in my opinion, there's also the cost of joining in the first place. If I frame the debate as "the Europe is already in the BRI", it makes it feel like status quo, which is generally easier to work with in my opinion. Maybe it's a weird "frame of mind" kind of thing. I feel like "Should Europe withdraw from BRI?" in this fictional world is harder to argue than "Should Europe join BRI" in our real world.
It takes very little effort to do nothing and not join BRI in our real world.
It takes a lot of commitment and problems to withdraw from BRI, once you have joined.
(I know I'm not arguing against Europe withdrawal in my fictional universe, but I feel like the framework is similar to such)
how's this? I know "EU should join BRI" is con slanted, however, this presents an interesting premise: EU joins the BRI in my fictional world. Does the benefits outweigh the harms?
"Slum tours treat people like animals in a zoo - you stare from the outside but don't dare get too close.
Visitors aren't interested in meaningful interaction; they just want their photo op. Contact with locals is minimal.
Money rarely trickles down. Instead, operators fill their pockets but the vaunted 'benefits to the community' don't materialize. Slum tourism profits from poverty.
People feel degraded by being stared at doing mundane things - washing, cleaning up, preparing food, things that are private. Their rights to privacy may be violated. Imagine yourself at the receiving end: how would you feel?
Even when they participate as hosts, local people are often underpaid and exploited.
The image of a country may be tarnished by publicizing slums (this is an actual concern among certain segments of certain populations - usually the more wealthy).
The tours make poverty exotic, otherworldly, almost glamorizing what to inhabitants is a harsh reality which will remain once the tourists are long gone."
Whiteflame agrees this is Con slanted if you don't allow for policies to fix the Pro side.
you could say no one's guilty of anything, but my Framework Expert addressed the equivalent.
(Plus, false information/indoctrination can be a crime, not to mention the Supreme Court decision)
There's also 40% of people statistic, but there's a significant difference between giving evidence in court and having 40% be unconvinced, rather than uninformed public.
Also is it fine to have my constructive be basically a counter attack on your framework (ex. Same countries and whatnot)? It’s rather hard to build a case independent of what Pro thinks is important
I'm not going to talk about your argument point, but I'm not 100% convinced by your conduct. It could be that Pro is overwhelmed and is uncertain how to respond fruitfully to it.
For example, if he was up against Whiteflame about ... IDK, Belt and Road Initiative, with Whiteflame laying out an entire plan, and Sum1 only focused on the core with glancing remarks about the overarching argument, I still wouldn't take away conduct. Similarly here, he is definitely at least trying to tackle some of the ideas, even if he drops important parts of Con's arguments. Even if you dropped entire arguments, that would infer you're just a bad debater rather than having bad manners. It just seems confusing to me to take away conduct for that.
how would you recommend to improve the impacts? I noted that most of my researched articles noted that no rational athlete would actually dope, and it would encourage sacrificing yourself merely for entertainment. I tried to stress upholding of human dignity, but it doesn't seem you brought that. I suppose I'm not the best at arguing the Kantian framework.
damn. I guess I should think twice before adopting my friend's argument (someone else helped me research this topic and I found it rather tricky to dispel his sources)
the premise is probably more controversial if you said it would be more beneficial for Neo to take blue than red. Because I'm not sure the average person has what it takes. Neo has the cleverness and sneaky nature of a computer hacker that seems more suited to be "the One" in my opinion.
I can already sense your self-defense argument brewing in the background from supporting Violent Revolutions... I won't let you get away with it this time!
nice feedback. I agree that my rounds were getting kind of muddy, but as you noted, Pro didn't tackle my most important point, which was partially why I was struggling to stack more and more ideas (since the core wasn't defeated).
(Also, ironically I thought IV was my strongest argument, but it's only strong without considering Utlitarianism lol.)
did you just try to pull a 180 on me in the last round? Through the whole debate, you claim there is no moral obligation, and your questions infer that you are racist, sexist, and transphobe -- comparing homosexuals to pedophiles. Then, you finally admit that it is absurd to say that Racism and Sexism are not moral issues, in order to break down my Utilitarian net benefit analysis. It seems confusing to me. Either there is no moral issue, despite equality and human dignity being something YOU claimed to support in the end, or there is a moral issue, but it somehow doesn't overcome Disney's "selfish desires", despite the net impact displayed and the patterns to show more minorities I displayed in the beginning. It's difficult for me to support libertarianism because it widely depends on impacts, but I personally also think it's still absurd that Disney should continue being selfish at the cost of inequality. That's why I brought up the reverse arguments.
just curious, is Athias allowed to give source points like this? It's unusual to see it justified in my manner of failure of connection to the core point. *squints*
Feel free to toss a vote. Probably could’ve stressed self defense better, but I’m not sure if I should’ve repeated my point from round 1 word for word.
