blamonkey

Con full forfeited, advancing no argument.

RFD in comments. I wrote this at, like, 3 AM, so if anyone has questions, feel free to PM me.

In short, Con demonstrated why his "autonomy" criterion should be preferred, and he shows how ignoring autonomy confines people to prolonged prison stays, which carries myriad impacts. Pro's criterion is undermined by Con's refutations, and while Pro does very well, his victory hinged on his offense, and the causal mechanism by which he derives most of this offense (that prosecutors would choose to pursue fewer cases involving less minor crimes to deal with the ensuing court clog inherent in Pro's plan) is picked apart by Con.

Close debate folks. I give the RFD here:

https://shrib.com/#nmvarco%20v.%20fauxlaw%20Genetic%20Engineering%20and%20Human%20Cloning

If it doesn't work, let me know.

Since Pro conceded, I vote Con. I'll come up with the detailed RFD soon and post in the comments.

Ok. So, what is the topic? The debate centered around this sole question, and I don’t think I get a clear answer by the end. Here’s why: If I take the topic at face value and assume that there are two separate categories of men, real and not real, then I might favor Con since he points out the inherent breech of personal privileges that would accompany the passage of the resolution (although, as Pro mentions, his resolution would not force people to eat quiche per se). He points out that real men simply buy the quiche so as to demonstrate his sedulousness. Con calls this working smart, not hard. However, Con spends little ink in explaining why sedulousness is/should be a quality that “real” men possess. In fact, the semantic debate over what it means to be a “real man” might have been the chief misstep that both competitors made. If Con argued that “real men” exhibit certain qualities such as shrewdness or canny, then this argument might have clinched the debate. Instead, I am left wondering if it really matters that real men could conceivably buy the quiche as opposed to eating it. Pro raises some doubt when he posits that “real men making quiche” does not preclude the use of pre-bought materials.
Pro suggests that this argument is outside the scope of the debate, which is meant to be a lighthearted challenge meant to engender amusement. Here’s the issue. Bearing in mind the mirthful satire with which this topic was conceived, I still find that this argument has merit because it relates to the topic, which is more than I can say for most of Pro’s arguments. In fact, the reason I went over Con’s arguments first is for this very reason. I hazard to traverse a landscape of non-sequiturs. That said, the “robust” history of the quiche is duly noted, which I suppose supports the topic at hand tangentially. Clearly, men are endowed (heh) with certain masculine qualities that are etched into the very history of quiche and quiche-making. Again, it doesn’t meet the definition of “real man” though. Sans any impact analysis (i.e. it is more important for a real man to exhibit prudence v. it is more important for men to demonstrate a love for the robust past of the German, Swiss, and French pastry,) I can’t really decide off the arguments presented alone.
Pro offers another argument related to the golden ratio that seems to be… well…

“1. A Fabricator God has his signature in creation by virtue of the golden ratio.
2. The making of quiche exhibits the use of the golden ratio.
3. Therefore, when the Fabricating God makes quiche, He is a real man.”

I’m a tad befuddled to say the least. While I buy that the golden ratio exists, and might be a product of the Fabricator God, how does this pertain to “real men?” This isn’t exactly sterling logic, but it is a debate meant to elicit a laugh, which I guess worked. However, who is to say that a quiche needs to follow the ratio? Couldn’t different recipes follow a separate ratio? These arguments are never made by Con, so I’m counting this argument as cogent regardless. In fact, Con drops this argument in its entirety.
Con has one other argument that must be discussed: personal rights. Nothing in the resolution compels someone to eat quiche. While Pro is erecting an arbitrary distinction between real and unreal men based off quiche creation and consumption, he never browbeats anyone. Con claims abusiveness, and I suppose the resolution could have been clearer, but this is a case that needed to have been made earlier in the round with substantial warrant.

This is an occasion in which I changed who I deem the victor in the middle of my RFD. Con drops too much of Pro’s arguments and places too much stock into an argument about personal rights that has little impact. Good debate! You folks are funny.

I’m going to be honest; this debate isn’t exactly my mug of cough syrup. I’m going to put a concerted effort into cataloguing as many arguments as possible, but my ears are leaking cranial fluid just from reading the first round.

I’ll start with Pro’s arguments. That is, I’ll try to start with his arguments, but he seems to only have one, and it is too oblique, to the point that I had to parse it from the rest of the text to understand. I don’t know, maybe I’m just not good with this type of abstraction over the minutiae of defining terms. He starts by mentioning another debate he did with oromagi on the same subject. Cool. Then he delves into the meat of his argument. He posits that any use of the word “if” belies any notion of truth in the status quo sans any external manipulation of factors. For example:

If I could speak for everyone… is not currently a true statement unless I somehow produced a device that forced people to speak in unison. The latter part of that clause, where I somehow find a way to meet the “if” statement is purely external. This sounds reasonable enough.

