I just finished reading. My opponent tried to brush off that he openly lied about his sources, but the evidence is too clear. I don't think my opponent can walk out from how I pointed out he explicitly misquoted and lied about what his aource said (see comments below) about smelling.
I'll give my prediction, I already thought Ben is destined to win the tournament based on his previous two debates within in.
That being said, I think Benjamin should win this.
He made a claim that "females are superior in team cohesion"
And he cites a study that doesn't even say this. They compared teams that are all female and all male in offices to mixed gender teams, and found the gender balanced teams had more "positive experinces" compared to the all female and all male teams. That does not even compare males and females, and if anything it concludes all female teams had less positive experiences, so why would he use this to say females are superior in anything?
I can't wait to see him defend lying about this because it is too explicit in the text.
There is no way around it, so if he concedes, that's a plus for me. If he insists it's true it looks worse for him because I quoted his own source.
He made this claim for example:
"Let me be clear here, the average female is 50% more effective at smelling than men are," from a source that said
"women’s brains that have up to 50% more olfactory neurons"
That is not at all saying they have a 50% more effective sense of smell, the whole article never even suggested who is more effective so either he just lied about it, or he is too imcompetant to know what that means because immediately after this, HIS OWN SOURCE states:
"The authors acknowledge that just finding this difference is not enough to prove that women have a superior sense of smell – it is not even enough to explain the findings of previous studies about differences in ability to differentiate, identify and remember scents and odors" (Medical News Today).
His own source goes against the whole claim he made, entirely. You cannot make that claim from reading your source. So it's settled.
A) He lied about the source or B) He didn't read his own source. Both are bad looks.
I point it out in my round two, and I point out almost every incident where he does this.
He was probably hoping to just drop sources without anyone reading them
Just a warning to anyone who will debate this guy in the future, he lies about almost every one of his sources. I am not exagerating, he actually posts something and lies about what it says hoping you won't check over it.
So you just admitted that the resolution doesn't call for disbanding mixed combat units, and say I made an error by saying I'm not arguing for something you just admitted the resolution doesn't call for?
"The contradiction is you are saying there is a better way to do something, while denying anyone should do things the better way"
I'm not denying that people should do something a better way, that is just not what is resolved, nor is it the argument.
The argument is that male combat units are "in the most favorable or advantageous position" (best off).
It's a different argument to say, we should remove women from combat units. Maybe that could have been a good debate, but it just isn't the resolution today.
And if your argument of contradiction is that I said what is not part of the resolution for me to argue...
I blocked you because you are annoying, I have no problem debating you.
I have been on this site for about a month and a half, I didn't even know that blocking prevents people from accepting debates, not that I care.
Maybe I can illustrate it better for you:
I am saying combat units composed of men alone are best off, defined as "in the most favorable or advantageous position."
So in what way is that a contradiction? I am not arguing that combat units should only be composed of all men regardless if I believe it or not.
That is just not what is resolved.
I'm not kidding, you were destroying this gentleman, you really should not have conceded.
I honestly think you had the better side of the resolution, so it should have been an easy win for you, considering that RM isn't exactly a challenge.
My spelling wasn't great in the last round, I was rusing because of time constratins (I had 12 minutes) and I wasn't feeling well for most of the day.
Having said that, please vote!!!
We all know you bring your personal issues into the voting tab, to purposefully make others lose.
I, for one, do not share this characteristic, so I vote fairly only considering the debate.
"con had already brought up that many women enjoy raising children making things not clear sacrifices. This leaves a lot of cons case begging the question of why not leave motherhood to the women who enjoy it?"
...
Rangar, this mentions "many women" but I already countered this specific statement, by saying some women enjoy parenting, but you would hardly find anyone who enjoy every aspect of it.
"Also, not everyone enjoys all aspects of raising a child. I doubt any do. It's hard work, but it's necessary." (thats obviouly in my round)
That means by all reason, I have jutified the resolution, and won. The resolution states that some women should sacrifice their time and energy, not all.
I really think it's possible you may be off here.
Not exactly, It's just that the Amazon analogy was too strong of a point to go unaddressed, so thats one. Im not saying it was the sole point switch on arguments. If you really want I can chnage arguments to TIE, but it just doesn't seem right.
Round 3:
PRO goes rapid-fire weaving through CON's round two.
He counters by saying the audience can tell if a video is good or bad with the dislikes, once again points out that CON has not given any examples of targetted dislike campaigns or dislike trends on lower creators (CON seriously should provide this evidence because it ha been mentioned multiple times and the readers pick up on this) points out that CON failed to address his bad content argument. He poses a question: Should Amazon remove showing how many people rated the product 1 star.
