MisterChris

Concession!

The towel is thrown.

The towel hath been thrown

The ban was easily arguable by definition. PRO copping out on this topic did not fulfill the requirements of a PRO win.

"Pro can win the debate by proving his side beyond a shadow of doubt to be unarguable (preventing con from taking an incredibly biased topic)."

There was no such demonstration.

CON managed to illustrate how PRO's sense of humor actually correlated to a degree of intelligence.

Concession

I'll bite that an athiest can be religious. However, what I don't think PRO realizes is that saying "something CAN BE another thing" is very different from saying "Something IS another thing."

I really don't buy their semantics argument here either. The resolution pretty clearly means all atheists (specifically because "are" is a third person plural verb). PRO could have fixed this by simply saying "Athiests can be religious." in the resolution. Since they didn't, their BoP remains unfulfilled.

PRO did a bit better here. To the point I'll bite that an athiest can be religious. However, what I don't think they realize is that saying "something CAN BE another thing" is very different from saying "Something IS another thing."

I really don't buy their semantics argument here. The resolution pretty clearly means all atheists (specifically because "are" is a third person plural verb). PRO could have fixed this by simply saying "Athiests can be religious." in the resolution. Since they didn't, their BoP remains unfulfilled.

"As a principle of parsimony, conversational implications are to be preferred over semantic context for linguistic explanations." - Grice's Razor.

CON's first kritik violated this razor. He argued: "Unless Pro can prove the existence of objective beauty he falls short of his BoP because the thing he is arguing "should" do something can't even be proven to exist."

It was clear PRO meant women that are "on balance" considered beautiful by society at large.

CON gave another kritik: "Can pro provide proof that there can be an objective "should" claim, or that such a claim can be proven? If not, he falls short of his BoP."

I will once again express my distaste for this kritik. The resolution isn't MEANT to be a factual statement, it's an OPINION. One that the debaters disagree on and will argue one way or the other. CON's approach strikes me as bastardly, and I'm docking conduct points for it.

On the other hand, PRO does give an argument as to why a woman's life would be better working than not, such as having more financial security.

I will preface by saying, despite being an agnostic, I was raised Southern Baptist and can tell you quite a bit about theology... but that has little bearing on my judgement here.

As I have found to be typical in UpholdingTheFaith's debates, conduct was admirable on both sides, with the "debate" being more of a discussion than anything. Alas, there must be a winner, though, and I found that PRO did a very good job highlighting how Christians must indeed be "judgmental, forceful, demanding, and threatening when sharing the message of salvation in Jesus Christ."

PRO outlined each word, and how the Christian should be each according to its definition, and supported with quotes from the scriptures.

CON was actually convinced to agree with everything except the word judgmental, where he argued it is God's place to judge alone. However, I think PRO's suggestion to leave final judgements to God, but to use human judgement to make wise choices in the meantime wins this point over. Plus, semantically speaking, CON's argument is impracticable.

Really, though, I feel that both parties were winners here. Cheers!

CON gives the slightly predictable argument that BLM is a strongly ethnocentric movement. CON argues that instead we should abandon racial identities entirely. He also gives the more strong argument that BLM spreads false propaganda to further its cause, an inherently harmful endeavor. Finally, CON argues that BLM distracts from more important issues, like black on black violence.

PRO gives the tried and true response that "BLM does not imply no other lives matter." PRO responds to the false propaganda argument by saying that the core message of BLM is the empowerment of mistreated black people, even if they are not 100% accurate on every case. I feel like this response ignores the core issue CON brings up, which is that misinformation hurts people. Still, it at least demonstrates there is a systematic issue to be addressed. PRO has a very solid response to CON's distraction point: "I disagree with the logic that because a larger issue exists, that smaller issues should be ignored. This is the same argument that anti-maskers use to downplay the severity of COVID19. Indeed, BLM has a section of their website devoted to COVID19 resources: https://blacklivesmatter.com/covid-19-resources/"

From here on out CON basically rehashes his R1 arguments with some disproportionate focus on the weaker citations from PRO.

