Total votes: 166
First, there was a constant lack of distinction (mostly on the part of PRO) about the group of prisoner being brought up. The title specifies maximum security prisoners, but the statistics cited by PRO in R1 refer to all federal prison inmates. Other groups brought up include death row inmates, "[convicted] rapists and serial killers" and the general U.S. prison system as a whole (which would include state prisoners as well as federal). This makes it very difficult to evaluate the validity of various arguments and I personally wouldn't mind seeing a rematch where this was held more strictly. I will be be trying to judge arguments based on how they refer to maximum security inmates as that is the group named in the title of the debate.
The main point that PRO brings up is that the prison system runs at a massive deficit and this could be alleviated by slave labor. The most relevant counterargument in my opinion on the part of CON as this is a economically motivated argument was that of COST. Through a quote, CON brings up that there are costs associated with employing prison inmates in addition to the regular costs of just keeping them in prison, such as transportation and training. Pro mainly dismisses this argument saying that without statistics it doesn't prove anything.
There's a lot of moral arguments about various groups of prisoners and innocence and stuff, but these are almost impossible to parse if I try to apply them to maximum security prisoners specifically. I will save elaboration on that for if there's a second debate or I decide to take up con's position myself.
Overall I what I could make out of the arguments, I will give points to CON as his main point went undefeated. Statistics would have been ideal if this was an actual policy debate instead of a yea or nay debate, but I think the quote and other sources get the point across.
I won't award any points for sources because none of them actually referred to maxsec prisoners specifically.
Spelling and grammar were equal as far as I could tell, no egregious errors that I noted, a few sentences definitely could have been worded better, but the points got across.
Conduct: there was a lot of use of intentionally charged language in referring to severe crimes such as rape and murder. This is one of the things I hate about political debates. Everyone immediately jumps to using words like pedophile and instantly anyone who says a single word of defence for the other position is enabling pedophiles or is a pedophile or something. CON didn't bend though, and insisted that even terrible people deserve certain rights (there was a whole separate argument about the validity of the death penalty for the same people that I didn't address because it has no bearing on the slavery: yes/no argument in my opinion.) This might be an unconventional reason to award the points but for being a decent human and treating other humans like humans, conduct points to CON
Forfeiture
Forfeiture
FF + 10 ch min
Full Forefeiture
Forfeiture
I'll be doing things in reverse order today.
First, Conduct:
Pro was actually much more civil than I have seen him behave in the past. There were no outright insults or ad hominem attacks. Nothing egregious enough on either side to merit the point.
Spelling and Grammar: While there were multiple grammatical and formatting errors on both sides, they didn't detract from the arguments' coherency too much. Tied again.
Sources: While Pro references the Bible, they don't cite it, and as a fictional account at worst and anecdotal at best, it doesn't provide a great argument for inherent, congenital racism, especially since Pro argues that the specific examples that Con uses don't count for anything in terms of a general argument. Con on the other hand cites several widely read scientific journals in the fields of psychology and human behavior. Points to Con
Arguments: My main criticism of Pro's arguments, validity aside, is how often they will tangentially bring up something like slavery or "the Jewish people, which may be the most ridiculous form of cultural appropriation in history," without elaborating or explaining how they support the natural-born racism argument. I think if Pro was able to back up claims and stay on topic he would have a strong argument but as it stands it won't hold water. Points to Con.
Concession
I honestly tried to cut my original RFD down in order to fit it in 5000 characters, but it would have required cutting out pretty important stuff, so you can access the full thing in the link below.[1]
The main things I want anyone reading this to know.
"theory" should have been tabooed almost immediately, though this wasn't too big of a problem.[2]
Pro barely had Sources and Con almost had Conduct, so I adjusted it by giving Con Conduct, which more accurately represents how I would break down points at the loss of precise wins and losses in the RFD.
[1]https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wA-vRN7tND0v5w_9p0wp3tibkpL2CU48qY9EAWmHln8/edit?usp=sharing
[2]http://lesswrong.com/lw/nu/taboo_your_words/
FF (╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻
Ctrl+F makes the victor clear. Argument to Con.