It does seem confusing, but your argument kind of defeats itself, and even if moral did matter somehow matter I stated Kant's beliefs. I wasn't too sure how exactly to push the impact analysis framework so I upheld both sides just in case.
well, you didn't think that net benefit would work (utilitarianism is a moral obligation, but you denied it). I think human respect and dignity follows Disney's message better than "the means justify the ends"
The further I read pro, the further I feel your VR argument justifies abortion. What if the combination of uncertainty and proportionality overcome the baby’s potential life? People feared that Britain’s taxation and “oppression” would lead to their lives lost (or freedom equivalent to their lives), despite nearly no chance of that. If VR was justified despite the uncertainty of the worst scenario, isn’t abortion even more justified, because the baby’s personhood is even more uncertain than the “taxation=oppression”?
I probably lost, but I'd like some more feedback. Impact based analysis is obviously harder in religious type of debates, not to mention I crashed the last round. Probably should've made this unrated, but it is what it is. Improving logic might help in debates overall though.
I would’ve argued for utlitarianism and the platinum rule (treat others as they want to be treated) defeating the golden rule (treat others as you would want to be treated). Neitzsche could work but he’s not really a standard of ethics and more of a way to live. Interested in seeing your arguments.
You do realize there are four factors of evolution, not just two right? 1) the potential for a species to increase in number, (2) the heritable genetic variation of individuals in a species due to mutation and sexual reproduction, (3) competition for limited resources, and (4) the proliferation of those organisms that are better able to survive and reproduce in the environment.
BTW, what are the strategies for pro? I did some research into flaws of Con and the proposal given with government payment, but I know the problems of placing too many restrictions. Should the premise be "free market" instead to favor pro? Or is there another sneaky argument?
in my opinion, there's also the cost of joining in the first place. If I frame the debate as "the Europe is already in the BRI", it makes it feel like status quo, which is generally easier to work with in my opinion. Maybe it's a weird "frame of mind" kind of thing. I feel like "Should Europe withdraw from BRI?" in this fictional world is harder to argue than "Should Europe join BRI" in our real world.
It takes very little effort to do nothing and not join BRI in our real world.
It takes a lot of commitment and problems to withdraw from BRI, once you have joined.
(I know I'm not arguing against Europe withdrawal in my fictional universe, but I feel like the framework is similar to such)
how's this? I know "EU should join BRI" is con slanted, however, this presents an interesting premise: EU joins the BRI in my fictional world. Does the benefits outweigh the harms?
ahhh, there's the rub isn't it-- you have to actually accomplish your result! that's why the impact also matters. It's a trap, to be honest.
https://www.women-on-the-road.com/slum-tourism.html
"Slum tours treat people like animals in a zoo - you stare from the outside but don't dare get too close.
Visitors aren't interested in meaningful interaction; they just want their photo op. Contact with locals is minimal.
Money rarely trickles down. Instead, operators fill their pockets but the vaunted 'benefits to the community' don't materialize. Slum tourism profits from poverty.
People feel degraded by being stared at doing mundane things - washing, cleaning up, preparing food, things that are private. Their rights to privacy may be violated. Imagine yourself at the receiving end: how would you feel?
Even when they participate as hosts, local people are often underpaid and exploited.
The image of a country may be tarnished by publicizing slums (this is an actual concern among certain segments of certain populations - usually the more wealthy).
The tours make poverty exotic, otherworldly, almost glamorizing what to inhabitants is a harsh reality which will remain once the tourists are long gone."
Whiteflame agrees this is Con slanted if you don't allow for policies to fix the Pro side.
Bro... that’s an entirely new argument. And adding video games doesn’t mean you can’t have projects
How’s this? You get to list ways we can fix the problem and I get to try to knock down your plan
Welcome back
what an absurd argument; I thought you were better than this. Mister Chris knows quite an amount to actually support con side
you could say no one's guilty of anything, but my Framework Expert addressed the equivalent.
(Plus, false information/indoctrination can be a crime, not to mention the Supreme Court decision)
There's also 40% of people statistic, but there's a significant difference between giving evidence in court and having 40% be unconvinced, rather than uninformed public.
Good luck. *laughs evilly* You're gonna need it.
I’m impressed by your audacity. Young earth creationism papers are slim to a handful
ez vote
Last round source: merriam-webster.com/dictionary/video%20game
Also is it fine to have my constructive be basically a counter attack on your framework (ex. Same countries and whatnot)? It’s rather hard to build a case independent of what Pro thinks is important
I'm not going to talk about your argument point, but I'm not 100% convinced by your conduct. It could be that Pro is overwhelmed and is uncertain how to respond fruitfully to it.
For example, if he was up against Whiteflame about ... IDK, Belt and Road Initiative, with Whiteflame laying out an entire plan, and Sum1 only focused on the core with glancing remarks about the overarching argument, I still wouldn't take away conduct. Similarly here, he is definitely at least trying to tackle some of the ideas, even if he drops important parts of Con's arguments. Even if you dropped entire arguments, that would infer you're just a bad debater rather than having bad manners. It just seems confusing to me to take away conduct for that.
how would you recommend to improve the impacts? I noted that most of my researched articles noted that no rational athlete would actually dope, and it would encourage sacrificing yourself merely for entertainment. I tried to stress upholding of human dignity, but it doesn't seem you brought that. I suppose I'm not the best at arguing the Kantian framework.
oho. Not bad. I barely used all my effort though, lol. I don't count unrated as truly beaten. ;)
damn. I guess I should think twice before adopting my friend's argument (someone else helped me research this topic and I found it rather tricky to dispel his sources)
sorry I meant "even if not science and math" for the first source. Bleh.
