is it possible? Could it be, your very first lost after 100+ debates... I wonder, if he's finally got you! This is perhaps the only topic plus opponent you've picked so far that are severely challenging in my opinion. Besides that one Oromagi debate you had way back on DDO...
Meh I was mostly being cheeky. Even white flame could propose 100 debates to you and you could probably find the one that would be hardest for him and make it difficult for you to lose. In that term you’d be S tier. It’s just real life doesn’t allow for that a lot of times. If someone wrongs you, you have to instigate the court case personally and defeat them. You can’t pick your fights all the time.
Well I think the guy was exaggerating to make a point, he’s like “of course that is a question”. An article talking about Fei Hua also said the useless questions could also be Fei hua …“ On several occasions I have been in a restaurant in China, eating with a pair of chopsticks, when a Chinese person has approached me and asked “can you use chopsticks?” The correct response here would be “fèi hùa!””
The Chinese custom and slang has extended the wasteful/rubbish/nonsense to include obvious statements with flattery or just flowery “yes. Yes it is. Sun is bright today.” And the parents worries lead to command you to get a good grade is a meaningless statement, of course you already know to work hard and get a good life. It’s this kind of obvious statement that you already know is true, hence nonsense or a waste of time
Wanna have another go? I thought of a specific example where truthful nonsense may have resulted in some unclear incoherence that may outweigh the con argument….
Funny commentary on Oromagi believing he would lose again to Barney after his lost on DDO. He was probably one of the few tough challengers as he carefully picks his debate and has a weird but succinct style overall. I’m actually not sure who would win on a neutral topic like minimum wage or something.
oh dear, I plugged in this topic to GPT and it just repeated the same paragraph over and over no matter what questions I tried to feed. Good luck Michael!
so you're encouraging people to multi account? I don't think there's a lot of people who would accept this debate within the first 24 hour of them joining the site
Con however counters that the hypothalamus functions does not mean there is a distinguishable gender identity. The loose connection with experiencing stress, depression, anxiety, etc. is not inherently associated with the "non-treatment as identification". He doesn't say it out right, but I understand he means that *mistreatment* (pro's case) is different from the respect of the gendered identity. He repeats that Pro is using strawmen, because the studies have "fixed standards of sex" -- therefore the individual experiences contradict such. Con seems to have missed out that the disrespect of transgender overall had led to the slippery slope of bullying and suicide, rather than the extremely specific use of pronouns. I cannot buy that Pro's case merely considers that the correct pronoun is used, as the treatment of transgender people includes acceptance of them as well. Con continues after pro's forfeit to say that the individual identity cannot be gendered. There is no clear standard since only the individual's identification can loosely highlight the gender.
Pro counters aggressively telling that the oxytocin with brain chemicals must form the identity. He adds that the brain matches the person's identification, clearing up any ambiguous standards. The experience did not lead to the change of gender. In addition, he adds that the psychology is inherent within the neurology, and that the comparisons means that the individuality must lead to the gender types. Finally, pro stands on the idea that gender is the exact experience of reality, rather than preference.
Con closes up by saying that the distinction between sex and gender were made. The implied conclusion of gender identity I buy, but he misses out in the psychology and neurology correlation. The idea is that the psychology can speak to how neurology can work. However, he comes back around to talking about how the specific wording of pronouns can't be equivalent to all the negative impacts that Pro lists. He tells them that the ending result is that the individual decision of gender is the way to go, and that there is still very little way to judge the standards of the transgender.
I have a bias towards pro's case, however, even setting aside what I already know, I can tell the two are talking over each other. Con tackles very basics and tries to argue the idea that the self identity must be separate from the biological sense. After all, we can only socially treat them as what they claim to identify as, regardless of what they actually are. However, Con doesn't seem to realize the power behind the biological evidence, and glances over by trying to muddle lines without telling us why the results don't matter. He says the hypothalamus doesn't clearly list the gendered trait, yet there is clearly dropped, the oxytocin and CRH evidence to demonstrate a role in maintaining the identity. On the other hand, Pro's case misses out on the "treatment as gender they identify as", partially losing to Con's reducto ad absurdum, without telling us why. Yes, it's basic manners without a clear cut impact. But give us the emotion. Tell us the story. Bring it whole and put a box around the mistreatment that you believe Con is vouching for. You put so much concentrated effort to demolish Con's basic mistakes that you didn't realize the Social Keypoint to the debate. Yes, I buy that you are winning scientifically. But are you winning socially? This is the key point to the debate.
