worthy of moral consideration and what doesn't. Con is the only one to do this, and if Pro didn't pushback with counter-examples and inconsistencies in society's morals, Con would have won this.
Pro and Con go back forth a lot, with Pro being unnecessarily crash and vulgar at times. The conduct was atrocious on both sides, with Con forfeiting the first round to undermine the resolution, likely thinking it was clever. This is just ridiculously immature. Con also makes subtle jabs at Pro even by implying that Pro is attempting to seek pity points, so this is enough for me to give Pro the point for conduct.
The arguments by both sides are not particularly convincing, even if I don't buy Con's argument about the conduct category being an effective counter-measure against plagiarism and chatgpt because using either usually forfeits you the entire debate rather than the conduct point, Pro does nothing to pushback on this. Pro instead retorts that plagiarism should be an argumentative offense rather than a conduct one, which is a serious missed opportunity from Pro. Con proceeds to dismantle Pro's case by calling attention to the obscure fallacies and definitions, and pointing out that most of Pro's arguments are self-contradicting and irrelevant. Namely, the plea to the incel example.
Pro's belief is that conduct can be misused for the intent of unfairly awarding an inferior debater with a point without much justification, if the voter is biased. Con's belief is that the conduct point is a good way of utilizing accountability to ensure that debaters are recognized for areas they perform well in or perform bad in.
(I'm leaving arguments tied because neither side spends any effort building their case and both get addressed.)
Con is the only one who provided links, so I'm giving Con the point for sources. Both sides had the same quality for spelling and grammar, so this is tied. Con admits to intentionally forfeiting, so the conduct point goes to Pro.
When it comes to substance and the depth of poetry, Con's had more of a storyline.
Pro's poem was slightly bland and lacking in material, with nothing interesting catching my attention. But Pro did abide by the conventional rules of conforming to a more poetic structure. I don't consider rap poetry because the rules are different and the differences are too vast which makes rap fall into a different category. However, rap does usually make efficient use of poetry, which is utilized by Con.
Pro's poem followed a more traditional structure, using a rhyme scheme such as AABBCC.
Con's poem differs from sonnets or ballads and is more like spoken word style or free verse.
There is more rhythm and flow, so it doesn't follow a commonly known poetry rhyme scheme like Iambic Pentameter or Dactylic Hexameter.
So if I was judging by poetry rules, Pro wins for being more consistent with following the logical structures of poetry, but the more significant part of poetry is having a story worth telling. Pro goes with the most basic concept and uses fluffy language to make it sound compelling, but this just doesn't work. Con's use of story-telling evokes more imagery of an anti-hero triumphing over a revelation of suffering under the hands of villains and enemies.
This means Con's "poem" technically wins.
Pro effectively uses more references and wordplay in his rhymes. Con's verses don't exactly hit as hard as Pro's.
Pro is arguing that anything outside of conventional logic is not semantically identical to the term "illogical." Con argues the opposite.
Pro mentions that the rules of logic are limited to this universe and human comprehension/perception, so anything existing outside the confines of this universe are not subject to our same laws, so these differences being too convoluted would be declared as being outside of logic. But that doesn't mean it's illogical. Pro uses the example of Jesus using his divine powers to walk on water, which is impossible given our current scientific knowledge. Pro cites this example to defend that divinity rarely aligns with our expectations of what is logical.
Con begins round 1 by strawmanning Pro when he declares Pro must argue that illogical is inside of logic. Imposing a framework like this is acceptable, but not without a valid justification. Con doesn't provide an explanation for why Pro must defend this version of the resolution and Con provides no rebuttals for any of Pro's arguments, nor does he make any of his own. This either demonstrates Con has not read Pro's round 1, or he lacks an understanding of Pro's round 1.
In round 2, Pro doesn't provide a response. But instead simply asks if Con has a rebuttal to anything he said.
Con quotes one of Pro's lines from Round 1 about logic not materializing outside of the universe and retorts that theories can be illogical or outside of logic, but this isn't actually a response to Pro, more of a sideline non-response as it doesn't address anything Pro was talking about. Con proceeds to misrepresent Pro's argument by implying that Pro must continue arguing that illogical is inside of logic. Con explains that the rules of logic can be used to identify what is logical, but doesn't disprove or argue against anything Pro was saying. He just restates what he believes is Pro's position.