PRO finally gets around to responding to the core contention with Michael Brown. PRO introduces more positive points.

VERDICT:

Look, I'm writing this as someone who generally has very little good to say about BLM... but CON, you've got to come with a more organized case than that. It felt more like a forum rant than anything. PRO, good job picking apart his arguments. My one piece of advice is to really contend that core issue of misinformation instead of just outweighing it.

Conduct to PRO for forfeit.

the towel has been thrown

concession, aka surrender, aka giving up, aka throwing in the towel, aka... you get the idea.

Music taste is subjective, therefore everybody wins!

Concession, but per PRO's request, I'm going to leave some feedback for each debater.

PRO:

Setup:

To echo Ragnar, Intelligence had a better set of definitions than you did, particularly pertaining to the word "harm." While you did clarify you wanted an "on balance" debate as to whether religion did more net good or net harm, your definition did not reflect this. Intelligence was right to correct it, I think, as it would introduce an element of absurdity. However, oxymoronically, your definition of "harm" is also really limited in scope. What do I mean by this? Well, you have confined "harm" as only the thing that hurts the individual, and ergo, you have confined yourself in scope to your detriment. A lot of the strongest arguments for religion causing harm revolve around the society, not the individual. For example, you could argue that religion holds back scientific progress, and thus, the progress of humanity. That probably causes an immense amount of harm, but under your definition, it would not apply because the argument commentates on society, not the individual.

One other thing to note about the debate setup: I did not like that you spread your contentions across the debate. While probably not your intention, it comes off as a cheap tactic to keep your opponent from being able to get a solid grounding, as every time they refute something you throw an entirely new argument their direction. I will be honest, I would have assigned CON conduct for this alone. Plus, it makes judging hell. If you're going to do this, at least outline it in the description so they know what they're getting into. I would have liked it much better if you condensed your 3 contentions into R1.

Arguments:

I liked the LGBTQ argument, but I think it could've been even stronger. You made no mention of Islam, the "we hate gays and women 101" of the religious world, easily reflected by the policies in Islam-predominant countries:
https://www.statista.com/chart/17587/countries-where-homosexuality-can-result-in-the-death-penalty/
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/slideshows/10-worst-countries-for-gender-equality-ranked-by-perception

The child abuse argument was weaker to me. For every child that felt "mentally harmed" by the threat of hell, CON can conjure up dozens more that are thrilled to be apart of something bigger than themselves. Obviously, CON didn't DO this, but you were pretty much setting up that rebuttal.

I did, however, like the religious wars & forced conversion arguments, as it uses CON's own "we can view the past" turn AGAINST them. Talking about the Spanish would've been appropriate.

CON:

Look above, and you'll see I agreed with your approach to challenge the definition of harms.

As for your call to view religion as it has been from its inception, I don't think the resolution entails such a view. PRO didn't challenge it, but they definitely could have... and I think they would have won that point. You would have done better to work within the present-tense framework of the debate.

Your attempt to downplay the actual amount of people being harmed is good, but you need to also give me a more tangible benefit to religion than "it makes me feel nice" for me to be swayed.

You've got plenty to choose from, for example:
https://www.nadadventist.org/news/research-shows-correlation-between-faith-and-recovery

(Note: you did introduce arguments like this later on, but it should have been presented way earlier, before PRO was able to make so much headway.)

Another thing you could have done is take the homosexual thing head on, and argue that there is more benefit to heterosexual relationships (childbirth, economic gain, perhaps increased happiness, etc) so discouraging homosexuality is a net positive. That may sound bigoted of me to suggest, but the arguments exist.

Concession

First off, I really hate the kritik CON came with. The resolution isn't MEANT to be a factual statement, it's an OPINION. One that the debaters disagree on and will argue one way or the other. CON's approach strikes me as bastardly, and I'm discounting that argument here and now.