Con contends that an if statement can depict the truth though, suggesting that the statement “if Donald Trump is president…” demonstrates a true fact because whatever subsequent action follows the “if” statement is predicated on Donald Trump being president, which is an undeniable fact.

Pro offers a retort that I feel could have easily been countered. He suggests that both opponents subscribe to the Greek idea of knowledge, which is that something must be believed, true, and justified to be considered knowledge. Because a speaker who presumably says “if Trump is president” doesn’t know about US politics (per Con’s postulation) the statement can’t possibly fall under the epistemological framework he provided because it isn’t believed or justified by the speaker. In other words, the speaker is expressing that he “doesn’t know” if Trump is president.

I’m voting Pro on this exchange because Con doesn’t really refute the Greek principles that Pro is espousing. Con never raises issue with the three stipulations of knowledge, which means I must flow it across the debate.

The argument over this if-then statement doesn’t really develop past this point. Perceptible changes in lingo to explain the arguments notwithstanding, both debaters repeat stuff. There is a debate going on in the background around the nature of truth, but it is only tenuously linked to the topic, and I want to get to the chief reason I’m voting for Pro: the last round.

Con, you should not make new arguments, particularly one that is a kritik, (critique of the resolution,) in the last round when Pro cannot get around to addressing those arguments. Also, you should not basically drop everything else to make such an argument by admitting your arguments were decimated. Whether there were restrictions placed on the final round or not, this is a clear violation of debate ethics. It’s not a major one in my opinion, it just means you cede basically all of the other arguments by not sufficiently responding to them. As for the kritik itself, I am flummoxed. Should people only be beholden to the explicitly stated title? What about other rules and definitions that, hitherto the last round, you adhered to? If adhering to the rules was an onerous burden, then why not offer this kritik first? All of this is insubstantial due to the violation of the debate structure, but they are foremost objections I would have as a competitor.

All in all, not a bad debate. But, because Con ceded so much in the last round by not responding, I have to give the victory to Pro.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FPpfgw9wQPLwB2ljA0x5terButbWDpkjGu1k3qE0-UI/edit?usp=sharing

Good Debate!

As the Pro side forfeited more than half of the rounds, I grant Con the victory.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N9TY-vAV_Bi8ErxAvGRnvc7w7CTmrgYZJShNVsxsjR4/edit?usp=sharing

I'm going to be honest, the moment I saw Pro's tepid response to Con's case, I knew that Oromagi won. While Pro offers some basic analysis, the totality of the Con case was ignored. The issue is that Con's analysis of the specific verbiage of the resolution posed a significant threat to Pro's case. If "easily" is defined as "not causing discomfort," and toppling a militia necessarily causes "discomfort" for the US (as shown by both competitors' cases,) then I have to vote Con sans any retort by Pro. This is not to say that there was no path to victory. Every action, be it waking up in the morning, presenting a debate case, or rummaging through a trash can to find a half-eaten burger lead to some level of discomfort. If Con contended that "easily" should be defined, in the context of the resolution, as "easily compared to most operations that the US deals with," then Pro would have a leg to stand on. Additionally, the other points, as spurious as some of them are in my opinion, are extended regardless. As a quick side note: I would recommend using the term "on balance" in resolutions. It means "on average," and allows you to suggest that the "typical" right-wing militia wouldn't pose a threat. The word "typical" is important. It means that the hypothetical super-group of right wing militia could be discounted completely since most right-wing militias are minute in both manpower and funding. As it stands, Pro's reluctance to engage with Con means Pro's case topples like a trash can filled with half-eaten burgers if said trash receptacle was accidentally bumped into by a voracious eater with low standards. Now if you'll excuse me, I have a hankering for burgers.

It took me 2 days and a lot of caffeine to do this. If something is wrong with it, PM me.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-SnFPsRIOzXHlM6H5QRRMS8n9Pk6_WLvVJjW2Rf70wg/edit?usp=sharing

Close victory by the way, both sides did excellently.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UaO97cV2xnNCW12jUDGlMqqKN-xfzSA38EPAghd2Nh4/edit?usp=sharing

Not my best RFD, and slightly rushed. Let me know if there are any questions you have.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NRKiBU4en5C-GgLsqvBdYm5SNy73b-LHAosNAzc5iVw/edit?usp=sharing

Good job guys! Here is the RFD. Took me a while to analyze the complex argumentation used throughout the debate; however, I am glad that I did for this clearly stellar debate.

