I started out planning to vote on this, because it's an interesting topic and I figured it would be a pretty simple debate.
But my goodness, is this a pain to read.
I won't act like Pro's arguments are structured as well as they could be, but my main bone to pick is with fauxlaw. All of these literary references and unnecessary flourishes in your writing only muddy the water. As far as I'm concerned, your arguments are 90% self-indulgent fluff and 10% relevant points.
S&G and CONDUCT: Tie
You both write well and there were no conduct violations. At times I felt Con's tone was more combative than Pro's, but nothing so extreme as to be labeled a conduct problem.
Pro made a decent opening argument with the one-two punch (i.e. Christianity in theory should promote science and we have some evidence that it did). These arguments were supported by sources, as well. Con countered with some nice points about Christianity being toxic to the cause of rationality and science over the years, but these points were largely asserted and not sourced, thus weakening their strength. I also think Pro hit back with decent sources in defense, so on balance, this one-two punch argument leaned toward Pro’s favor.
On the subjects of the Enlightenment and Middle Age scientific advancements, a similar story played out. Pro started with decent arguments that were supported by sources, Con came back with some incisive and intuitive counters that largely failed to use sources for support. For example, the following statement by Con could’ve been a stronger counterpoint if a source had been cited to support it: “During the Early Middle Ages, or 500 to 1000 CE, scientific progress truly was stagnant in Europe, yet the Christian faith was practiced with devotion almost unrivalled in world history.” So, once again, I lean in favor of Pro on this subject.
Lastly, we have what I have mentally labeled the Atrocities Category. I was not super impressed with either side’s arguments here. Again, Con put forth some incisive, intuitive, but ultimately insufficiently supported claims about Christianity’s misdeeds. Another example: “the Church stifled, censored, and persecuted any scientist who dared publish any findings that went against Christian dogma. The height of persecution lasted from the late 16th to the early 18th century - before that, during the Renaissance, the Church was more lax, which is why Copernicus went unpersecuted. But by Galileo’s time, the Counter-Reformation had set in, and the Church took a more staunch fundamentalist attitude. Thus, they put him on trial for arguing that the Earth moves around the Sun, the opposite seen as Biblical doctrine at the time.” Now, as an atheist, I enjoy reading about how the Church was bad for censoring free thought. This one should go down easy. But Con doesn’t provide any sourcing, and for historical claims such as this, sourcing is important for the strength of the point. But as I said, I wasn’t impressed with either side’s performance in this category. I was displeased with Pro because he often resorted to the “that’s not true Christianity” defense. A real whopper was at the end of his R4 when he claimed Christianity doesn’t support slavery. Whether his definition of true Christianity supports slavery is irrelevant, per my assessment framework mentioned previously.
Pro performed better overall, though not well enough to meet his burden of proof. I was not convinced that had Christianity not existed (or at least been significantly less influential) the world would be a worse place. There are two reasons for my lack of conviction on this point. First, when extolling the scientific and enlightenment values of Christianity, Pro’s arguments never surpassed the plausibility threshold. Sure, we can identify some ways Christianity in theory would promote science. And sure, Christian scientists gave glory to god in the forewords of their books and whatnot, but that doesn’t necessarily mean Christianity was the primary causal factor behind the growth of science. Without a precise and definitive account of the various factors at play in the growth of science and other benefits, I’m not confident Pro has met his burden. Second, as I stated, I was unimpressed with Pro’s defense against Christian atrocities by appeals to “not a true Christian.” Of course, Con’s arguments were not very strong due to a lack of sourcing, but this is still overall not good for Pro, considering they carry the burden of proof.
I’ll conclude by saying this was a robust, complicated debate, and I think other intelligent and well-meaning voters could come to a different conclusion. In fact, I think it’s possible someone could offer a better analysis than I have.
ARGUMENTS: Tie
In my view, for Pro to uphold the claim that Christianity has done more good than harm, he needed to demonstrate a counterfactual. Namely, that had Christianity not existed (or at least not been as influential as it was), the world would be a worse place. I have reason to believe Pro should accept this assessment framework of mine, given that he essentially asserts this counterfactual at the beginning of his opening argument.
