Some of Pro’s points were negated by broken links and rebuttals. Considering this alongside the split BOP, I give Pro 2.25 points.
Spelling/Grammar: .25 points to Wylted. Omar said “Just to make he can’t have the excuse there isn’t more recent data.”. “Since both Trump and the instigator failed to deliver what the border wall would actually reduce. I will be assuming this and I think I am fair with these assumptions. I am guessing the border wall would help stop undocumented immigrants, drugs and bad for the economy.” Incomplete sentences and lack of commas. I’m a huge grammar freak and these irked me.
Sources: I give an edge to Omar, since some of Wylted’s didn’t work. Again, I don’t take off points for older sources unless newer data is provided to rebut it. Pro used an opinion piece. Omar had really good sources in round one, but only provided one in R2. He criticized Pro’s sources rather than debunk them. Wylted apparently had just put two links together. Points returned for those two links. Omar: 1.5 points
Conduct: I will only judge conduct based on what occurred in the debate, not the comment section or discord or anything other than the arguments. I give a slight edge to Omar on conduct because Wylted called him “Lazy” and had a disagreeable tone in round one. Omar was also condescending, as he expressed doubt that Wylted would have good points at the end of R1. Wylted also swore in final round coupled with condescending “buddy”..5 points for Omar.
. I agree with Con’s statements against Wylted establishing rules, however, the judge this debate we must weigh pros and cons, making this rule de facto in place.
Points out that Wylted used anecdotal claims. The DCGazette link didn’t work for me, either, so points gone. FAIRUS was stated to be unreliable, but without any reasoning on why that is the case. The points still stand. Con states that a source was outdated. However, no new data was provided to combat this point, nor did he elaborate on what “things change” in that time to invalidate the point. A bunch more “outdated” rebuttals…. 100/135(Wylted) vs 138/180(Omar) on corruption. Omar’s newer data actually put Mexico in a worse percentile for corruption than’s Pro’s sources. Omar says he uses Cntrl + F to find the stat, which is very deceptive. The stat was derived by the article that said eight hundred people were apprehended daily before, now only fifty are every day. Ends with points about path to citizenship for illegals, which was not the point of the debate.
Wylted: Disputes Con saying Trump doesn’t have a plan by describing an emergent plan. Also asserts that “old” is subjective about data and that Con gave no criteria for determining what makes old data “old” and bad. Also, states that dismissing data only has potential to hurt Pro’s case, not bolster Con’s. Explained why his anecdotal claim has merit and gives insight into the situations of illegal immigrants. Pro explains why his “old” sources should not be dismisses, as, again, no newer stats debunked them. “A $32 billion dollar industry didn’t disappear overnight”. Said how Omar proved his corruption point by reading link. Debunked Con’s argument of no ethical point in enforcing laws and how he ignored rape stats.
Verdict: As Wylted stated, no points were given as to promoting public good. Con did not give any reason as to how he could solve issues that Pro brought up without using a wall.
Arguments:
R1
Omar: Points are that illegal immigration is already slowing down, a wall won’t stop drugs that go through legal points of entry, and that we don’t have enough workers. However, I would like to point out that he perhaps misspoke. He said immigrants would be needed anyway to build the wall. However, Omar stated that the goal of the wall was to stop illegal immigration with no mention of legal immigration.
Wylted: Points out that this debate should be based on the positive impact of each position. This makes sense because the description says “I am against the border wall…”. If there were more positive effects from building the wall, he shouldn’t be against it. Wylted gives an example of another country using a wall. Gives statistics on the crisis at the border, including rape and still 700,000 people crossing annually. Con’s argument about needing more workers(immigrants) is negated by a direct quote from Trump about his plan being pro-immigrant. Wylted brings up the point of national security by providing statistics on terrorism and the unhealthy state of many illegal immigrants. All provides statistics on the public cost of illegal immigrants to healthcare and housing.