CON then makes a sort of strawman of PRO's argument by saying "Pro's case is based on the following pillars: people want to be able to dislike videos".
He argues that the recommendation algorithm remains, and takes dislikes into account, so they still affect the video.
CON then posts a youtube blog source that shows YouTubes' experiment that concluded with dislikes hidden, people were less likely to dislike the video. CON says if you don't trust the source, it's a "conspiracy theory", and you must justify it. CON makes the case that constructive feedback in the comments is incentivized and more helpful/beneficial than dislikes
CON does not answer the question of whether Amazon should remove one-star ratings.
Round 4:
PRO rounds off. He points out CON's assessment of the rating system isn't exactly true and video with many dislikes can be relatively near the top base don views. He uses his specific example for this. He points out CON has not addressed the waste of time that one can experience watching a bad video unknowingly while visible dislikes make one more cautious and aware. He amusingly argues that CON says dislikes encourage bandwaggon negative feedback "just because" as CON still has provided no source that illustrates this. He points out that CON has not addressed, nor shown any reason why, given what he said, amazon should not remove one-star ratings. CON forfeits round 4.
Arguments: PRO
CON dropped the amazon analogy and failed to provide any evidence of a source that corroborates the idea of dislike bandwagoning. It's not just a one-time thing, CON was asked many times to the point where it kind of looked bad. PRO showed a specific example, so he has the upper hand in specifics. CON didn't really address youtube being unable to fully regulate bad content, and PRO provided specific evidence of this, but PRO does not exactly show how having visible dislikes somehow regulates bad content. Regardless, PRO had a counter for everything CON argued, yet CON dropped a few arguments that were pretty strong points against him.
Sources: I'll give it a tie. However, CON did not provide a source that showed the dislike bandwagon effect.
Grammar: Tied, no significant difference.
Conduct: PRO gets conduct due to CON forfeit.
Round 1:
PRO makes basic arguments;
1) Removing dislikes affects people's ability to gauge th usefulness or reliability of a video.
2) Encourages bad content
3) Shows YouTubes hypocrisy by removing dislikes when they have the most disliked video on their own site
PRO doesn't respond just yet, RM saves that for the next round. Rather he makes his case, youtube is entitled to remove dislikes
1) People have the freedom to form opinions regardless of subtle pressure amount of dislikes
2) It negatively affects smaller creators
3) No one wants to flex their dislikes
4) the counter still exists but is simply hidden, and creators can see feedback and improve.
Round 2:
PRO attacks CON's case arguing that there isn't any reason as to why seeing others' negative opinions stops you from forming yours. PRO makes a strong point here "Are you *expressing* your opinion if it is hidden?". PRO uses an analogy to compare this to amazon hiding one-star reviews. If you express an opinion that their product is one star, and it is now shown, then is it really expressed?
PRO points out that CON provided no examples of lower channels being attacked with dislikes. On the contrary, CON provides a specific example of a video that could slip by this new policy and waste people's time, when they can't see previous disapproval.
PRO also counterargues that creators can still see dislikes, but that isn't as good motivation to improve as having them visible publically as if dislikes are hidden, creators will have no significant incentive to improve.
CON argues "Pro's case is partly based on the idea that currently, you cannot dislike a video" which CON has established is false, but PRO just previously acknowledged that the dislike counter still exists and is hidden, so this is technically false. Regardless, CON goes on.
CON argues that
1) you have given the video a view before even seeing the dislikes so nothing has decreased one's ability to judge a video BEFORE opening it. 2) CON argues that dislikes can induce bias
3) CON argues the incentive for dislike bandwagons is reduced, but again provides no sources or specific examples of these incidents as PRO pointed out previously.
CON argues that motivation to comment constructive criticism is a good thing.
It's just unfortunate, and honestly a disgrace, that people will place personal vandetta, or malice, into a debate vote.
What you have personally against someone stays out of the voting tab. Seriously, do I even have to say this?
"Then pro made a comeback, and you chose to just drop that he had flipped your best source and argument to be directly against you"
Yeah, and that's once again, why RM's vote is incoherent, and just emotionally charged.
He didn't even address how I took CON's strongest argument and turned it completely against them, moving into the next round where CON does not even address this. CON further makes an emotional appeal argument and sevral additonal strawmans (yet RM says I lied about con and provides no examples of course!).
Yes, moving from logic to pure emotion.
Remember, RM said I lied about CON multiple times, yet he provides no examples of this.