It took me a while to vote on this. The arguments were very brainy and dense with citations. However, Con wins.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/199cXInpuhaTwU8tGtmaS7XnXPes0Moj5A2U8Emnj0Gc/edit?usp=sharing

Good debate. It took me a while because of school and IRL responsibilities.

The BOP was on Con to provide an instance in which, according to the rules: "Trump has said or done racist things." "Things" is vague, but it is clear that Pro wants Con to rove that Trump did something which proves his allegiance to white supremacy, or is prejudiced toward another race. While Pro's objection to testers is noted, he never explicitly gives me proof suggesting bias in the experiment conducted with the testers. Moreover, Con offers interviews with previous employees of Trump Management Incorporated which adds validity to Con's claims. Even if the bias in unintentional, old, or outdated, the rules of the debate only ask Con to show "prejudice or discrimination of another race." A strategy which Pro easily could have capitalized on is attributing the racist policy to Fred Trump. Perhaps Pro could contend the charges against the group as well, since the only evidence supporting the theory that Donald Trump is a part of the racist policies is conjecture as he "was on of the bosses," and "likely had a hand in implementing the will of his father." Instead, Pro asserts that black people support Trump. This is true, but it doesn't prove that Donald Trump isn't racist, or hasn't discriminated against minority groups. Con points out this discrepancy. Unfortunately, Con didn't adhere completely to the rules as he didn't waive the last round, so I give the conduct point to Pro. The forfeit at the beginning of the debate made me seriously think about keeping the conduct point a tie. However, the forfeit didn't seriously impede the debate since Con was supposed to go first to begin with.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1D3lDh2x-pWoEW3lgCxYSkuPmGcSf1Yb_0T4S_gWlkhI/edit?usp=sharing

As always, ask any questions if you need a clarification.

Full forfeit.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wQ7Un2tr9274_nXEUXvtDru6QxpAAuYXgS4_r479tAE/edit?usp=sharing

Good debate folks. If there are any questions, I am a PM away.

Forfeited.

Even without the forfeit by Con, Pro has already won this debate concerning an increase in the military budget. Con spends his entire case focused on the problems with the military. The issue with this is that it does not fulfill his BOP. If he proved how a strong military would necessarily lead to a more dangerous world, then perhaps he would stand a chance. Unfortunately, Con never gives me a source to substantiate his claims, never draws a link between military prowess and more global destruction/violence, and never tells me how any of his points really connect to the resolution.

Con sort of (and I am being exceptionally generous here,) offers a counter-plan which focuses on:
"...why not invest and manifest competitions for innovative living and wellness?"

I am not given any path forward to achieve this plan. Also, I do not know why keeping a strong military and investment in competitions for living and wellness could no both happen simultaneously. Pro mentions that the goal posts are moved by advocating for this plan. I disagree. I think Con is proposing ideas that are non-topical. As in, they do not pertain to the resolution at all. If Con laid out a detailed plan and linked it somewhat to the resolution, (i.e. using more funds from the military budget to fund healthcare coverage of poor people,) then perhaps he would have an interesting plan. Sans any details as to what he wants in R1, I can assume that he has no plan for implementation.

In this case, I buy Pro's arguments on face, even if they could be substantiated a bit better. For instance, proving that communist nations have an interest in conquering the US would have been a good start. I do have lingering questions about whether the current US military is strong as well. Regardless, at least Pro demonstrated the importance of having a strong military. He talked about protecting our allies, which is far more that what Con is doing.

I was originally going to make this debate a massive google doc, but I think that it really does not need so much ink. So, to save the time of the readers, I will try to keep my RFD under 5 pages.

To be frank, I do not see how this debate has much to do with totalitarianism. Is the lack of a mandatory vote akin to tyranny? Regardless this argument functions as a defensive argument. Defensive argumentation does not offer an impact, and instead is used to block another opponent’s point. Generally, you would want to save this block of text until your opponent supported totalitarianism.
Besides this defensive point, RM has 3 points of offense that he uses

1. People in densely populated areas carry more influence in comparison to areas that are sparsely populated and usually rural.
2. People are busy and may not have enough time to vote.
3. Cynical people are not going to vote because they realize that their vote doesn’t matter.

RM argues that when enough people come together to vote on an issue, then that issue gets representation in political entities such as congress. This system, he argues, is better than the oligarchic system that pervades political institutions right now and solving for the three problems he mentioned. RM notes that he would implement a fine when people did not vote.

Alec responds to the point about tyranny by stating it is essentially a non-sequitur since he is not defending totalitarianism. He discusses the harms of fining practically ½ of Americans who would not vote even after implementation, and he also claims that people who are unaware of current events would ruin the democratic vote for everyone as they essentially choose a name out of a hat to vote.

RM’s explanation as to why uninformed voters are not going to hurt democracy is told through 3 responses.