Second, CON's criticisms of "it's US centric" seemed to miss the point except for maybe the point on the Freedom of Information Act. PRO's arguments were that "this should happen in all cases" using evidence that was from the US that could also be cross-applied to other countries.

That said, CON makes a good point: "There is nothing in how you framed this debate that excludes scenarios in which keeping it a secret would be justifiable for national security reasons. You are simply focusing on certain examples and not on others, when other hypotheticals in which it would be justifiable in the context of such a legal/moral standard are equally valid."
I'm also factoring in BoP here. The resolution is plural, meaning PRO must try to support that all governments should declare the news under ANY world-ending circumstance... This is bad for PRO, because I can think of a few reasons governments might keep it secret. None of which were NAMED, but as a voter I'm at least reminded by CON that the possibilities exist.

PRO's only real counter to this point was to argue that it isn't national security, it's "world security." And while I suppose that's true, I think that misses the central idea of what CON is arguing.

Anyway, PRO's other stuff about "the people's right to know" is good and all, but I'm not given any reason to prioritize that moral doctrine over, say, minimizing death.

My VERDICT is CON.

No, "a non-moving rock shouldn't be considered the slowest-accelerating car", however, it CAN be considered a bad car.

CON did not give a rap in both rounds. PRO gave a semi-decent one for the sake of a roast.

No contest.

Technically a concession.

PRO's 1st round hit hard with genuine personal attacks backed with evidence, and CON couldn't really make that ground up, even if PRO was worse as the battle went on. CON should have tried to rebut some of the attacks from PRO.

Con cess ion

ARGS:

PRO's original central argument is a Kritik... but it doesn't sell at all.

"Therefore, no matter what you argue from, morality is objectively bad, because its impact on the universe is none."

Does something not mattering make it a bad thing? And how does "everything doesn't matter" guide people's actions? Y'know, the entire purpose of morality?

CON easily wins out R1 with "1a. The pro has made a fundamental error here- they claim, "Every value is meaningless. Every action is immoral" yet if all values were meaningless, principles, then there would be no ground for immoral actions. Or actions that are "not moral" This contradiction would completely ruin this first paragraph as it is all based on this principle."

PRO then 180s and says his REAL argument is that "humanity is hardwired to have a collective standard naturally." He gives no evidence here. I think he would've done well to cite the fact that "morality" and "altruism" are helpful survival traits according to science. I am also docking conduct points for the total bait & switch.

CON rightly points out that objective morality has to matter independently of humanity.

PRO baits & switches AGAIN on their own survival argument.

VERDICT:

PRO, you have to settle on an argument and push for it from the beginning. You can't just switch your entire case every round. Furthermore, you have to get your definitions straight. You agreed to the definition that objective is "independent of mind." So, your original Kritik was an objective doctrine, but the rest of your arguments weren't. Either work under the given framework, or challenge it!

CON, good job pointing out inconsistencies. However, you need to leverage those inconsistencies more. You could've also done well to point out to the judge PRO's constant bait & switch technique.

INTERPRETATION:
The resolution doesn't really specify HOW famous this painting is. Through sheer probability, it is probably only mildly famous. This is the deciding factor in the end.

ARGUMENTS:

PRO argues that art has more cultural, historical, economic, and artistic value than a cat. I buy all of this.

CON says that psychology, instincts (don't like this one, instinct tell what we do, not what we SHOULD do), humanitarianism, and science point towards saving the cat. His only real counter to PRO's case is to say that PRO just said what "he'd do" not what "everyone should." I'm not buying this argument, because the entire point of the PRO position is to say what he would do and why that is the best choice. Instead of trying a meh Kritik, CON should've pushed the humanitarian argument harder (while he picked it up by the end, it wasn't as much as it could've been). It was by far his strongest.