RM says I gaslighted CON yet provides no evidence of this.
RM makes emotional flurrys of me being "snarky" and "cocky" as a justification, while I am just making simple claims like, "CON has made easily refutable arguments" and "we can discard most of CON's case because it was irrelevant"
Thanks for voting, I see you are a moderator and I wanted to reiterate that I reported the vote of @Rational Madman for a few reasons
1) It shows considerable bias
2) It is incoherent, and hardly even provides specific reasons fro decisions, as yours did, and most votes do.
3) It shows a clear mis-understanding of the resolution of the debate, and igores most of my arguments, while glorifying CON's arguments.
Observe this quote
"Pro retorts to this by... lying about Con every single Round, which is why I docked the conduct mark. It's one thing to flex and paint a biased image but we are talking constant gaslighting and lying about what Con has said or done"
RM, says I was lying about CON every single round and provides no examples of this.
RM says I gaslishted CON and provides to examples of this.
As a whole, RM does not coherently explain is vote, and he hardly even speaks about the arguments made.
Please remove this vote.
Please don't even try. You lost the debate period, it wasn't even close. The issue is Rational Madman has some personal vandetta that he wanted to get accross in his vote I guess.
I reported your vote honestly. You could tell it was extremely biased, and that you cleraly had no understanding of the resolution.
It seems personally malicious.
I just finished reading. My opponent tried to brush off that he openly lied about his sources, but the evidence is too clear. I don't think my opponent can walk out from how I pointed out he explicitly misquoted and lied about what his aource said (see comments below) about smelling.
Please vote
The required rating is too high for me, given that it is 1600.
I will immeadietly accpet if you lower it so I can
A few more days and I will be gladly done with this debate.
If anyone sees and reads this, please vote when the time comes.
No way, someone actually accepted the debate
I'll give my prediction, I already thought Ben is destined to win the tournament based on his previous two debates within in.
That being said, I think Benjamin should win this.
Very good round one
Indeed. CON has set a massive burden for himself
Why did you make the voting period so long? Now you have to wait 176 days just to get your easy win
Another example
He made a claim that "females are superior in team cohesion"
And he cites a study that doesn't even say this. They compared teams that are all female and all male in offices to mixed gender teams, and found the gender balanced teams had more "positive experinces" compared to the all female and all male teams. That does not even compare males and females, and if anything it concludes all female teams had less positive experiences, so why would he use this to say females are superior in anything?
I can't wait to see him defend lying about this because it is too explicit in the text.
There is no way around it, so if he concedes, that's a plus for me. If he insists it's true it looks worse for him because I quoted his own source.
He made this claim for example:
"Let me be clear here, the average female is 50% more effective at smelling than men are," from a source that said
"women’s brains that have up to 50% more olfactory neurons"
That is not at all saying they have a 50% more effective sense of smell, the whole article never even suggested who is more effective so either he just lied about it, or he is too imcompetant to know what that means because immediately after this, HIS OWN SOURCE states:
"The authors acknowledge that just finding this difference is not enough to prove that women have a superior sense of smell – it is not even enough to explain the findings of previous studies about differences in ability to differentiate, identify and remember scents and odors" (Medical News Today).
His own source goes against the whole claim he made, entirely. You cannot make that claim from reading your source. So it's settled.
A) He lied about the source or B) He didn't read his own source. Both are bad looks.
I point it out in my round two, and I point out almost every incident where he does this.
He was probably hoping to just drop sources without anyone reading them
Just a warning to anyone who will debate this guy in the future, he lies about almost every one of his sources. I am not exagerating, he actually posts something and lies about what it says hoping you won't check over it.
No, I don't think the issue here is with my understanding of words.
I think the root of the issue has nothing to do with me, or my assertions.
You must be extremely stupid to make a case that that
I'm not really following you any more to be honest, im just keeping it known that there isn't a contradiction in that for the same reasons as below
So you just admitted that the resolution doesn't call for disbanding mixed combat units, and say I made an error by saying I'm not arguing for something you just admitted the resolution doesn't call for?
"The contradiction is you are saying there is a better way to do something, while denying anyone should do things the better way"
I'm not denying that people should do something a better way, that is just not what is resolved, nor is it the argument.
The argument is that male combat units are "in the most favorable or advantageous position" (best off).
It's a different argument to say, we should remove women from combat units. Maybe that could have been a good debate, but it just isn't the resolution today.
And if your argument of contradiction is that I said what is not part of the resolution for me to argue...
I blocked you because you are annoying, I have no problem debating you.