Full Forfeit
The argument "what manipulation of the genome may have occurred after 50,000 years ago is not in the scope of this debate" is blatantly false, as Con points out. The "entire human genome," includes all examples of the species, even those after 50,000 years ago, by definition. Since Pro concedes the existence of interspecies breeding, he by extension conceded the point.
Arguments to Pro.
Con only used a single Wikipedia article as a cited source. Pro not only uses more official sources, especially https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22110/, which is a government organization, but also has more sources. All of the sources used on both sides were a. relevant, and b. were used appropriately.
If this gets deleted again, I would like to contend it. The voting bubbles above say under "Criterion" in the second row, "Which participant provided the most reliable sources?" I consider all of the sources used reliable enough to serve as "reliable sources," so I choose the participant who used the most sources since all are reliable.
Sources to Pro.
The criterion for a 1 point voting system is "Which participant won the debate?"
I hesitate to call anyone a winner when only half a round was posted. I'm going to vote for Pro because I believe that it isn't fair for Con to reap the rewards of a huge points ratio and the resulting rating boost.
I'm making a meaningless vote to contribute to the stupidity of this debate. If this helps Pro's case, try not to hurt your brain about it; it's not quite a paradox, only nonsensical.
The argument made by Con is pretty simple. That X is allowed does not make it follow that X should be allowed. The justification in the second round is flimsy. Even if you presume that everything is allowed for a well thought out reason doesn't mean that the reason is good. Hitler had thought-out reasons for every law passed that persecuted Jews, gays, etc. This doesn't make it right. This is essentially the point that Con made in R1, and it preempted the R2 rebuttal by Pro. Arguments to Con.
Although I think 2 rounds is ridiculous, Con did forfeit half the rounds. Conduct to Pro.
Con forfeited majority of rounds. Conduct to Pro.
Arguments are clearly paradoxes. Like any good AI, I avoid thinking about paradoxes whenever possible. Arguments tied.
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
"Are you still there?"
Full forfeit
The argument in the debate description doesn't count, so there was no real argument put forth by Pro. Two out of the five rounds were forfeited, one was a petty spelling correction, and the other two were likewise unrelated to the debate topic.
As Con stated, the Burden of Proof is on Pro as the Instigator. Any failure on the part of Pro to prove the argument is constituted as a loss of the argument.
Arguments to Con.
No sources were used by either side, Sources tied.
Spelling and grammar are tied as only a few small mistakes were made.
Conduct is different between the two. Neither were particularly uncivil. Pro wasted an entire round correcting an accidental typo that was unimportant. Con's response could be read as cold or rude, but the medium of text makes it unclear. Conduct is tied.
I'm just going to outline a few arguments on both sides real fast.
Pro: "If" only describes things that are not true.
"if" is generally useless except when used for scientific proofs.
Con: "if" has 8 definitions and can be used in several circumstances.
Words like "antidisestablishmentarianism" are applicable in less situations, and are used way less often, making them more useless than "if".
Those aren't all of the arguments, but it's where I'll start.
Con states that if there are any judgments of usefulness besides truth, then Pro's argument automatically fails. This isn't really refuted, and Con makes a convincing argument that how much a word is used determines its usefulness.
Pro also concedes that "if" has a use, in the purpose of scientific proofs (which you could argue are the most important words anyways, but Con never said that so it doesn't mean anything for my vote.)
Pro never challenges the fact that there are 8 definitions for the word "if". This argument stands.
Con uses several links to definitions and wikipedia articles to reinforce his point, Pro uses no links or sources of any kind. For instance, the definition of "if" is a crucial point to the debate that Pro as the instigator should have linked.
Con wins arguments and sources.
To make things simple for myself, I'm going to summarize the main arguments.
