How was my mere exaggeration with “essentially conceded” unsportsmanlike or toxic? Sure, it’s fancy but it’s no different from oromagi’s usual “list of dropped points”.
I agree. I was aiming for whiteflame style of voter but didn’t think this Trent style debate (low character, obscure topic) would get votes from this many people. So I missed out on the unnecessary idea in the framework. I did mention dna lab but I probably could’ve pushed out more unique benefits
the sources points seems to be the most contentious here. Would you care to elaborate on your decision on that? Seems like it could swing the debate back around into a tie, if you decide to weigh them as heavily as fauxlaw/fruit inspector
oh my, I hope your vote wasn't slanted in the same way as Imminent Downfall's debate (if Bringer of Rain and gugigor's conclusion was correct). I hope you'll give another close look into Con's sources as well as I did not think he completely refuted my sources.
also... " he is still learning the ropes of debating"
I've actually had more than 500 debates overall on different websites ... granted, opponents forfeited a lot of them, but I also experimented a lot. Despite my username, I have as much losses as wins overall XD
thanks for the vote. I think the main reason it's difficult for Benjamin, gugigor and even Fruit to analyze the arguments part is that Con's assertions are only hand swatted away. It's difficult to actually bring up how much the costs will be, both for me and for con, especially within 3,000 characters. And under my stricter framework of trying to implement as a law (otherwise, how would education systems afford it? That's a good question.) means Con's "necessary" argument may become ambiguous (as we naturally assume that laws would take much effort to pass, hence, "necessary" isn't completely out of the question, even if it raises eyebrows)
thanks for the vote and feedback. And I also mixed up myself and the opponent during the final round so the confusion is definitely understandable hah.
For future voters: replace "con" with "Pro", and replace "Pro" with Con for my final round.
hmm? Fruit inspector messed it up. Practicality in Virtuality (source 2) was available in full, as was Effects of Game (source 3). Only Source 1 and 4 were behind a pay wall, and I reposted Source 1's full link here. He also said source 4 wasn't really relevant since con's arg wasn't based on that.
here's source 1 if you need to access it: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41408678
The hard part of the debate was not having enough characters to analyze them all. I understand there are some flaws with the ideas, but the core theme around gaming is not contested by Con, not to mention he didn't say how costly this was actually going to be. He mentions it but doesn't tell us why this is a significant problem in my opinion. (Is the cost not worth it? Etc.)
that's fair enough. Fauxlaw definitely has some strong arguments with "why America specifically" and also with "America has no obligation, as immigrants do not have the right to work". I'll let someone else take this though, as my belief coincides with the pro side of this topic.
oho, supporting my big argument for the Open Border policy? Perhaps the strong man of Open Border would be trickier and have more people accepting. "Increasing number of immigrants" seems arbitrary and vague. The "how" is a big question, and loosening border control would inevitably lead to helping your case.
I intended for a more Jordan Peterson approach where I showed where we agreed and moved on from there, but I ran out of space. Jordan must have time trouble in regular debates where he isn't trying to win, lol.
I feel like this kind of topic might be best with 20k character count. 30k Seems absurd; even my Systemic Racism debate just managed to reach it in R1 and I lost motivation to continue the same level of analysis the next few rounds.
I see no significant expert research that differentiates all boys from all girls. You are free to tell voters that arbitrarily discouraging female sex schools, while only male schools are a problem, creates an absurd inequality that cannot be sustained. If you can win "female schooling should be encouraged [pro]", you can win this debate as well.
ok, here's the actual copy pasted full article for easy access (couldn't be bothered to create a google account) https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5640-cyber-offense-full-article
(Also, I should probably stop playing devil's advocate in a ranked debate. I think my arguments are not as strong when I'm researching the opposing side, lol. It was good to see how to argue Con side however).
[Voters should ignore this since it's in the comment section, I'm just helping out RM a bit]
For your valiant effort, I will give some information that prove you may have had a chance, and for future improvement.
Even though Fortune has claimed no country has truly ended up in debt, CNBC counter lists four different countries to potentially counter my arguments (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/18/countries-are-reducing-belt-and-road-investments-over-financing-fears.html).
In addition, the investments have gone down 50% over recent trends so it's hard to say if we can continue supporting their ideals (https://green-bri.org/investment-report-belt-and-road-initiative-bri-2020-covid19/). The combination of debt and lack of growth makes it difficult for EU to potentially support the BRI (https://www.brinknews.com/the-future-of-belt-and-road-debt-and-delays-or-huge-growth/).
Brookings also has a strong counter analysis to my ideals, and claims that China will continue pursuing its own wants. (https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/FP_20190418_bri_interview.pdf) Remember that, even if my logic seems correct, you can still raise experts to have greater credibility -- perhaps China is not as rational as I proposed.