I have been on this site for about a month and a half, I didn't even know that blocking prevents people from accepting debates, not that I care.
That's like saying if the claim was "asian students are better at school than African American students"
"Oh, he's arguing that schools should only have asian students"
Please tell me what is the contradiction
Maybe I can illustrate it better for you:
I am saying combat units composed of men alone are best off, defined as "in the most favorable or advantageous position."
So in what way is that a contradiction? I am not arguing that combat units should only be composed of all men regardless if I believe it or not.
That is just not what is resolved.
Be extremely specific, what contradiction?
I think it is in ones best interests to accept this debate
I just changed the resolution so it's easier to debate. So if you are someone who didn't accept because of the resolution, you can accept now.
Someone please accept the debate.
Sex work should be illegal, obviously
State the resolution in one clear scentence
They will likely forefit eventually. I see an easy win for you.
I'm not kidding, you were destroying this gentleman, you really should not have conceded.
I honestly think you had the better side of the resolution, so it should have been an easy win for you, considering that RM isn't exactly a challenge.
Projection refers to unconsciously taking unwanted emotions or traits you don't like about yourself and attributing them to someone else.
I think it is unfortunate that you lost the debate about youtube dislikes, my condolences.
My spelling wasn't great in the last round, I was rusing because of time constratins (I had 12 minutes) and I wasn't feeling well for most of the day.
Having said that, please vote!!!
We all know you bring your personal issues into the voting tab, to purposefully make others lose.
I, for one, do not share this characteristic, so I vote fairly only considering the debate.
You were literally destroying your oponent despite not arguing particularly well, and you condeded?
okay
"con had already brought up that many women enjoy raising children making things not clear sacrifices. This leaves a lot of cons case begging the question of why not leave motherhood to the women who enjoy it?"
...
Rangar, this mentions "many women" but I already countered this specific statement, by saying some women enjoy parenting, but you would hardly find anyone who enjoy every aspect of it.
"Also, not everyone enjoys all aspects of raising a child. I doubt any do. It's hard work, but it's necessary." (thats obviouly in my round)
That means by all reason, I have jutified the resolution, and won. The resolution states that some women should sacrifice their time and energy, not all.
I really think it's possible you may be off here.
I'm trying to follow this, although I am not aware of the exact issue in question, it is a very interesting debate
Please vote
Also I know how you feel, I woke up and had 12 minutes to make my round two argument.
Thats why the end has bad spelling
"Plese vote POR"
It was a good short debate.
"So is the Earth probably not flat......Perhaps."
You literally conceded the whole resolution of the debate
Also, about the rating, chill out. Theres more to life than debates
Not exactly, It's just that the Amazon analogy was too strong of a point to go unaddressed, so thats one. Im not saying it was the sole point switch on arguments. If you really want I can chnage arguments to TIE, but it just doesn't seem right.
Round 3:
PRO goes rapid-fire weaving through CON's round two.
He counters by saying the audience can tell if a video is good or bad with the dislikes, once again points out that CON has not given any examples of targetted dislike campaigns or dislike trends on lower creators (CON seriously should provide this evidence because it ha been mentioned multiple times and the readers pick up on this) points out that CON failed to address his bad content argument. He poses a question: Should Amazon remove showing how many people rated the product 1 star.
CON then makes a sort of strawman of PRO's argument by saying "Pro's case is based on the following pillars: people want to be able to dislike videos".
He argues that the recommendation algorithm remains, and takes dislikes into account, so they still affect the video.
CON then posts a youtube blog source that shows YouTubes' experiment that concluded with dislikes hidden, people were less likely to dislike the video. CON says if you don't trust the source, it's a "conspiracy theory", and you must justify it. CON makes the case that constructive feedback in the comments is incentivized and more helpful/beneficial than dislikes
CON does not answer the question of whether Amazon should remove one-star ratings.
Round 4:
PRO rounds off. He points out CON's assessment of the rating system isn't exactly true and video with many dislikes can be relatively near the top base don views. He uses his specific example for this. He points out CON has not addressed the waste of time that one can experience watching a bad video unknowingly while visible dislikes make one more cautious and aware. He amusingly argues that CON says dislikes encourage bandwaggon negative feedback "just because" as CON still has provided no source that illustrates this. He points out that CON has not addressed, nor shown any reason why, given what he said, amazon should not remove one-star ratings. CON forfeits round 4.