PRO turns CON's preservation point. PRO points out that psychology is not a very effective factor in determining our actions. PRO says humanitarianism is irrelevant because cats aren't endangered, which I don't buy at all since that isn't the point of humanitarianism. Instead, PRO should've pointed out how OVERPOPULATED the cat population is. Some sources (PETA) seem to think that depopulating them IS in fact the humanitarian thing to do. PRO pretty much dismantles the ecosystem argument saying that one cat is a negligible difference (it would also help to emphasize here how overpopulated the cat population is.)

CON pretty much just counters that instinct is instinct whether PRO likes it or not. Again, I don't like the instinct argument.
"How many of the world population can afford to visit a museum? According to statistics..." This entire section... Just, no.... This isn't how statistics work in the least.
"What part of "inhumane" does pro not understand? Leaving an animal to die for unreasonable causes is more than pathetic and according to new-humanitarianism that is not humane at all. Pro sounds absolutely irrational as he demands animals to be treated in terms of availability." Good!
" There have been hundreds and thousands of paintings lost or stolen or destroyed over the years and yet we are here enjoying a civilized life and celebrating the remainder artistic creations and having this debate. " GOOD!

VERDICT:

Basically this comes down to which carries more weight:

The cultural, historical, economic, and artistic value of the painting, or humanitarian ethics.

PRO says CON hasn't totally demonstrated that ethics outweigh, and I'm inclined to agree. CON says they used their other arguments to demonstrate that the humanitarian values have merit, but I'm not certain he has been able to demonstrate a substantial amount of merit.

That said, PRO has been using examples such as the Mona Lisa... HUGELY famous paintings that are debatably invaluable. Nothing says the painting in question ISN'T the Mona Lisa, but it PROBABLY isn't so.

So, a mildly famous painting, or a cat? It's really too close to call, as my biases would probably be responsible for choosing the winner here.

The debate is a TIE.

Props to PRO for coming up with a unique topic and also being man enough to concede.

Props to CON for coming with an extremely solid case and painting a picture (see what I did there?) of what PRO's resolution implied for the world as a whole.

Args to CON for concession, conduct to PRO.

Interpretation of resolution:

Weirdly enough, this is the most crucial thing for this debate as far as judging. Since no one presented an interpretation, I'm just going off of what the resolution says at face value. Thus, I am only weighing arguments that have to do with how AI is right NOW, as the resolution is in present tense and the description makes no indication that we are assuming that the AI in question is a fully developed futuristic technology. This is the biggest problem for CON, as his entire case is based on the assumption that the AI is capable of passing a Turing test. Ironically, if the resolution/description specified we were talking about fully developed AI, I believe CON would win in a landslide here.

Main Arguments:

PRO opens up with an argument that AI is not capable of properly replicating human emotion. I buy this since we are talking present tense.

CON counters that in some ways most people are already in love with AI. I don't buy this due to the definition of "a deep romantic/sexual attachment." That said, I'm sure some people out there have some AI kinks. CON's other argument is that with current trends, AI will inevitably enter its way into our love lives in the future. I think this is true, but it does not fit into the scope of the debate.

Both PRO and CON seem to agree on the framing that "life is about the journey, not the destination." PRO argues that this means having a "perfect life" is like being at the destination with nowhere to go, and CON says there is plenty to go for from there. My question as a voter is: what? What is there to go for? If we are defining "perfect" as "having everything you want in life fulfilled," I really don't understand how CON can argue there is any more to gain from it in terms of taking a "journey."

What CON really needed to do was reframe the entire discussion and argue that "having nowhere to go is not a bad thing. In fact, it's exactly where we should aspire to be."

As for the arguments regarding other people, as a voter I buy that a creating a "perfect life" could entail changing other people who are actively involved in that life. What I don't buy is the idea that creating a perfect life for yourself means that you are able to affect the world outside of your social circle. As for this argument, I am also giving this to PRO, because while I do like the argument CON presents (that people can use their ability to help those in their immediate circle) I find that using it to alter the life of someone else in a distasteful way to be all too likely of a scenario.