Feel free to vote
that's a little crazy. Not sure robots are on that level quite yet.
the premise is probably more controversial if you said it would be more beneficial for Neo to take blue than red. Because I'm not sure the average person has what it takes. Neo has the cleverness and sneaky nature of a computer hacker that seems more suited to be "the One" in my opinion.
If you read my previous try, you’ll notice I have a very clever argument against the Nazi’s...
I’m not 100% sure you’re allowed to allot conduct point this way. Doesn’t mention anything about emotion...
I can already sense your self-defense argument brewing in the background from supporting Violent Revolutions... I won't let you get away with it this time!
nice feedback. I agree that my rounds were getting kind of muddy, but as you noted, Pro didn't tackle my most important point, which was partially why I was struggling to stack more and more ideas (since the core wasn't defeated).
(Also, ironically I thought IV was my strongest argument, but it's only strong without considering Utlitarianism lol.)
come on, sum1 wasn't *that* underhanded.
honestly seldiora would probably just rehash your argument XD. Also arguing against American Revolution is actually pretty tricky
interested in a rematch? I believe that I found a cool way for Con to gain an advantage...
you can argue that if you want.
anyways. Very very crazy debate. Throw in some feedback, I don't know how to support that racism is a moral issue so... not my forte.
did you just try to pull a 180 on me in the last round? Through the whole debate, you claim there is no moral obligation, and your questions infer that you are racist, sexist, and transphobe -- comparing homosexuals to pedophiles. Then, you finally admit that it is absurd to say that Racism and Sexism are not moral issues, in order to break down my Utilitarian net benefit analysis. It seems confusing to me. Either there is no moral issue, despite equality and human dignity being something YOU claimed to support in the end, or there is a moral issue, but it somehow doesn't overcome Disney's "selfish desires", despite the net impact displayed and the patterns to show more minorities I displayed in the beginning. It's difficult for me to support libertarianism because it widely depends on impacts, but I personally also think it's still absurd that Disney should continue being selfish at the cost of inequality. That's why I brought up the reverse arguments.
toss in an easy vote before everyone forgets.
just curious, is Athias allowed to give source points like this? It's unusual to see it justified in my manner of failure of connection to the core point. *squints*
Feel free to toss a vote. Probably could’ve stressed self defense better, but I’m not sure if I should’ve repeated my point from round 1 word for word.
stop adding arguments to pro. Only Con mentioned all of your methods.
I didn't mean that the text itself was gibberish, but the way you presented it was muddy and unclear.
It does seem confusing, but your argument kind of defeats itself, and even if moral did matter somehow matter I stated Kant's beliefs. I wasn't too sure how exactly to push the impact analysis framework so I upheld both sides just in case.
well, you didn't think that net benefit would work (utilitarianism is a moral obligation, but you denied it). I think human respect and dignity follows Disney's message better than "the means justify the ends"
no, I am a utilitarian LOL
What do you think? Is this possible for pro if I include cats and dogs?
The further I read pro, the further I feel your VR argument justifies abortion. What if the combination of uncertainty and proportionality overcome the baby’s potential life? People feared that Britain’s taxation and “oppression” would lead to their lives lost (or freedom equivalent to their lives), despite nearly no chance of that. If VR was justified despite the uncertainty of the worst scenario, isn’t abortion even more justified, because the baby’s personhood is even more uncertain than the “taxation=oppression”?
I probably lost, but I'd like some more feedback. Impact based analysis is obviously harder in religious type of debates, not to mention I crashed the last round. Probably should've made this unrated, but it is what it is. Improving logic might help in debates overall though.
That already happens. Feel free to do your research whether it outweighs saving refugees and helping economy.
Did you just drop my name? XDDD
I would’ve argued for utlitarianism and the platinum rule (treat others as they want to be treated) defeating the golden rule (treat others as you would want to be treated). Neitzsche could work but he’s not really a standard of ethics and more of a way to live. Interested in seeing your arguments.
You do realize there are four factors of evolution, not just two right? 1) the potential for a species to increase in number, (2) the heritable genetic variation of individuals in a species due to mutation and sexual reproduction, (3) competition for limited resources, and (4) the proliferation of those organisms that are better able to survive and reproduce in the environment.
Your description basically gets rid of 1 and 3...
define "evolution".
I agree that dogs or cats are much easier domesticated, that's why originally I excluded them.
BTW, what are the strategies for pro? I did some research into flaws of Con and the proposal given with government payment, but I know the problems of placing too many restrictions. Should the premise be "free market" instead to favor pro? Or is there another sneaky argument?
This ones tough since con did a ton of research and you only used one argument