Pro:
1. Aversion is cheaper
2. Aversion is safer
3. Aversion solves indirect problems.
Con:
1 Cleveland winters are hell rn
2 Ohio's wine production is up
3 Humans have always adapted and always will
Rating:
P1. I don't like when a claim is made, but without facts or statistics behind it and you have to look in the sources to actually get the argument. The sources are your corroboration so that people know you aren't just spouting gobbledygook. Furthermore, Pro lists "electricity or hydro power" as alternatives to high carbon energy sources. This demonstrates a lack of knowledge on the subject at hand. Electricity is not spontaneously generated, but is produced mainly (81% of global energy) through the use of high carbon energy sources such as coal, gas and oil.
3/5 for this argument.
P2. Pro says "Adapting to climate change is a long term solution, while averting climate change is a short term solution." I believe that Pro misunderstands the terms "short term solution" and "long term solution." A short term solution, as Pro labels aversion, indicates a problem that only works in the short term, not solution that takes relatively little time to solve. Similarly, a long term solution indicates a solution that works for a long time, not a solution that has to be constantly applied to the problem.
4/5 for this argument.
P3. The idea that global warming causes more natural disasters is an easily documented fact. Rising sea levels, wetter years, heightened erosion, and more extreme heat are all proven effects of global warming.This is common sense to anyone with a basic understanding of earth science, though an expert might be able to explain greater nuance behind that.
5/5 for this argument.
C1. The issue at hand is global warming, not Cleveland warming, so the argument is mostly irrelevant. Very few people will care what winter is like in Cleveland.
2/5 for this argument
C2 Once again, local effects are not strong evidence in the case of global phenomena.
2/5 for this argument
C3 Technically, yes humans have adapted for as long as they've been around (not always, mind you, but I'll give it to you). This is not strong evidence that they always will. There are an estimated 5 billion extinct species compared to an estimated 2-10 million alive today. Statistics show that the vast majority of species do not always adapt. Pro did not present these counterarguments however. Their counterargument stated that "global warming grows at an exponential pace, not at a linear curve. That means that global warming will advance faster than our current technologies, and adjusting to it will soon be impossible." Which is not supported by any data I know of, and furthermore, I know for a fact that technology does advance exponentially (look at phones over the last 150 years and tell me otherwise)
Since no valid argument was made, and no valid counter argument was given, I'm ignoring this point.
Totals:
12/15 (4/5)
4/10 (2/5)
Arguments to Pro
Sources to Pro as Con used none, and Pros were relevant to the topic.
Spelling and grammar to Pro as Con literally neglected all punctuation and capitalization rules.
Neither participant was rude to the either. Conduct is tied.
RationalMadman was very gracious.
Everyone's a winner!
Honestly, even at a debate website, it's nice to see a little agreement every now and then.
Pro's writing comes across as condescending to me, like Pro is talking to a 2-year-old. This may not have been intentional but anyone communicating must be careful to come across with a respectful tone, and I don't feel that Pro was showing that respect. Conduct to Con.
Pro extensively ignored rules of capitalization and punctuation, such as "god measured my arms out so they would be the exact same size,"
which not only neglects a period at the end of the sentence, but also doesn't capitalize "God," which is a proper noun AND at the beginning of the sentence.
Furthermore, "My top lips are 3 inches
My bottom lips are 3 inches" is incorrect in that you pluralize "lip" when referring to both the top and bottom together, and is referred to as a "lip" when only referencing one. There are also extra spaces in between "are" and "3" in the first line. Grammar to Con.
FF
Roger loves leaf.
hturt morf yawa nur t'noD
(Leaf is obviously an euphemism for drugs.)
Pro forfeited more than half.
Pro's two arguments, the need for iron and protein, were fully addressed by Con in that vegan alternatives and dietary supplements are available..
As Con pointed out, Occam's razor isn't infallible. (Note: when intelligent cause comes into play, example: a magician's trick, then Occam's razor is less likely.) It implies in this case that a theistic universe is less likely than a non-theistic universe. From there the arguments go to contingent and non-contingent causes, which didn't seem to have a lot of backing either way, and it kinda went over my head so I'm ignoring it. But then Con says "we experience and witness everyday-- things coming in and out of existence." in order to refute a hypothesis that matter has always existed. I have personally never seen "things coming in and out of existence." and according to thermodynamics, this is impossible. Because of this last point and the slight support from Occam's Razor, I give Arguments to Pro.