R1:

As a voter I am struggling to figure out how PRO came up with the "at least partially" interpretation. I feel with the wording of the resolution it clearly means alt. energy can either entirely replace fossil fuels, or replace it to the point fossil fuel use is negligible. I think PRO's point on polls would be better used as a refutation, should CON say that there is no recognized need. I like the cost point a lot. I feel that it is PRO's strongest. What he really needed to do with it, though, is show that demand for renewables is increasing while demand for fossil fuels is plummeting. He could've been well-served to also talk about countries such as Germany who have replaced nearly all their fossil fuel power with renewable energy and have been generally successful in their endeavors. Lastly, PRO should have shown that energy output can be maintained with renewable sources, especially since a secondary definition of effective he provided was "sufficient to replace fossil fuels as an energy source." As for his environment point, I suppose saying it generates controversy is one way to say it, but I feel that PRO would be better served to say "climate change will generate unprecedented demand for renewable energy."

CON's points tended to fall flat. I liked the argument that big oil will keep investments from being made in alternative energy, however as I read this point I am remembering PRO's argument on how alt. energy is currently phasing out fossil fuels. If this is the case, big oil must not be doing a very good job. The continuous output point is good if CON bothered to show how it outperformed alt. energy sources. Instead I'm just being told "fossil fuels is good at energy" on one side and "alt. sources are also good at energy" on the other with no direct comparison between the two. The energy fluctuation point is solid but needs more warrants than a Vox video on solar energy, especially with that comparison to Chernobyl. Without warrants here it's hard to weigh this point. The concluding remarks are solid stats, but... where is the source? Also, where is the clash, CON? How can I weigh your arguments if you do not bother to refute the majority of your opponent's arguments?

R2:

PRO responds to the CON investment point by saying Vox has less than 50% reliability... Looking at his source it's not accurate, but CON never picks up on it or contests it. The additional sources pretty much drive the nail on CON's investment point. PRO makes a stellar response that it's not about what can be done right now, but what trends imply for the future. The response to the energy fluctuation point did a good job, and PRO correctly points out that CON never really sourced his side of the debate or bothered to respond to a lot of PRO's R1 arguments.

CON's defense of his source really just solidifies to the judge that the trends point towards more investment towards renewable energy. Now, CON's defense of the energy fluctuation point should have included a bit more explanation as to what the heck he was talking about, but it did a good job casting doubt onto both of PRO's sources. "Every study on economics is good, when it comes to implementation and engineering side of it all goes haywire." Good!

R3:

Null from CON.

PRO solidly defends that renewable energy will have plentiful investments. PRO argues that most experts agree renewable energy will be able to supply vast proportions of electricity very soon. I don't like PRO's appeal with people's lives, I feel PRO would have done better to stick on topic.

VERDICT:

I am giving a lot of weight to the investments argument. Investments are how technological progress happens. PRO wins this easily.

As for the argument regarding energy fluctuation and actual implementation...

"Every study on economics is good, when it comes to implementation and engineering side of it all goes haywire." CON SHOULD HAVE LED WITH THIS AS HIS SOLE ARGUMENT!!

Honestly, if CON had come with a stronger sourcing and impacts that weren't based solely on his own opinions and Vox videos (like actual studies), I might have ended up voting CON (It also wouldn't have hurt to not forfeit R3).

Instead, since CON provided no real sourcing at all, I'm just left reminded over and over again by PRO that experts regularly disagree with CON paired with the fact that technology generally heads where the money is going.

For those reasons, arguments and sources are going to PRO, plus a conduct point for that forfeit in R3.

"Resolved: In this debate, Con will use at least one word that contains the letter "E""

CON used the letter E in the word "the..."

Ergo, as a voter I consider the conditions of a PRO victory fulfilled, despite Intelligence's objection that PRO did not fulfill the BoP that "in all instances CON will use E."
(I think that would be an abusive BoP to impose on PRO, and I also think that Intelligence is making his own argumentation within his vote to come to such a conclusion)

PRO's case basically boiled down to "this documentary said this."