Furthermore, if you watched Mr. Chris's debate about this, he adds upon the oppressions of the Uighers (https://www.hoover.org/research/chinas-final-solution-xinjiang) which will be further supported by the EU, clashing against the ideals of democracy and perhaps finally linking back to your cyber crime case.
Even though I push for a green solution, the current evidence is stacked heavily against BRI, with current impacts being destructive on the environment (https://nexusmedianews.com/chinas-global-infrastructure-initiative-could-be-an-environmental-catastrophe-25a40e2d1000). The irreversible environmental effects could result in far more people dead than people lifted out of poverty on my side. (https://psmag.com/environment/environmental-concerns-over-chinese-infrastructure-projects)
The Pro case is actually slightly harder than the Con case, because you have to pretend China is going to be reasonable and solve the problems presented by Con, despite China's selfishness and being consumed by greed. The current trend seems to infer that China would rather continue damaging the environment, oppressing the developing countries, and being a solo king, rather than listen to the EU and resolve the problems. I'm actually playing devil's advocate here; I don't think China is very likely to actually listen to EU like my pro case proposed.
You wanna try this? It’s basically our Kantian vs utilitarianism debate. Pro basically has to argue we must not weigh motivation over consequences, while you can say the opposite
Excellent work. My vote might seem short but I read the debate. I take it that con dropped the majority of the scientific personhood argument since he never brought it up again. I’m happy to clarify any part of my vote. This was not easy— pro had a lot of sugar, but FLO had some reasoning behind it, even if not connected perfectly to the problems of abortion.
thanks for the vote. I'm a bit salty that my friend's help ironically caused me to become less focused and more about the intrinsic values which were incredibly vague. If they wanted to prove that it was moral to include the social diversity, ironically I think my case could be more fitting. But even though they framed their case as a suggestion letter to Disney, they ironically lacked the "precisely why" and more of appealing to the companies' love for freedom and equality in the first place. My friend assumes that voters will be Disney lovers and accept the same ideals as they. Or, if I allotted 15,000 characters and casually threw in my own usual "expert analysis" where I swept over what source 1 covered as a back up plan to introduce the importance of my friend's argument, I may have had a better chance. But I guess now you can see why I often go in depth on expert sources to tell people why my source is credible and why it matters.
your argument is so gibberish man. It's not that the experience of Earth was over 10,000 years. That's not how you define Age. Reminds me of how seldiora takes this kind of debates lol.
Anyways. Would appreciate a vote
How was my mere exaggeration with “essentially conceded” unsportsmanlike or toxic? Sure, it’s fancy but it’s no different from oromagi’s usual “list of dropped points”.
I agree. I was aiming for whiteflame style of voter but didn’t think this Trent style debate (low character, obscure topic) would get votes from this many people. So I missed out on the unnecessary idea in the framework. I did mention dna lab but I probably could’ve pushed out more unique benefits
the sources points seems to be the most contentious here. Would you care to elaborate on your decision on that? Seems like it could swing the debate back around into a tie, if you decide to weigh them as heavily as fauxlaw/fruit inspector
oh my, I hope your vote wasn't slanted in the same way as Imminent Downfall's debate (if Bringer of Rain and gugigor's conclusion was correct). I hope you'll give another close look into Con's sources as well as I did not think he completely refuted my sources.
also... " he is still learning the ropes of debating"
I've actually had more than 500 debates overall on different websites ... granted, opponents forfeited a lot of them, but I also experimented a lot. Despite my username, I have as much losses as wins overall XD
thanks for the vote. I think the main reason it's difficult for Benjamin, gugigor and even Fruit to analyze the arguments part is that Con's assertions are only hand swatted away. It's difficult to actually bring up how much the costs will be, both for me and for con, especially within 3,000 characters. And under my stricter framework of trying to implement as a law (otherwise, how would education systems afford it? That's a good question.) means Con's "necessary" argument may become ambiguous (as we naturally assume that laws would take much effort to pass, hence, "necessary" isn't completely out of the question, even if it raises eyebrows)
thanks for the vote and feedback. And I also mixed up myself and the opponent during the final round so the confusion is definitely understandable hah.