I prefer this framework over the two-point standard Pro and Con agreed to in R4, as the second point (actions must originate from Christian beliefs) is too susceptible to the “that’s not real Christianity” defense/excuse for my taste. Furthermore, I think the counterfactual standard is a good way to identify whether Christianity as a phenomenon was a primary causal mechanism behind various good and bad historical developments.
SOURCES: Pro
I’ll divide my assessment here into two categories: Use in Debate and Source Quality.
Starting with the second, I had concerns with both sides' sources from the start. Con was referencing Wikipedia a lot and other blogs (one of which was an atheist blog about Thomas Jefferson - oof!). Wikipedia is ok, but we could do better. Superficially, it looked like Pro was citing a nice academic library of supporting literature, but I was concerned the library might have actually just been an assortment of pseudo-academic Christian historical revisionist garbage (excuse my bluntness).
After reviewing a few of Pro’s sources, I found a mixed bag. Two sources, Schmidt and Amos, looked like they might be closer to the pseudo-academic Christian garbage end of the spectrum than the objective, secular scholarship end. I cannot be sure, however, because I haven’t read them. My suspicion was generated by the book publishers, descriptions, and opening sentences (also the background of the authors wasn’t super encouraging, though I admit I didn’t do a deep background check on them or anything like that). However, Pro’s Efron source was clearly high quality. Written by objective authors (half of them claim to be agnostic/atheist) who just want to set the historical record straight and published by Harvard University Press, I trust this source. Pro and Con had a bit of spat over what the source’s true implications were. When I reviewed it, I found it to be about dispelling myths about science and religion. Most of these myths would have benefited Con, but as Con pointed out, the “Myth 9” chapter had some things to say that weren’t really in Pro’s favor. With that being said, I’m not going to read Myth 9 and try to parse out to what extent Pro and/or Con were selectively quoting. So, when it comes to quality of sources, it’s kind of a draw. I don’t care for Con’s reliance on Wikipedia and blogs, and I have concerns about the integrity of some of Pro’s sources as well.
When it comes to Use in Debate, I think it’s clear that I thought Con did not support his claims with sources frequently enough. Pro’s argument was written like a well-researched college essay, meaning he made claims and then turned to the literature for support.
Given that Quality is a rough draw and Use in Debate goes to Pro, points for Sources go to Pro.
Who is the US torturing? I thought the 'enhanced interrogation' of terrorists had been put to a stop. As far as I can tell, all that leaves is arguing that the US prison system tortures people via solitary confinement or other 'disciplinarian' methods.
Laying traps and playing on semantics aren't what this site - or debating in general - should be about, in my view. Valuable debates occur when a good-faith exchange of opposing ideas takes place.
I wish I had voted, so I could give the win to Singularity. Running a Kritik is always in poor taste, IMO, especially when you set up the debate yourself. It's just plain deceitful.
This seems rather obvious. Why is making the point important to you, if you don't mind me asking? In your view, what is the implication of sex's procreative property being more important than its pleasure property?
I hate to be a nag, but I'm curious if you plan to vote on this? I ask because I think Dynamic's vote is going to be removed again, and I'm worried about the clock running out with no votes as a result.
Thanks for a great debate. I just want to remind you that, per the round structure I laid out in the debate description, R3 is only to be used for rebuttals to R2 arguments and providing closing remarks. I am pointing this out because an opponent in another debate of mine recently ran afoul of these ground rules.
To my understanding, no nuclear state possesses first strike capability vis a vis any other nuclear state.
The US and Russia possess the vast majority of nuclear warheads in existence today. On that basis, I think it's fair to say that the US has nuclear superiority over most nuclear states, but it does not have first strike capability, not even against North Korea (again, to my knowledge. Who knows, maybe military intelligence has some super secret info about the location of North Korean warheads and they are very confident we could take them all out in one strike).