CON's immediate response was homosexuality is indeed still capable of being understood after 2009... And yes, there are still homosexuals.
The semantic play here is probably not what PRO was intending to face when making the resolution, but given the wording of the resolution it is valid. I really think PRO should take notes from the interaction here and make their resolutions less exploitable.

CON's addition of alternative reasons of having sex other than baby-making was the nail in the coffin of PRO's case.

PRO tries to make up ground by moving the goalpost on what the resolution means. CON dismantles the attempt.
PRO's last-ditch effort was to argue CON failed to falsify the claims of the documentary, to which CON essentially replies that PRO had failed to support his interpretation of it. I am awarding sources to CON because of the dismantling of the singular PRO source and his consistent application of more reliable sources in the debate.

Note to both CON and PRO:
Although completely hilarious, CON's humor was borderline disrespect to PRO in my eyes. I'm not sure I would label it a conduct violation, but it was approaching that territory. With PRO's attempt to move the goalpost on the resolution, though, I think conduct is about even.

FF/concession?

R1:

PRO defines objective as "expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations" then immediately undermines their own definition by saying objective morality is infact determined based on most people's interpretation. This isn't really caught by CON, but as a voter I couldn't help but notice.

R2:
CON's response/case does a good job exploiting PRO's definition mistakes, but I feel that it could have been executed better. I'm not sure why CON included the pre-emptive refutation.. I've never been a fan of those, as they distract from the points that have actually been made. Plus, the point on "the entire universe must agree" falls a bit flat for me. Even before PRO pointed it out, I had a hard time believing morality applied to photons. I do, however, buy that PRO needs to prove some animals in nature should exhibit signs of morality. Next, CON presents an alternate definition. But while I already had my doubts about PRO's definition, without a source like the one he provided in R3 I was left with CON's word against PRO's... That isn't a good place for the voter to be. CON should have sourced immediately. I like CON's "Evolving morality" argument.. But I feel it was wasted potential. At this point, PRO has already admitted that morality is based on consensus. Ergo, PRO has already helped CON make his point since human opinion is fickle and changes over time (as can be evidenced by the place of women in society for example). This fact was not exploited, and later on in the debate PRO outright says early humans would have had radically different senses of morality. All CON would have had to say is "they have consciousness, does their moral sense not count or something?"

PRO's response digs him a bit deeper here, only addressing some surface level issues CON brings up while not digging into the meatier part of the case I covered above. The only response that I bought was one against CON's "everything in the universe" point: "Non-sentient stars can't have morals in the first place."
Again, I'm not sure why CON isn't just pushing his "changing morality" point with PRO's definitions at the helm, or at least pushing a nature point.

R3:

CON puts the nail in the coffin on PRO's definitions, and this point is dropped by PRO from this round forward. CON brings up the point that nature must exhibit signs of morality. I think CON should have led with this instead of the whole "entire universe" thing.
"It is almost certain there are other living things in the universe. " CON asserts this without evidence, so as a voter I'm not taking it very seriously.

PRO forfeit loses him conduct paired with a subsequent display of good conduct from CON.

R4 onwards: pretty much rehashes of previous rounds.

VERDICT: Most points were neck and neck except the critical point of the definition of objective morality. Here CON stomped on PRO, and this weakened PRO's case substantially for me. With CON doubling down on the definition throughout the debate it was what ultimately swayed me in favor of CON.

Advice to PRO: if you want to win this resolution lose the consensus point. Arguing objective morality has to be done from a very specific angle to avoid outcomes like this.

R1:

PRO points out an intrinsic value in human life and the utility of having the once deceased contribute to society once more. Then, PRO says that "moving on" will be a problem society will no longer face as PRO is creating a society in which death is no longer a reality. I would have liked PRO to explicitly state "A PRO world is an immortal society" but as a voter I am left with the knowledge either way. One thing I did like was the tie-in to utilitarian ethics at the end. While Seldiora has a bad habit of bringing this point up at irrelevant times, this time it complimented his case well.