For future voters: replace "con" with "Pro", and replace "Pro" with Con for my final round.
here's the full R2 source if it helps: https://docs.google.com/document/d/10UPz5MnDdqJNSc4Fd3HDhhy59zaMgVr4xeCXsFw4VxU/edit?usp=sharing
hmm? Fruit inspector messed it up. Practicality in Virtuality (source 2) was available in full, as was Effects of Game (source 3). Only Source 1 and 4 were behind a pay wall, and I reposted Source 1's full link here. He also said source 4 wasn't really relevant since con's arg wasn't based on that.
here's source 1 if you need to access it: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41408678
The hard part of the debate was not having enough characters to analyze them all. I understand there are some flaws with the ideas, but the core theme around gaming is not contested by Con, not to mention he didn't say how costly this was actually going to be. He mentions it but doesn't tell us why this is a significant problem in my opinion. (Is the cost not worth it? Etc.)
that's fair enough. Fauxlaw definitely has some strong arguments with "why America specifically" and also with "America has no obligation, as immigrants do not have the right to work". I'll let someone else take this though, as my belief coincides with the pro side of this topic.
oho, supporting my big argument for the Open Border policy? Perhaps the strong man of Open Border would be trickier and have more people accepting. "Increasing number of immigrants" seems arbitrary and vague. The "how" is a big question, and loosening border control would inevitably lead to helping your case.
I intended for a more Jordan Peterson approach where I showed where we agreed and moved on from there, but I ran out of space. Jordan must have time trouble in regular debates where he isn't trying to win, lol.
Sources:
1. digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1738&context=fac_articles
2. apnews.com/article/73fa72b776f2403688a572b770d7f3b5
3. obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/international_strategy_for_cyberspace.pdf
4. researchgate.net/publication/249017059_Democratic_Hegemony_and_American_Hegemony
5. jstor.org/stable/222815?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
6. lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7155&context=etd
7. belfercenter.org/publication/why-cyber-operations-do-not-always-favor-offense
8. theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/23/cyber-attack-us-security-protocols
9. cfr.org/report/promoting-norms-cyberspace
Sources
1. v.gd/doubt
2. evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-010-0226-0
3. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK230201/
4. scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=2901
5. sciencemeetsreligion.org/evolution/reliability.php
6. pewresearch.org/politics/2009/07/09/section-5-evolution-climate-change-and-other-issues/
7. asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2006/PSCF12-06Young.pdf
8. biologos.org/common-questions/how-are-the-ages-of-the-earth-and-universe-calculated
9. pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html
This is more difficult than I thought. I'll have to consult your debate with Speedrace for further potential responses.
Also, I may add another rule to my set of standards: Post only when you have half the time or less. If there's more time to use, the better right?
Feel free to toss in a vote if you have time
good to know. I hope you'll allow me to rephrase my counter to the military if you waive. I don't think the way I stated it is 100% crystal clear.
What do you think it means? It can only mean inequality between two numbers. But I updated it in case it wasn’t clear
care for a vote?
I feel like this kind of topic might be best with 20k character count. 30k Seems absurd; even my Systemic Racism debate just managed to reach it in R1 and I lost motivation to continue the same level of analysis the next few rounds.
before anyone forgets, give a vote. opp conceded
I see no significant expert research that differentiates all boys from all girls. You are free to tell voters that arbitrarily discouraging female sex schools, while only male schools are a problem, creates an absurd inequality that cannot be sustained. If you can win "female schooling should be encouraged [pro]", you can win this debate as well.
You still a young earth creationist?
ok, here's the actual copy pasted full article for easy access (couldn't be bothered to create a google account) https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5640-cyber-offense-full-article
(Also, I should probably stop playing devil's advocate in a ranked debate. I think my arguments are not as strong when I'm researching the opposing side, lol. It was good to see how to argue Con side however).
damn, looks like I was outdone despite my best efforts. Any additional advice, Mr. Chris?
I will have my revenge... eventually
if the resolution was "in 1500's", I would take Con side.
[Voters should ignore this since it's in the comment section, I'm just helping out RM a bit]
For your valiant effort, I will give some information that prove you may have had a chance, and for future improvement.
Even though Fortune has claimed no country has truly ended up in debt, CNBC counter lists four different countries to potentially counter my arguments (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/18/countries-are-reducing-belt-and-road-investments-over-financing-fears.html).
In addition, the investments have gone down 50% over recent trends so it's hard to say if we can continue supporting their ideals (https://green-bri.org/investment-report-belt-and-road-initiative-bri-2020-covid19/). The combination of debt and lack of growth makes it difficult for EU to potentially support the BRI (https://www.brinknews.com/the-future-of-belt-and-road-debt-and-delays-or-huge-growth/).
Brookings also has a strong counter analysis to my ideals, and claims that China will continue pursuing its own wants. (https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/FP_20190418_bri_interview.pdf) Remember that, even if my logic seems correct, you can still raise experts to have greater credibility -- perhaps China is not as rational as I proposed.
Furthermore, if you watched Mr. Chris's debate about this, he adds upon the oppressions of the Uighers (https://www.hoover.org/research/chinas-final-solution-xinjiang) which will be further supported by the EU, clashing against the ideals of democracy and perhaps finally linking back to your cyber crime case.