I'm having trouble understanding your numbers in your "R1)." reply. Maybe I'm just being dense. But would you mind breaking down what you're saying there?
I would be interested in a debate similar to this. A resolution something like "Significant Financial and Political Capital Ought to be Devoted to Establishing an Off-world Colony before the End of the 21st Century." A slew of definitions would likely be required, but I'd be interested in taking Con. Let me know if you're interested.
It seems like this debate contradicts itself. How can something be the greatest while at the same time the author, in the description, admits no piece of music is objectively better than another?
I think it's only fair to your opponent that you provide crucial definitions. How one defines "right to protect the identity of confidential sources" is paramount to the nature of the debate. If you plan to merely argue it is a right that could have exceptions, then there is a serious burden on your opponent. If you instead plan to argue that it is an absolute right that has no exceptions, there is more of a burden on you.
There is a difference between deciding on exact arguments and making clear the position you intend to advocate for. As the debate is set up right now, there is not way to discern what exact position you will be arguing for.
For the purposes of this debate, is this "right" you speak of absolute? In other words, do you plan to argue there are no circumstances under which a reporter should be compelled to reveal a confidential source?
Kroenig's book is a really good read, but I think it also represents that stereotypical notion of the out-of-touch academic who places too much faith in pure logic and theoretical models. I've been poring over transcripts from the Cuban Missile Crisis and 1973 October Crisis, and to put it simply, I don't think his proposed model is represented in reality very well.
A couple points I want to get across after posting my R2:
1) One of my sources is a Foreign Affairs article. If anyone does not have access and would like it, feel free to ask for a copy of the article from me. I will be happy to provide.
2) I did not mention it in the text of my R2, but I am actually writing my thesis - to a large extent - on Matthew Kroenig's book, "The Logic of American Nuclear Superiority." I have a bone to pick with his conclusions, but I did not think my opinions on the matter were important enough to justify taking up precious characters. But if anyone wants to chat about Kroenig, I'm down.
3) I can't stress enough that I think it's vital readers/judges understand the definition of "conservative nuclear arsenals" as listed in the debate description. I use the term a lot but I don't take up characters to continually re-state its meaning within the context of the debate. Same goes for abolition, I guess, but that's a lot more clear.
The debate description makes clear we're considering this question within the context of an anarchic interstate system that could accommodate nuclear abolition.
Although I'm pretty pessimistic about our chances of significantly averting climate change's worst effects, I think we should be doing both. The debate's premise sets up a false binary.
If readers are interested in the Fermi Paradox mentioned here, I recommend Stephen Webb's "Where is Everybody?" (https://www.amazon.com/Universe-Teeming-Aliens-WHERE-EVERYBODY/dp/0387955011)
It offers 50 explanations to the Fermi Paradox. Since it is obviously behind a paywall, I didn't think it would be fair to use it as a source. But it is still very interesting and I highly recommend if anyone wants reading on the subject that is fun yet scientifically valid.
Is it considered poor form to hyperlink one's sources, instead of using the in-text citation method?
Even though I did not specify how to cite sources in the description, could a judge legitimately award sources to my opponent on the basis that I'm hyperlinking?
bump
I'm going to vote on this. (declaring this to better hold myself accountable)
Reality is objective, but the words we use to articulate our understanding of reality are social constructs. In other words, it's a tricky thing.
I stand by the gist of my comment, but I'm willing to admit now I was overly hostile. The way I expressed myself was uncalled for. I am sorry.
I started out planning to vote on this, because it's an interesting topic and I figured it would be a pretty simple debate.
But my goodness, is this a pain to read.
I won't act like Pro's arguments are structured as well as they could be, but my main bone to pick is with fauxlaw. All of these literary references and unnecessary flourishes in your writing only muddy the water. As far as I'm concerned, your arguments are 90% self-indulgent fluff and 10% relevant points.
S&G and CONDUCT: Tie
You both write well and there were no conduct violations. At times I felt Con's tone was more combative than Pro's, but nothing so extreme as to be labeled a conduct problem.