Pro then gives stats on projected costs and the effect of an Arizona wall being significant in stopping illegal immigration. Then, he finishes off arguments with an appeal to upholding order. Pro then rebuts con’s claims that Trump never stated benefits of the wall and that he wouldn’t use natural barriers. States that drugs come into the country outside of legal points of entry, but this wasn’t substantiated with a source. Finishes off with an appeal to emotion towards not exploiting these workers.
R2
Omar: Not really sure what Omar was getting at with his point about there being no plan for a border wall. If that were the case, this couldn’t be a debate according to the description. As far as I know, Pro was using projections, so the points still stand.
You're thinking of book keeping. That is where you just record the numbers and that is it, which is awful and doesn't pay much. I'm gonna try to get an auditing job at a Big Four firm and after 5ish years I can do anything finance or accounting related in most businesses. Job prospects after that are huge
That was a debate idea back in high school: is college worth It? I am trying to get my CPA. Some of the best job security. Still need accountants and auditors even during recessions
Yeah, I don't really see any benefit to being enemies with these nations. The only option to change anything at that point is to go to war. If we treat them with respect and open negotiations, you can achieve good results without spending trillions and sending thousands of soldiers to die.
The point is to expose people to songs they may not know. If anything, vote for the songs you hate less. I personally like all patriotic songs. I love it when people love their country. Give these a try or vote based on the only ones you care for(American). I'd appreciate your input :)
Did you know about what they did about his Supreme Court pick? They had signs against each of his picks premade. They found a stockpile. They oppose him just to oppose him..... Not to mention the "meeting with dictators" narrative. They praised Obama for going to Cuba...
Yeah, Trump is up there. Everything good like the economy (2 years later) they try to take credit, but the child separation and the little camps set up under Obama are Trump's fault. A little consistency would be nice
So you're for fair trade, essentially? I agree with you. The general answer is:let them sell at a loss, our consumers benefit. It is rather short-sighted, because their monopolies will overcharge substantially
Well Omar and boat's debate was apolitical. They weren't arguing on a specific political issue, so political bias didn't really apply.
The reason that cities are more liberal is because they gain a lot more for voting liberal. Government spending on roads, public transportation, etc is much more popular in cities than in rural areas for obvious reasons.
Give me specifications for quantifying this bias and I can look into it in the next few days. Do I look at reasons for voting and say they are insufficient?
Also, it could be that they are debating worse. However, again, these "statistics" could be caused by biased votes that support liberals. Again, I'm not arguing that everyone votes for their own side. I'm arguing that they tend to vote for people with similar opinions.
No, Alec is formidable. I'm just saying that instead of being maybe 4th place, those extra debates pushed him to 1st.
The bias is that the liberals are doing all the voting. They find other liberals' arguments more agreeable. Common sense.
The two debators I were referring to were the low ratio hated "liberals"
You said that smarter countries are more liberal, that more urbanized places are more liberal, and that they are more educated. You were calling (at least most) conservatives dumb.
Even if that were true, you are saying that the entire reason for the disparity is just that we have worse debate skills and are less educated? That sounds incredibly ignorant and generalizing.
It depends on your "intelligence" point. The smartest people tend to be libertarian types. Economic and social "liberalism" are correlated with intelligence. Economic liberalism is defined as the ability to enter into voluntary transactions and enjoy "the fruits of their labor". This is more of what conservatives believe. On the other hand, social liberalism is also correlated with intelligence, which is something they don't believe in.
Yeah, most of those studies that show disparities are very misleading. Once they take into account the circumstances of each shooting, sentence, or whatever you choose, the difference is either highly mitigated or disappears entirely.
I'm not saying that liberals are the problem. In terms of active members on the site, the majority of them are liberal. Most of the consistent voters are liberal. Perhaps that is conservatives' fault for not voting more. I know I should.
Alec got really high up because early on he did a lot of "all guns should be banned debates". It is similar to "Socialism is completely evil". It is hard for the opponent to win because it starts them on a radical position. It was really smart of him. If I cared about moving up, I would create a bunch of debates similar to that.