Even though I push for a green solution, the current evidence is stacked heavily against BRI, with current impacts being destructive on the environment (https://nexusmedianews.com/chinas-global-infrastructure-initiative-could-be-an-environmental-catastrophe-25a40e2d1000). The irreversible environmental effects could result in far more people dead than people lifted out of poverty on my side. (https://psmag.com/environment/environmental-concerns-over-chinese-infrastructure-projects)
The Pro case is actually slightly harder than the Con case, because you have to pretend China is going to be reasonable and solve the problems presented by Con, despite China's selfishness and being consumed by greed. The current trend seems to infer that China would rather continue damaging the environment, oppressing the developing countries, and being a solo king, rather than listen to the EU and resolve the problems. I'm actually playing devil's advocate here; I don't think China is very likely to actually listen to EU like my pro case proposed.
You wanna try this? It’s basically our Kantian vs utilitarianism debate. Pro basically has to argue we must not weigh motivation over consequences, while you can say the opposite
VR seems a bit longer and harder to vote on. I think this one would be nice to have extra feedback on.
I know gugigor/seldiora already pinged you but there’s only four days left. Hurry hurry!
Excellent work. My vote might seem short but I read the debate. I take it that con dropped the majority of the scientific personhood argument since he never brought it up again. I’m happy to clarify any part of my vote. This was not easy— pro had a lot of sugar, but FLO had some reasoning behind it, even if not connected perfectly to the problems of abortion.
did you even read the previous rounds? I only repeated what I already said.
care to take a vote? I tried to make my point concise and to the point, though intelligence offered stiff competition here.
vote if you have time. I think my round 1's the most effort I've spent so far, and I'd hate for it to go to waste.
thanks for the vote. I'm a bit salty that my friend's help ironically caused me to become less focused and more about the intrinsic values which were incredibly vague. If they wanted to prove that it was moral to include the social diversity, ironically I think my case could be more fitting. But even though they framed their case as a suggestion letter to Disney, they ironically lacked the "precisely why" and more of appealing to the companies' love for freedom and equality in the first place. My friend assumes that voters will be Disney lovers and accept the same ideals as they. Or, if I allotted 15,000 characters and casually threw in my own usual "expert analysis" where I swept over what source 1 covered as a back up plan to introduce the importance of my friend's argument, I may have had a better chance. But I guess now you can see why I often go in depth on expert sources to tell people why my source is credible and why it matters.
with "target of innocents" I meant "even if that were decades ago..."
re-upload of source 3 ( valid for 14 days) : https://smallpdf.com/shared#st=116f24ff-d981-4296-a945-c6e0a8c28d49&fn=Deterring+Russian+cyber+warfare+the+practical+legal+and+ethical+constraints+faced+by+the+United+Kingdom.pdf&ct=1612070241867&tl=share-document&rf=link
sources:
1. belfercenter.org/publication/exaggerating-chinese-cyber-threat
2. wired.com/story/russia-cyberwar-escalation-power-grid/
3. full article: smallpdf.com/result#r=2d79c0c85a30c2c072dec37724a50f00&t=share-document
4. icrc.org/en/document/potential-human-cost-cyber-operations
5. npr.org/2013/01/28/169076259/anything-that-moves-civilians-and-the-vietnam-war#:~:text=In%20his%20new%20book%2C%20Kill,wounded%20and%2011%20million%20refugees.
6. nytimes.com/2020/05/07/world/middleeast/pentagon-civilian-deaths-afghanistan-iraq-syria.html
7. amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2019/09/us-military-shows-appalling-disregard-for-civilians-killed-in-somalia-air-strike/
8. justsecurity.org/64875/u-s-offensive-cyber-operations-against-economic-cyber-intrusions-an-international-law-analysis-part-i/
9. researchgate.net/publication/275270540_Denial_and_Deception_in_Cyber_Defense
10. deterrence.ucsd.edu/_files/Weaving%20Tangled%20Webs_%20Offense%20Defense%20and%20Deception%20in%20Cyberspace.pdf
Note to voters: any time I mention pro, except “vote for pro”, I probably meant con
To moderators: Benjamin’s awarding to effort is acceptable in my eyes, despite no category for this. There is no need to remove it.
I forgot to cite Mr. Occupation https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14427591.2020.1810111%40rocc20.2020.27.issue-s1?journalCode=rocc20
I'm prepared for a rematch. Dare you challenge me again?
really? Perhaps you'd like to debate me on the same topic?
you voted on my other debate. Up for the challenge on this one?
can you re-read the debate? I'm not certain the sources/conduct point was awarded correctly...
your argument is so gibberish man. It's not that the experience of Earth was over 10,000 years. That's not how you define Age. Reminds me of how seldiora takes this kind of debates lol.