2 OF 2
Pro made a decent opening argument with the one-two punch (i.e. Christianity in theory should promote science and we have some evidence that it did). These arguments were supported by sources, as well. Con countered with some nice points about Christianity being toxic to the cause of rationality and science over the years, but these points were largely asserted and not sourced, thus weakening their strength. I also think Pro hit back with decent sources in defense, so on balance, this one-two punch argument leaned toward Pro’s favor.
On the subjects of the Enlightenment and Middle Age scientific advancements, a similar story played out. Pro started with decent arguments that were supported by sources, Con came back with some incisive and intuitive counters that largely failed to use sources for support. For example, the following statement by Con could’ve been a stronger counterpoint if a source had been cited to support it: “During the Early Middle Ages, or 500 to 1000 CE, scientific progress truly was stagnant in Europe, yet the Christian faith was practiced with devotion almost unrivalled in world history.” So, once again, I lean in favor of Pro on this subject.
Lastly, we have what I have mentally labeled the Atrocities Category. I was not super impressed with either side’s arguments here. Again, Con put forth some incisive, intuitive, but ultimately insufficiently supported claims about Christianity’s misdeeds. Another example: “the Church stifled, censored, and persecuted any scientist who dared publish any findings that went against Christian dogma. The height of persecution lasted from the late 16th to the early 18th century - before that, during the Renaissance, the Church was more lax, which is why Copernicus went unpersecuted. But by Galileo’s time, the Counter-Reformation had set in, and the Church took a more staunch fundamentalist attitude. Thus, they put him on trial for arguing that the Earth moves around the Sun, the opposite seen as Biblical doctrine at the time.” Now, as an atheist, I enjoy reading about how the Church was bad for censoring free thought. This one should go down easy. But Con doesn’t provide any sourcing, and for historical claims such as this, sourcing is important for the strength of the point. But as I said, I wasn’t impressed with either side’s performance in this category. I was displeased with Pro because he often resorted to the “that’s not true Christianity” defense. A real whopper was at the end of his R4 when he claimed Christianity doesn’t support slavery. Whether his definition of true Christianity supports slavery is irrelevant, per my assessment framework mentioned previously.
Pro performed better overall, though not well enough to meet his burden of proof. I was not convinced that had Christianity not existed (or at least been significantly less influential) the world would be a worse place. There are two reasons for my lack of conviction on this point. First, when extolling the scientific and enlightenment values of Christianity, Pro’s arguments never surpassed the plausibility threshold. Sure, we can identify some ways Christianity in theory would promote science. And sure, Christian scientists gave glory to god in the forewords of their books and whatnot, but that doesn’t necessarily mean Christianity was the primary causal factor behind the growth of science. Without a precise and definitive account of the various factors at play in the growth of science and other benefits, I’m not confident Pro has met his burden. Second, as I stated, I was unimpressed with Pro’s defense against Christian atrocities by appeals to “not a true Christian.” Of course, Con’s arguments were not very strong due to a lack of sourcing, but this is still overall not good for Pro, considering they carry the burden of proof.
I’ll conclude by saying this was a robust, complicated debate, and I think other intelligent and well-meaning voters could come to a different conclusion. In fact, I think it’s possible someone could offer a better analysis than I have.
1 OF 2
ARGUMENTS: Tie
In my view, for Pro to uphold the claim that Christianity has done more good than harm, he needed to demonstrate a counterfactual. Namely, that had Christianity not existed (or at least not been as influential as it was), the world would be a worse place. I have reason to believe Pro should accept this assessment framework of mine, given that he essentially asserts this counterfactual at the beginning of his opening argument.
I prefer this framework over the two-point standard Pro and Con agreed to in R4, as the second point (actions must originate from Christian beliefs) is too susceptible to the “that’s not real Christianity” defense/excuse for my taste. Furthermore, I think the counterfactual standard is a good way to identify whether Christianity as a phenomenon was a primary causal mechanism behind various good and bad historical developments.