Arguments
1/2 rounds forfeited by Con. Conduct to Pro.
Con provides a rebuttal for all of Pro's arguments, of which there are more than I'm willing to individually survey. For instance, the claim that fetuses are part of the mother was effectively refuted through his biological arguments. Furthermore, Pro forfeited/conceded half the rounds. Another argument is that legal abortions are safer than illegal abortions. Con's rebuttal shows an example of not legalizing murder despite murder already taking place.
Arguments to Con.
"a debater may award conduct points solely for forfeited rounds, but only if one debater forfeited half or more of their rounds"
Conduct to Con.
Note to Pro: I think that if you had continued you still would have lost. And personally, I believe that anything with the potential to be a person deserves the same rights as one, because in the scope of time, they ARE a person at a future point in time. it is only our limited scope of time that prevents us from seeing that.
Majority forfeit.
Note to Pro. Truant students never learn. Absent warriors never win.
Pro's main arguments:
1. Missionaries and invaders are spreading diseases, raping, killing, and ruling most of the country.
Con's Response: modern statistics against all above claims.
2. The crimes of the past and of individuals condemns all whites.
Con's Response: Extends logic to make all races rapists and murderers.
3, Europeans have no genetic diversity.
Con's Response: shows diversity of different Europeans. (Note: Phenotypes are the expressions of genotypes. If people look different, they have genetic diversity. There is a HUGE difference between Irish, Italian, and Russian Europeans.)
Argument of Con: Countries with more whites have a higher GDP. Pro does not refute this as far as I can tell.
imo, arguments to Con.
(Note: "If you don't have a problem with benefiting from what your race did, then you shouldn't have a problem with accepting the crimes."
This was a comment Pro made in an attack against whites for having slaves over a hundred years ago. The obvious problem with this is that the native tribes of Africa fought and enslaved each other.)
Pro was literally racist the whole time.
"[Whites] are simply struggling to reproduce."
"you people have reverted back to "Dark Age" behavior....not that you ever stopped"
"whites do not practice what they preach"
Conduct to Con
FF
Factories ARE the future, Con. Obviously. XD
Con made several arguments, such as the seasons and gravity ones, that are perfectly valid and were never addressed, much less refuted by Pro.
Pro's arguments consisted of quoting unscientific sources like 'Jesus said the Earth is flat' and stuff of the like. These are incorrect because they are OT quotes, not actually Jesus, and also because they are merely assertions. If Mahatma Gandhi told me that my hair was purple, despite all evidence otherwise, then despite my respect for Mahatma Gandhi, I would not be convinced.
Arguments to Con.
Pro calls Con "ungodly," "Satanic," etc., and was overall ignoring valid arguments to go in for Ad Hominem attacks. Con kept a mostly civil tone and did not use derogatory language, other than calling Pro a "troll," which is a legitimate claim and not derogatory so much as descriptive. This is neither a Mere Insult or Hate Speech under the CoC.
Conduct to Con.
Pro starts out with statements like " "[White males] commit the most crime, and they get away with the most crime." This statement whether true or not, fail to support the claim, that white males are the ORIGINAL terrorists.
A. Crime and terrorism are not synonymous. Terrorism means "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."
B. Even if white males were the WORST terrorists, that doesn't automatically make them the ORIGINAL terrorists.
The title claim also includes America for some reason, which doesn't make any sense if we assume that America in this context means the U.S. not the continental landmass. It is quite obvious, since the U.S. is less than 250 years old, that it can't have anything to do with the original terrorists.