Round 3, Pro explains that Con's framework is a misunderstanding of the resolution. Pro refutes Con's arguments by stating that theories are not outside of logic, as theories are logical and thus within the confines of rules of logic. Pro continues to give examples of how being "outside of logic" is not the same as "logical." As what exists outside the universe is outside of conventional logic, but not illogical.
Con forfeits this round.
Round 4, Pro extends his arguments and announces Con has resigned from the debate. Con substantiates this claim.
Round 5, Pro expresses frustration by telling future debaters to understand his position before accepting the debate to avoid wasting time. Con formally thanks Pro for the debate.
So for arguments, Pro is clearly outclassing Con because he defends his position adequately and gives his justifications. Con attempts to insert a framework, which is a misdirection of Pro's intended position of what he should argue and I might have accepted this, if Con could have successfully explained why Pro should have argued this. But not only does Con not contribute his own constructive arguments, he ignores 99% of what Pro said and gives no rebuttals. It was a sheer lack of effort and laziness from Con's side, so Pro gets the point for arguments.
Neither side provided sources, so I'm leaving this tied.
Spelling, grammar, and font was decent from both ends, so this is tied.
Pro might have gotten the point for conduct, since Con forfeited. However, Con messaged Pro outside the debate to inform him he was conceding, which shows full communication through transparency instead of wasting Pro's time by ignoring him. Pro gives Con credit for this and Con acknowledges this happened (both of their own words, not mine.), so I will not deduct a point for conduct. In the end because Con thanks Pro for the debate and shows respect and both sides displayed an equal level of respect and conduct, so I'm leaving this tied.
Con is arguing that Evolution is real, Pro is defending that Evolution is not real.
Con begins the first round by withholding argumentation until late, but gives us a good opening as to what to expect by dropping facts and terminology that have been accepted by the scientific community as true, such as adaptation, natural selection, and speciation.
Pro starts off his Round 1 argument by suggesting that animal and insect species are capable of impressive intelligent feats, but that the gap between human IQ and the IQ of other species is too wide for it to be coincidental. Pro implies that humankind is the Chosen Species, and that if things were left to their own devices, animals and other organisms would have caught up with mankind and be on par with them in terms of intelligence. Pro asks a rhetorical question to strengthen his position, using creativity as the distinguishing trait that defines humans apart from animals.
Con starts off his Round 2 arguments by addressing these Pro's contentions in a strong way. He points out that intelligence and creativity being unique to humans is irrelevant as to proving or disproving the theory of evolution. Con mentions that animals develop the traits their environment requires in order for them to survive, and that there's pros & cons for every species. He compares human intelligence to the healing potential of axolotls and salamanders, pointing out that every biological characteristic is determined by genetics and other factors. He also points out that human empathy developed because of the feeble mortality of man, and that cooperation in groups helped them learn traits and skills to survive.
Con also points out that the evidence for Evolution already proves that it is true and that to disprove it, you need to declare how the evidence in question is wrong.
Pro starts his Round 2 argument by re-clarifying the position he is arguing and stating that he believes genetic mutations exist, but that they are separate from Evolution. Pro argues that the science contradicts itself because if evolution is something that helps species survive, then why do genetic mutations cause more harm than science claims they solve.
Con starts Round 3 by correcting Pro's misconceptions about evolution by stating that evolution is about random selection, not beneficial. He describes in detail how certain colored moths were bigger targets for predators due to their visibility, and due to being killed off so quickly, there were an infrequent amount of that particular kind of moth to breed. The more common moths were better suited for their environment, due to their camouflaging abilities and there were more of them to breed. So moths of that particular kind became more common, which is an example of evolution. Pro mentions how much of human survival comes down to genetic mutation, such as the ability to see and speak.
Pro starts Round 3 by addressing none of these arguments and derailing the subject by instead asking questions about creationism.
In round 4, Con has already substantiated most of his arguments from the previous rounds so doesn't need to argue anything else, and he addresses Pro's other questions, indulging him in a side convo about religion. However, no other arguments or rebuttals are brought forth by either side in the final round.
Con brings forth more arguments and line of reasoning for his side, even correcting Pro's misconceptions and using scientific data to back up his argumentation. Pro goes off topic a lot and has side conversations instead of defending his position. For arguments, the winner is Con.
Both sides provided sources, so I'm leaving this a tie. Grammar & spelling were equal, so legibility is a tie for both sides. Conduct was perfect from both participants, there was a mutual level of respect given between both of them. So that is also a tie.