That said, here is my assessment of the clash.
SOURCES: Pro
I’ll divide my assessment here into two categories: Use in Debate and Source Quality.
Starting with the second, I had concerns with both sides' sources from the start. Con was referencing Wikipedia a lot and other blogs (one of which was an atheist blog about Thomas Jefferson - oof!). Wikipedia is ok, but we could do better. Superficially, it looked like Pro was citing a nice academic library of supporting literature, but I was concerned the library might have actually just been an assortment of pseudo-academic Christian historical revisionist garbage (excuse my bluntness).
After reviewing a few of Pro’s sources, I found a mixed bag. Two sources, Schmidt and Amos, looked like they might be closer to the pseudo-academic Christian garbage end of the spectrum than the objective, secular scholarship end. I cannot be sure, however, because I haven’t read them. My suspicion was generated by the book publishers, descriptions, and opening sentences (also the background of the authors wasn’t super encouraging, though I admit I didn’t do a deep background check on them or anything like that). However, Pro’s Efron source was clearly high quality. Written by objective authors (half of them claim to be agnostic/atheist) who just want to set the historical record straight and published by Harvard University Press, I trust this source. Pro and Con had a bit of spat over what the source’s true implications were. When I reviewed it, I found it to be about dispelling myths about science and religion. Most of these myths would have benefited Con, but as Con pointed out, the “Myth 9” chapter had some things to say that weren’t really in Pro’s favor. With that being said, I’m not going to read Myth 9 and try to parse out to what extent Pro and/or Con were selectively quoting. So, when it comes to quality of sources, it’s kind of a draw. I don’t care for Con’s reliance on Wikipedia and blogs, and I have concerns about the integrity of some of Pro’s sources as well.
When it comes to Use in Debate, I think it’s clear that I thought Con did not support his claims with sources frequently enough. Pro’s argument was written like a well-researched college essay, meaning he made claims and then turned to the literature for support.
Given that Quality is a rough draw and Use in Debate goes to Pro, points for Sources go to Pro.
To be clear, I wasn't trying to say "enhanced interrogation" isn't torture. It obviously is torture.
But the use of the word "cease" in the title suggests we're still torturing people. Who are we torturing?
I plan to vote on this.
Who is the US torturing? I thought the 'enhanced interrogation' of terrorists had been put to a stop. As far as I can tell, all that leaves is arguing that the US prison system tortures people via solitary confinement or other 'disciplinarian' methods.
Laying traps and playing on semantics aren't what this site - or debating in general - should be about, in my view. Valuable debates occur when a good-faith exchange of opposing ideas takes place.
Don't make me blush
I wish I had voted, so I could give the win to Singularity. Running a Kritik is always in poor taste, IMO, especially when you set up the debate yourself. It's just plain deceitful.
This seems rather obvious. Why is making the point important to you, if you don't mind me asking? In your view, what is the implication of sex's procreative property being more important than its pleasure property?
Thank you, I'm glad another person is interested in this subject.
I will keep your offer in mind.
bump
I hate to be a nag, but I'm curious if you plan to vote on this? I ask because I think Dynamic's vote is going to be removed again, and I'm worried about the clock running out with no votes as a result.
No problem. I appreciate your kind response.
bump
bump
This is your requested ping
Per the debate description, please comment your chosen translation.
Thanks for your feedback. Do you recommend I list a different translation? Or perhaps I should allow my opponent to pick a translation?
Or should there be no single translation specified?
Thanks for a great debate. I just want to remind you that, per the round structure I laid out in the debate description, R3 is only to be used for rebuttals to R2 arguments and providing closing remarks. I am pointing this out because an opponent in another debate of mine recently ran afoul of these ground rules.
Door's open
I regret setting the character limit at 2,500.
I definitely agree to point 1. As for point 2, I could agree if we said "first strike capability is theoretically possible to achieve."
I have no problem adjusting to 2 weeks.
To my understanding, no nuclear state possesses first strike capability vis a vis any other nuclear state.