The rest of the debate is hot air, as far as the title is concerned. Crime and America and Whites in America, but no terrorism, no Original Terrorism, and definitely no white original terrorism. I'm giving arguments to con since he successfully brought this up in saying " Is your main argument that white males were the first terrorists? Clearly not, because you haven’t made a single reference to terrorism. Terrorism doesn’t just mean “something bad” - it has a clear political meaning"
I know for a fact that it's possible to make a rap without vulgarity. If it doesn't serve a purpose, then you're just using it as a crutch for easier rhymes. Both of you lose, and this was definitely not "for the Ages."
Argument points to Pro for using a universal fact as his claim.
Conduct points taken from Pro for using a universal fact as his claim. "A statement essentially arguable, but used as a primary point to support or prove an argument is called a claim." Stating a fact as your argument is in bad faith. I petition that before any mods remove this vote (if they consider doing so) there be a discussion on non-arguable claims. I propose that they be automatically labeled as trolls.
forfeit > 1/2 conduct to Con.
Con lists several ways that RM could prove that Sparrow is Type1. All seemed possible strategies, and Pro doesn't even try to refute them. Instead, he says that RM is either incapable of using those methods (unsupported claim) or that he simply can't. In the convoluted statement, "RM cannot prove that I am type1 because according to determinism he won't even if he hypothetically could using the methods you described, even if I hypothetically was because if he does not then he was destined in a sense not to and therefor he can't", it is claimed that RM can't prove it, because he won't because if he doesn't then he can't. I'm not sure what sort of reasoning this is, and I can't make much sense of it.
Pro later says, "according to the deterministic worldview, if something happens or does not happen it was always meant to be so because everything exists in accordance with the dominoes of causality. If RM doesn't prove I am Type1, which he won't, then he CAN'T because it was NEVER going to happen" which I THINK means that every outcome is fixed beforehand. However, Con refutes this by a) putting determinism into doubt, since Type1 hasn't proven it, and b) pointing out the window of opportunity extending into the future.
So Con's arguments went uncontended, except for Pro's a) baseless, and b) refuted kritiks.
Arguments to Con.
Pro did not provide any sources.
Con's sources, as far as I can tell, have accurate information on the methods Con mentioned in his arguments.
Con's source [1], for instance, showcases an AI capable of identifying and matching people by their style of writing. I've tested it myself and it's fairly accurate.
I'm tired of debates that center an argument around something unprovable, like someone's personal opinion. There is technically no way for Con to prove that Pro's opinion is, especially in contradiction to what Pro says.
If the argument cannot be logically made, then it is not a debate. As it is not a debate, Pro loses automatically for creating a false debate. There isn't technically a clause in the CoC about this, but there should be.
Conduct goes to Con because Pro purposely created an undebatable topic.
Con needs to get his pronouns straight. The title of the debate makes it clear through the second person that he isn't referring to his own dog. Con's only rebuttal is "You can't just arbitrarily decide what I meant by the debate title like that." Which undermines the entire point of language. If there isn't a given, definable meaning to a sentence, then it isn't a sentence. Furthermore, Pro's interpretation is literal and non-arbitrary.
Con's only argument is that no one can prove that his dog is gay, but he can not by the same rule prove that his dog ISN'T gay. Burden of proof is at least majority on him for instigating the debate.
Con very neatly refutes the simplicity argument with Wrick's own analysis of his old prof.
Con also refutes the continuity argument because two changes is by definition is less continuous than one change. Reverting would be more CONSISTENT, but RM is correct about continuity.
FF
and Pro's argument centers around the Disney Trilogy, not the New Trilogy as he claimed.
Pro needs to be more careful of what side they're on. Conduct to Con
Concession. Arguments to Con.
My Hero Academia is the best.
Conceded debate.
Full Forfeit
I would like to note on the side that your goals determine your success, and as long as you meet your goals, you are successful. Therefore, anything can be success.
"Vote subjectively."
"OH LORD GIVE ME THE POWER TO LAY A QUICK SMITE ON HE!"
"Praying" for the sake of the rap in a sarcastic manner. I don't like it.
Concession.
Tip for Pro, a 1 round debate doesn't work well.