I would have to look into those two specific debators. They could be trolls or children for all I know.
The point wasn't guilt by association, it was that people cite biases all the time, but it is difficult to believe.
Just because you provided one example doesn't prove anything. What a pathetic attempt at "citing" your point. How do I prove my side? Show an example of a liberal voting for a liberal? My point is not that liberals vote for liberals every time. My point is that in close debates, they will generally choose people who they initially agree with. If you think that these voters are 100% objective every time they vote, you are quite mistaken.
Don't you come from the political side that says white people/cops are just unconsciously biased and racist without any proof?
I've only really seen the switch vote in cases of forfeit. How shall I prove that biases influenced their vote? It is like how conservatives and liberals can disagree on who won a presidential debate.
Essentially, they are collectivist. They think it is okay to violate individual rights if they believe it will help the "social good". I as a capitalist think that the "social good" is best served by respecting rights and allowing people to pursue their interests. So, that is where the dispute is I believe.
Lmao. Nice!
You should change your name to "empty barrel"
You're back!
Probably by the time the timer runs out. Not tonight
Certainly had nothing to do with not addressing his points. Calling sources outdated or unreliable without explanation is good enough
Easiest W
My opponent proved my point: Nixon did nothing wrong!
Are your teammates all making their arguments? Also, bump!
Looks like we have another thing conservatives and liberals can agree on: Omar knows nothing
Are you writing this on a phone?
One day left, heads up.
Someone has been reading too much Descartes lol
Some of Pro’s points were negated by broken links and rebuttals. Considering this alongside the split BOP, I give Pro 2.25 points.
Spelling/Grammar: .25 points to Wylted. Omar said “Just to make he can’t have the excuse there isn’t more recent data.”. “Since both Trump and the instigator failed to deliver what the border wall would actually reduce. I will be assuming this and I think I am fair with these assumptions. I am guessing the border wall would help stop undocumented immigrants, drugs and bad for the economy.” Incomplete sentences and lack of commas. I’m a huge grammar freak and these irked me.
Sources: I give an edge to Omar, since some of Wylted’s didn’t work. Again, I don’t take off points for older sources unless newer data is provided to rebut it. Pro used an opinion piece. Omar had really good sources in round one, but only provided one in R2. He criticized Pro’s sources rather than debunk them. Wylted apparently had just put two links together. Points returned for those two links. Omar: 1.5 points
Conduct: I will only judge conduct based on what occurred in the debate, not the comment section or discord or anything other than the arguments. I give a slight edge to Omar on conduct because Wylted called him “Lazy” and had a disagreeable tone in round one. Omar was also condescending, as he expressed doubt that Wylted would have good points at the end of R1. Wylted also swore in final round coupled with condescending “buddy”..5 points for Omar.
. I agree with Con’s statements against Wylted establishing rules, however, the judge this debate we must weigh pros and cons, making this rule de facto in place.
Points out that Wylted used anecdotal claims. The DCGazette link didn’t work for me, either, so points gone. FAIRUS was stated to be unreliable, but without any reasoning on why that is the case. The points still stand. Con states that a source was outdated. However, no new data was provided to combat this point, nor did he elaborate on what “things change” in that time to invalidate the point. A bunch more “outdated” rebuttals…. 100/135(Wylted) vs 138/180(Omar) on corruption. Omar’s newer data actually put Mexico in a worse percentile for corruption than’s Pro’s sources. Omar says he uses Cntrl + F to find the stat, which is very deceptive. The stat was derived by the article that said eight hundred people were apprehended daily before, now only fifty are every day. Ends with points about path to citizenship for illegals, which was not the point of the debate.