The US and Russia possess the vast majority of nuclear warheads in existence today. On that basis, I think it's fair to say that the US has nuclear superiority over most nuclear states, but it does not have first strike capability, not even against North Korea (again, to my knowledge. Who knows, maybe military intelligence has some super secret info about the location of North Korean warheads and they are very confident we could take them all out in one strike).
I'm having trouble understanding your numbers in your "R1)." reply. Maybe I'm just being dense. But would you mind breaking down what you're saying there?
If you agree to define "the right to protect confidential sources" as absolute (i.e. without exception), then I would take Con.
I would be interested in a debate similar to this. A resolution something like "Significant Financial and Political Capital Ought to be Devoted to Establishing an Off-world Colony before the End of the 21st Century." A slew of definitions would likely be required, but I'd be interested in taking Con. Let me know if you're interested.
It seems like this debate contradicts itself. How can something be the greatest while at the same time the author, in the description, admits no piece of music is objectively better than another?
I think it's only fair to your opponent that you provide crucial definitions. How one defines "right to protect the identity of confidential sources" is paramount to the nature of the debate. If you plan to merely argue it is a right that could have exceptions, then there is a serious burden on your opponent. If you instead plan to argue that it is an absolute right that has no exceptions, there is more of a burden on you.
There is a difference between deciding on exact arguments and making clear the position you intend to advocate for. As the debate is set up right now, there is not way to discern what exact position you will be arguing for.
For the purposes of this debate, is this "right" you speak of absolute? In other words, do you plan to argue there are no circumstances under which a reporter should be compelled to reveal a confidential source?
Odd, lately I've been thinking about debating this very topic. Unfortunately I don't think Con has a leg to stand on, or I'd take it.
Kroenig's book is a really good read, but I think it also represents that stereotypical notion of the out-of-touch academic who places too much faith in pure logic and theoretical models. I've been poring over transcripts from the Cuban Missile Crisis and 1973 October Crisis, and to put it simply, I don't think his proposed model is represented in reality very well.
A couple points I want to get across after posting my R2:
1) One of my sources is a Foreign Affairs article. If anyone does not have access and would like it, feel free to ask for a copy of the article from me. I will be happy to provide.
2) I did not mention it in the text of my R2, but I am actually writing my thesis - to a large extent - on Matthew Kroenig's book, "The Logic of American Nuclear Superiority." I have a bone to pick with his conclusions, but I did not think my opinions on the matter were important enough to justify taking up precious characters. But if anyone wants to chat about Kroenig, I'm down.
3) I can't stress enough that I think it's vital readers/judges understand the definition of "conservative nuclear arsenals" as listed in the debate description. I use the term a lot but I don't take up characters to continually re-state its meaning within the context of the debate. Same goes for abolition, I guess, but that's a lot more clear.
The debate description makes clear we're considering this question within the context of an anarchic interstate system that could accommodate nuclear abolition.
Although I'm pretty pessimistic about our chances of significantly averting climate change's worst effects, I think we should be doing both. The debate's premise sets up a false binary.
You had me thinking I had a win via forfeit coming my way.
But I think we've got a live one here. I'm glad you submitted your argument.
A god-tier R1
If readers are interested in the Fermi Paradox mentioned here, I recommend Stephen Webb's "Where is Everybody?" (https://www.amazon.com/Universe-Teeming-Aliens-WHERE-EVERYBODY/dp/0387955011)
It offers 50 explanations to the Fermi Paradox. Since it is obviously behind a paywall, I didn't think it would be fair to use it as a source. But it is still very interesting and I highly recommend if anyone wants reading on the subject that is fun yet scientifically valid.
Is it considered poor form to hyperlink one's sources, instead of using the in-text citation method?
Even though I did not specify how to cite sources in the description, could a judge legitimately award sources to my opponent on the basis that I'm hyperlinking?
No hard feelings about the deleted vote. Sorry for voting when I should not have.
Maybe you've heard something like this before, but it seems like the website simply shouldn't let me vote if I'm not eligible.