CON points out bureaucratic hurdles. CON says that many will find such tech appalling... A middle finger to God, one might say. Why is this a bad thing? CON never really says. CON points out inherent problems with overpopulation... Once again the problem here is that CON never impacts out what exactly overpopulation would DO. As a voter, even though I recognize the strength in the overpopulation argument, I am left with no way to weigh it against the PRO case. CON's last point about inequality falls a bit flat for me. As a voter I am told at the beginning of the debate that the "revival tech" is just the push of a magic button. I don't really see how CON made the connection between that and a corporation charging for its use.

R2:

PRO counters the bureaucratic hurdles argument and it is dropped from both side hereafter. PRO responds to the unpopular point by saying there is no harm in people choosing not to use the tech, but that it should be available because of its utility. Both of these responses work. However, PRO's response to overpopulation falls flat. His response to PRO's inequality point starts off strong: "What are you talking about? Why would corporations go bankrupt?" But then he accepts CON's framing of "the button will have a cost" and the rest gets weaker.

CON's response PRO on the unpopular argument doesn't do the greatest job here. Why is "violating religion" bad? I am given no real impacts to people dissenting from using this tech. CON wisely points out that "knowing" does not prevent people from selfishly reviving their relatives/friends. CON misinterprets PRO's response to the inequality point. I'm still seeing no evidence that any corporation or exchange of value is involved.

R3:

PRO has a weak R3. The first paragraph is nothing weighable, and the second simply addresses the overpopulation argument and nothing else. That said, his response does capture the essence of my problem with the overpopulation argument from PRO: "why is this a problem? I know there is a problem, but you're not telling me what it is"

CON tries to employ BoP but fails here, "his only justification is that I am wrong" isn't true to any observer, and with the right voter a statement like this would lose CON some credibility. CON gives several new arguments final round, something that is bad conduct as PRO can not respond to them (and yes, new impacts count as new arguments too. If it were new evidence to back up previous arguments/impacts that would be acceptable, but alas this is not the case). CON has had plenty of debate experience, I am genuinely surprised they would pull something like this. I am awarding conduct to PRO.

That said, their responses to the overpopulation refutation have merit, especially "Sadly, people have no such conscience." and "Suppose the earth can support two times the population now, which can be explained, and then the people who are brought back would obviously use it too, which would triple the population. and then quadruple, etc. Eventually, the world will be too crowded."

VERDICT:

CON barely edges out PRO in arguments due to a weak R3 from PRO and a strong finish from CON, despite the new arguments at the end and a weak start. As a voter, at the end of this debate I'm only left with "immortal society with an impact of higher productivity and happiness" weighed against "exponential increase in population that will eventually overcrowd the world with no clear impact, but you can assume it's bad." While I hate to weigh the overpopulation argument for CON, the argument of exponential increase means that whatever the impact IS, it will continue to get worse and worse. Conduct goes to PRO for aforementioned reasons.

FF. Finally a long-overdue win for Seldiora

降伏
降伏
降伏
降伏

降伏
降伏
降伏
降伏

Jiminy cricket, that's a wash

降伏
降伏
降伏
降伏

降伏
降伏
降伏
降伏

降伏
降伏
降伏
降伏

租界
租界
租界
租界
租界
租界

PRO had no arguments to show for in R1 (but he DID have a conduct violation. Calling CON racist indirectly). In R2, PRO attempts to make up ground by using mostly unevidenced assertions such as "you don't see black cops murdering unarmed whites every month" and things of the sort. PRO also did not explain how those assertions translated into the whole of the modern white race being racist against black people, except for a select few. As for the select few, many of his examples are dated, such as referencing King Leopold or the system of colonization in the 1800s. But PRO does make a valid argument in R2: In America, many whites do not support the tearing down of the "racist" statues, which reflects racism in American society as a whole.