Wylted: Disputes Con saying Trump doesn’t have a plan by describing an emergent plan. Also asserts that “old” is subjective about data and that Con gave no criteria for determining what makes old data “old” and bad. Also, states that dismissing data only has potential to hurt Pro’s case, not bolster Con’s. Explained why his anecdotal claim has merit and gives insight into the situations of illegal immigrants. Pro explains why his “old” sources should not be dismisses, as, again, no newer stats debunked them. “A $32 billion dollar industry didn’t disappear overnight”. Said how Omar proved his corruption point by reading link. Debunked Con’s argument of no ethical point in enforcing laws and how he ignored rape stats.
Verdict: As Wylted stated, no points were given as to promoting public good. Con did not give any reason as to how he could solve issues that Pro brought up without using a wall.
Arguments:
R1
Omar: Points are that illegal immigration is already slowing down, a wall won’t stop drugs that go through legal points of entry, and that we don’t have enough workers. However, I would like to point out that he perhaps misspoke. He said immigrants would be needed anyway to build the wall. However, Omar stated that the goal of the wall was to stop illegal immigration with no mention of legal immigration.
Wylted: Points out that this debate should be based on the positive impact of each position. This makes sense because the description says “I am against the border wall…”. If there were more positive effects from building the wall, he shouldn’t be against it. Wylted gives an example of another country using a wall. Gives statistics on the crisis at the border, including rape and still 700,000 people crossing annually. Con’s argument about needing more workers(immigrants) is negated by a direct quote from Trump about his plan being pro-immigrant. Wylted brings up the point of national security by providing statistics on terrorism and the unhealthy state of many illegal immigrants. All provides statistics on the public cost of illegal immigrants to healthcare and housing.
Pro then gives stats on projected costs and the effect of an Arizona wall being significant in stopping illegal immigration. Then, he finishes off arguments with an appeal to upholding order. Pro then rebuts con’s claims that Trump never stated benefits of the wall and that he wouldn’t use natural barriers. States that drugs come into the country outside of legal points of entry, but this wasn’t substantiated with a source. Finishes off with an appeal to emotion towards not exploiting these workers.
R2
Omar: Not really sure what Omar was getting at with his point about there being no plan for a border wall. If that were the case, this couldn’t be a debate according to the description. As far as I know, Pro was using projections, so the points still stand.
Didn't realize this was a win/loss debate. I was weighing the usual sections. :/
You're thinking of book keeping. That is where you just record the numbers and that is it, which is awful and doesn't pay much. I'm gonna try to get an auditing job at a Big Four firm and after 5ish years I can do anything finance or accounting related in most businesses. Job prospects after that are huge
I had a debate on Israel with whiteflame, if you ever want to read a novel. Only one person (blamonkey) allocated points, and I lost :/
That was a debate idea back in high school: is college worth It? I am trying to get my CPA. Some of the best job security. Still need accountants and auditors even during recessions
Yeah, I don't really see any benefit to being enemies with these nations. The only option to change anything at that point is to go to war. If we treat them with respect and open negotiations, you can achieve good results without spending trillions and sending thousands of soldiers to die.
I am both honored and disappointed haha
The point is to expose people to songs they may not know. If anything, vote for the songs you hate less. I personally like all patriotic songs. I love it when people love their country. Give these a try or vote based on the only ones you care for(American). I'd appreciate your input :)
If you read my Israel debate, you can read this lol
Wow another full forfeit. Am I surprised?
Initials
Also, my name is not bedrocks lol
He does have four people. Me, ramshutu, virt, and alec
Thanks! I'll have more material for my "America" playlist. Think you'll vote on this debate?
Did you know about what they did about his Supreme Court pick? They had signs against each of his picks premade. They found a stockpile. They oppose him just to oppose him..... Not to mention the "meeting with dictators" narrative. They praised Obama for going to Cuba...
Sick! Our team is stacked!
Yeah, Trump is up there. Everything good like the economy (2 years later) they try to take credit, but the child separation and the little camps set up under Obama are Trump's fault. A little consistency would be nice
I think we are basing this off of nose size. The debate is rigged!