He first brings up Switzerland, which mandated voting, and ultimately is doing well on scales of human development. (I understand that the logic follows that mandatory voting led to all these benefits, but it needs to be established that mandatory voting led to the good human development rating.)

Also, RM mentions that people will become informed out of necessity when they elect bad politicians who enact bad policies that affect them.

Finally, RM talks of the importance of a publicly funded media to inform people, (which Alec points out is moving the goal posts.)

To be clear, none of the arguments that RM has used thus far are perfect, but Alec drops the ball on responding to them. He does respond to RM’s third issue with the idea of the uninformed masses, but the other 2 responses still stand, as do his original contentions.

Furthermore, Alec does mention that the Switzerland comparison is not accurate, and the health of the nation could be other factors besides mandatory voting. Sans a causal link, RM’s point here falls.

Alec also mentions that the fines would also be a problem. (It would have been beneficial here to quantify the issue. You could have quantified how fines hurt the lower class right now, or that minimum wage jobs in retail/food preparation are not likely to find the time to vote anyway Give me a sob story or a statistic to make this point pop. Otherwise, I do not know how to weigh it.)

However, even if both of RM’s arguments responded to are nullified, and the point about fines still exists, I am still voting for RM. His arguments supporting the idea that people become more informed and put better people into power out of necessity is uncontested, as is the idea that undemocratic representation is limited as more people vote, and previously dense, urban areas lose much of their political clout as other areas get higher representation as well.

Whiteflame brought this up, but it must be repeated. Con, you can’t be passive in allowing Pro to establish burdens.

Have a framework for the judges to establish criteria as to why I should vote for your side. RM established early on that we need to value the democratic vote over anything. If you tied your points to your own framework, or show how your points accomplish what RM wants, you would have fared better in this debate.

I am also kind of confused as to why the entire BoP falls on Pro. The resolution is normative, so both sides have a share of the burden. Pro intends to prove that mandatory voting should occur, while Con needs to prove why it shouldn’t.

If there are any questions, PM me. Thanks for the interesting debate! 😊

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eNWpfnvwtJVEEkuVio1E8o1cTYXCo7prUMDBxwgvgV4/edit?usp=sharing

Good debate! PM me for any questions.

Riveting debate, but both sides were do good, I have to tie them on all metrics.

Pro forfeited many arguments, awarding the conduct point to Con.

However, despite the forfeits, Pro won this debate because the vast majority of his constructive arguments go unanswered by Con. Instead, Con posts a few YouTube links with no analysis, and claims that Pro is biased against K-Rino. Without any refutations, I vote Pro on Arguments.

Ultimately, my vote is won by Con. The crux of Pro’s argument is inherently flawed because he never offers an objective method to measure the quality of each game. If I am not to rely on critical acclaim, what should I vote on? I am left with no answer from Pro, and I am left even more confused as to why this debate was started to begin with. While Pro does illustrate that ACO can be fun, he never adequately proves why it is the best game of the year in comparison to the games that Con brings up. I will buy that ACO has some fun, open-worlds, RPG elements, and naval warfare. ( As a side not: I could use some more justification through in-game elements and exactly what RPG elements are utilized effectively enough to make the game better.) However, after conceding more than half of Pro’s arguments, I see no path of victory for Pro. Con effectively refutes the flawed notion that critical acclaim and copies sold hold no water when discussing the quality of a game by suggesting that taking a handful of opinions instead of one allows for a source with greater authority. Perhaps popularity is not the main consideration someone should use when they are purchasing video games, but taking the opinions of a large amount of people is fair-game in a debate. We often refer to these tactics as “using a survey.” The rest of Con’s arguments are either jabs at Pro, (although to be fair, Pro does jab back,) or a hilarious example of argumentum ad populum per the YouTube links. This example does not negate the fact that fundamentally, a debate requires some type of evidence. In the absence of “objective opinions” I see no possible way to indicate the quality of a game without a majority of people enjoying it. Moreover, the alternative of simply buying Pro’s opinion is not accurate either. Con even tried to post some arguments relating to ACO being generic, which remain un-refuted by the end of the debate.

With literally half of Pro’s arguments dropped, and the aforementioned only offense that Con could generate being thoroughly refuted, I vote in the negation.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/12q7jqJmC0HxbXtnbqozU6mWKCYXi5J0HFYftzY_kaFA/edit?usp=sharing

The summary and rfd together constitute 9 pages. The rfd is at the bottom of the document, but some advice is sprinkled throughout the summary if you are interested. PM me for any questions/clarifications.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_z4tVI8qTmAP-7_e7EwmKhbZlawA5ha3MCqHiCFEE5w/edit

Thoth conceded the debate.

Virtuoso conceded the debate.