On the other hand, CON's R1 & R2 ties everything very nicely to the resolution, proving that white America is not a racist society in the modern era. CON argues that PRO's main point is moot because the ties to the statues are cultural and not based on belief systems. CON also had an effective offensive point: in the modern era, the Chinese are the most racist ethnic group. So in comparison, the US is doing pretty good. As a voter, CON does a very good job convincing me that modern era whites are at least mild in comparison. However, CON may want to show that the actions of the Chinese government are actively supported by the Chinese people. If they are not, that could potentially blow a hole in CON's argument.

PRO changes up his strategy and throws the resolution out of the window from R3 onwards. PRO argues that the debate is actually about the global racism of whites instead of white America, despite the resolution being explicitly about white America only. Not only this, but PRO changes his tune and argues that the resolution was never about modern America, despite using present tense and arguing based on a current event. I'm labeling this as a conduct violation. PRO's arguments in these rounds consist of listing a bunch of individual events and stats about the general conditions of black people to prove that white society is racist.

From R3 onward, CON replies pointing out that PRO is disregarding the resolution. Then CON expertly dismantles the list of events and stats PRO threw at us.

Arguments and conduct go to CON.

Mission failed, we'll get em next time

A good start in R1, but ultimately a full forfeiture.

Con correctly points out that PRO has full BoP. Even after pointing this out, PRO refuses to present a single argument in favor of the resolution. As such, both arguments and conduct go to CON.

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

Concession.

Pro would rather throw around toxic hate speech than provide evidence for his arguments, losing him a conduct point. Con asks Pro for evidence, and Pro can provide none. Pro loses all credibility, therefore, and Con gains a "reliable source" point. Pro also loses his arguments, as they are no longer warranted.

Resolution: BOP on Pro. Con makes no constructive, so Con has to disprove all of Pro's points.

1. Weasels/Natural Camo:
Pro opens up talking about weasels and their natural camouflage, then says that this translates to intelligent design since the colors match their environments (akin to Nintendo designing Pikachu.) I did not find this point convincing as there was no proper evidence given that camouflage could not originate from a source other than intelligent design.
Con responds to Pro's first point through a comparison that fell pretty flat. However, it does an adequate job of demonstrating the lack of logical causation present in Pro's point. Regarding Pro's Pikachu comparison, Con shows that while we know the origin of Pikachu, we can not know the same for animals. Both of these responses are fair points, however regarding Pro's argument as a whole Con would have been much better off simply showing how evolution can produce camouflage through natural selection. Pro's defenses for this point are not convincing and add nothing to the conversation. I must give this point to Con.

2. Servals/Tigers/Proportionate Markings
This point was much closer. Pro's point was that natural selection does not operate based on aesthetics, so the probability of perfectly proportionate animal markings seems low. Yet, I wish Pro had offered more of a reason as to WHY aesthetics is not necessarily evolutionarily beneficial for an animal, and presented this point in a way that it was less confusing for Con. Con's only real response to this point is that since evolution is true, while the probability of proportional animal markings seems low, it must have happened anyways. This would be a sufficient response for me to flip this point in favor of Con, but the problem is that Con really fails to prove the premise that evolution is true. A link to a Wikipedia page on fossils is not an explanation as to why evolution is true, and Pro's original point is already evidence to counter Con on this one. Aside from Pro's original point, however, Pro mishandled the response to Con's fossil argument in my view. Still, even though Con was extremely close to defeating this point, it wasn't quite enough. Pro wins this one.

Conclusion:
This debate boils down to one point in favor of Pro. While Pro's first point was not convincing, Pro's second one was. Con defeated Pro's first point but Con could not sufficiently defeat Pro's second point. Since the burden of proof was on Pro, and Con made no constructive, Con was required to defeat all of Pro's points to win since he had no offense. Since he could not manage to do that, I must give the arguments to Pro but spelling and grammar to Con since Pro's points were fairly confusing to read through. After reading through, I hope both parties can see my reasoning. If not, feel free to message me and I will elaborate more.