Do you agree that my main man Nixon is the best?
Nope, turtles
Fair enough. Nice dub
Alec would be the main judge, but who are they?
If this is a full forfeit, I would consider taking up pro's position
Alright, now. Keep it civil.
We could just do three person(including captain) teams. For us, it is currently just Alec, Virt, and myself
So you're for fair trade, essentially? I agree with you. The general answer is:let them sell at a loss, our consumers benefit. It is rather short-sighted, because their monopolies will overcharge substantially
Well Omar and boat's debate was apolitical. They weren't arguing on a specific political issue, so political bias didn't really apply.
The reason that cities are more liberal is because they gain a lot more for voting liberal. Government spending on roads, public transportation, etc is much more popular in cities than in rural areas for obvious reasons.
Give me specifications for quantifying this bias and I can look into it in the next few days. Do I look at reasons for voting and say they are insufficient?
Also, it could be that they are debating worse. However, again, these "statistics" could be caused by biased votes that support liberals. Again, I'm not arguing that everyone votes for their own side. I'm arguing that they tend to vote for people with similar opinions.
All I do on a daily basis is work. Guess you have a problem with that?
No, Alec is formidable. I'm just saying that instead of being maybe 4th place, those extra debates pushed him to 1st.
The bias is that the liberals are doing all the voting. They find other liberals' arguments more agreeable. Common sense.
The two debators I were referring to were the low ratio hated "liberals"
You said that smarter countries are more liberal, that more urbanized places are more liberal, and that they are more educated. You were calling (at least most) conservatives dumb.
Even if that were true, you are saying that the entire reason for the disparity is just that we have worse debate skills and are less educated? That sounds incredibly ignorant and generalizing.
Let's wrap this up in 1-2 more comments.
It depends on your "intelligence" point. The smartest people tend to be libertarian types. Economic and social "liberalism" are correlated with intelligence. Economic liberalism is defined as the ability to enter into voluntary transactions and enjoy "the fruits of their labor". This is more of what conservatives believe. On the other hand, social liberalism is also correlated with intelligence, which is something they don't believe in.
https://theconversation.com/do-smart-people-tend-to-be-more-liberal-yes-but-it-doesnt-mean-all-conservatives-are-stupid-57713
Yeah, most of those studies that show disparities are very misleading. Once they take into account the circumstances of each shooting, sentence, or whatever you choose, the difference is either highly mitigated or disappears entirely.
I'm not saying that liberals are the problem. In terms of active members on the site, the majority of them are liberal. Most of the consistent voters are liberal. Perhaps that is conservatives' fault for not voting more. I know I should.
Alec got really high up because early on he did a lot of "all guns should be banned debates". It is similar to "Socialism is completely evil". It is hard for the opponent to win because it starts them on a radical position. It was really smart of him. If I cared about moving up, I would create a bunch of debates similar to that.
I would have to look into those two specific debators. They could be trolls or children for all I know.
Difficult to prove*
The point wasn't guilt by association, it was that people cite biases all the time, but it is difficult to believe.
Just because you provided one example doesn't prove anything. What a pathetic attempt at "citing" your point. How do I prove my side? Show an example of a liberal voting for a liberal? My point is not that liberals vote for liberals every time. My point is that in close debates, they will generally choose people who they initially agree with. If you think that these voters are 100% objective every time they vote, you are quite mistaken.
Liberals typically say that their person won unless it was a blowout, same with conservativss
Don't you come from the political side that says white people/cops are just unconsciously biased and racist without any proof?
I've only really seen the switch vote in cases of forfeit. How shall I prove that biases influenced their vote? It is like how conservatives and liberals can disagree on who won a presidential debate.
Essentially, they are collectivist. They think it is okay to violate individual rights if they believe it will help the "social good". I as a capitalist think that the "social good" is best served by respecting rights and allowing people to pursue their interests. So, that is where the dispute is I believe.