Arguments: PRO
CON dropped the amazon analogy and failed to provide any evidence of a source that corroborates the idea of dislike bandwagoning. It's not just a one-time thing, CON was asked many times to the point where it kind of looked bad. PRO showed a specific example, so he has the upper hand in specifics. CON didn't really address youtube being unable to fully regulate bad content, and PRO provided specific evidence of this, but PRO does not exactly show how having visible dislikes somehow regulates bad content. Regardless, PRO had a counter for everything CON argued, yet CON dropped a few arguments that were pretty strong points against him.
Sources: I'll give it a tie. However, CON did not provide a source that showed the dislike bandwagon effect.
Grammar: Tied, no significant difference.
Conduct: PRO gets conduct due to CON forfeit.
Round 1:
PRO makes basic arguments;
1) Removing dislikes affects people's ability to gauge th usefulness or reliability of a video.
2) Encourages bad content
3) Shows YouTubes hypocrisy by removing dislikes when they have the most disliked video on their own site
PRO doesn't respond just yet, RM saves that for the next round. Rather he makes his case, youtube is entitled to remove dislikes
1) People have the freedom to form opinions regardless of subtle pressure amount of dislikes
2) It negatively affects smaller creators
3) No one wants to flex their dislikes
4) the counter still exists but is simply hidden, and creators can see feedback and improve.
Round 2:
PRO attacks CON's case arguing that there isn't any reason as to why seeing others' negative opinions stops you from forming yours. PRO makes a strong point here "Are you *expressing* your opinion if it is hidden?". PRO uses an analogy to compare this to amazon hiding one-star reviews. If you express an opinion that their product is one star, and it is now shown, then is it really expressed?
PRO points out that CON provided no examples of lower channels being attacked with dislikes. On the contrary, CON provides a specific example of a video that could slip by this new policy and waste people's time, when they can't see previous disapproval.
PRO also counterargues that creators can still see dislikes, but that isn't as good motivation to improve as having them visible publically as if dislikes are hidden, creators will have no significant incentive to improve.
CON argues "Pro's case is partly based on the idea that currently, you cannot dislike a video" which CON has established is false, but PRO just previously acknowledged that the dislike counter still exists and is hidden, so this is technically false. Regardless, CON goes on.
CON argues that
1) you have given the video a view before even seeing the dislikes so nothing has decreased one's ability to judge a video BEFORE opening it. 2) CON argues that dislikes can induce bias
3) CON argues the incentive for dislike bandwagons is reduced, but again provides no sources or specific examples of these incidents as PRO pointed out previously.
CON argues that motivation to comment constructive criticism is a good thing.
It's just unfortunate, and honestly a disgrace, that people will place personal vandetta, or malice, into a debate vote.
What you have personally against someone stays out of the voting tab. Seriously, do I even have to say this?
"Then pro made a comeback, and you chose to just drop that he had flipped your best source and argument to be directly against you"
Yeah, and that's once again, why RM's vote is incoherent, and just emotionally charged.
He didn't even address how I took CON's strongest argument and turned it completely against them, moving into the next round where CON does not even address this. CON further makes an emotional appeal argument and sevral additonal strawmans (yet RM says I lied about con and provides no examples of course!).
Yes, moving from logic to pure emotion.
Remember, RM said I lied about CON multiple times, yet he provides no examples of this.
RM says I gaslighted CON yet provides no evidence of this.
RM makes emotional flurrys of me being "snarky" and "cocky" as a justification, while I am just making simple claims like, "CON has made easily refutable arguments" and "we can discard most of CON's case because it was irrelevant"
Thanks for voting, I see you are a moderator and I wanted to reiterate that I reported the vote of @Rational Madman for a few reasons
1) It shows considerable bias
2) It is incoherent, and hardly even provides specific reasons fro decisions, as yours did, and most votes do.
3) It shows a clear mis-understanding of the resolution of the debate, and igores most of my arguments, while glorifying CON's arguments.
Observe this quote
"Pro retorts to this by... lying about Con every single Round, which is why I docked the conduct mark. It's one thing to flex and paint a biased image but we are talking constant gaslighting and lying about what Con has said or done"
RM, says I was lying about CON every single round and provides no examples of this.
RM says I gaslishted CON and provides to examples of this.
As a whole, RM does not coherently explain is vote, and he hardly even speaks about the arguments made.
Please remove this vote.
what
Thats why I reported it.
Please don't even try. You lost the debate period, it wasn't even close. The issue is Rational Madman has some personal vandetta that he wanted to get accross in his vote I guess.
I reported your vote honestly. You could tell it was extremely biased, and that you cleraly had no understanding of the resolution.
It seems personally malicious.