Because there is only two days left and moderators do not seem to be able to review Zedvictor's poorly made vote, I will be using enough points to tie this debate. I can buy that Con is slightly winning in terms of the absurdity that the neglect of a person's pronouns would lead to horrifying impacts. Yet I can't buy that the biological support is unsubstantiated, especially since the psychological link is clearly there in the correlation. To con, I recommend him bring more juice to fully tell us just why the brain and the mind cause the ambiguity to occur. Tell us why this unclearness means that you can't treat people as they desire their identity to be. Tell me outright that Pro is mistaking Mistreatment (bullying, shaming) with mere impoliteness. Because Pro's case is extremely unclear on a socially offensive side. Pro must tell me what it means to treat them as the gender they identify as. Does this include Con's reducto ad absurdum? Why or why not? Make a stance. Tell me the principle of why it matters. Why the small details can gradually lead to disastrous results.
Pro opens up with a lot of scientific evidence backing the transgender people's brain identity, added with clear impact that stigmatizing them will lead to depression and suicide. This is an excellent opening, but opens up cans of worms to the interpretation of "treated as gender they identify as".
Indeed, as Con counters, the Hypothalamus function may not be mainly concerning identity, especially since the brain and mind may be separate. Secondly, Con tries to point out that the "individual" is more than just the personal experience, but also the values, emotions and perspectives. The idea that "desire to live" is conflicting with the example of "treating as someone's race" which may be confusing in the end. Con's argument is a muddled twister that's relatively complex and hard to untangle, so I'll try to explain more with round 2.
Pro continues the idea that the gender dysphoria is clearly regulated by CHR, with the key hormone for gender identity. Furthermore, he shows that it's responsible for the gender identity, which links to the idea that the gender is identifiable via the self. Thus, the con principle of abstract thought is too ambiguous. So the "emotional blackmail" works in a way that basically shows you can't accept the harm presented with the bullying. The denial of the personal identity can lead to the bullying and cause damage.
you could've put your R3 concluding remarks ("mindless obedience" especially) way back to round 1 to establish a stronger critique of CP, and use the studies earlier on. Not sure Coal had enough characters to refute RJ's benefits. Also, I was considering unique benefits of RJ compared to CP, since Coal was basically saying you're doing the same thing as he is. The problem with your final round is that I can see why Und thinks it's enough to win by a landslide, but at the same time, there's a lot of stuff missing that allows Ragnar's vote to make sense. As such, I'm reluctant to vote for either pro or con. There's too much uncertainty in both sides' statistics and unique benefits.
Pro re-points that Con doesn't prove the unique benefits of RJ -- he pushes it over in that it's unclear how different the punishment is. Certainly, if Con wins on the harms on the children, he can prove that RJ has a good case. But if he's unclear or tied on this, it seems to me that RJ and CP can both be permitted, just implemented at different times. In my opinion, this is a dangerous thorn on Con's side. Pro says Con says some form of discipline is necessary, and doesn't prove that the physical infliction causes some kind of unique harm. This may be the key point that forced Ragnar and Pie to vote for Con. Pro repeats that the Fuller source was only refuted by ad hominem, while the Baumrind accusations were only that Gershoff was incompatible with scientific standards. The co-mingling of statistics also doesn't help Con in this idea. He also says when you only focus on spanking, there is no lasting harm. He further uses Sweden to indicate that CP doesn't inherently relate to the violence. He ends the evidence with testimony support by repeating Hermann.
Con delivers his ultimatum a little late. If only he had done this in round 1. There's a lot of doubt I have in his case, especially since he argues against deliberate infliction of harm, rather than the "justice restoration". He states that the intention to repair are different, especially to negate the "mindless obedience to authority". I find this frustratingly useless -- it requires a better story built up for the case of CP. He relates this back to the inherent American values, but alas, this is also too late. He should have done this round 1. But okay. He continues that the Gershoff's later study in 2018 improves upon the previous work, in that the customary spanking was better than the punishment. There was enough experimental evidence to cast further doubt in Pro's arguments. He also re-asserts that L&B along with Fuller also talk of the parent-child relationship, rather than public school teaching. This is also very late in the debate, and Pro cannot address this. I like Und's advice about making public school look more friendly, but I don't think it's necessary without a fourth round involved. Finally, Con argues that Fuller doesn't successfully defeat Gershoff in depth. He repeats his American ideals, but this is completely useless.
In my opinion, there isn't enough information to make a decision. The time line seems to fix Con's problems with Gershoff's "better study" in 2018, with a potential fourth round that could've been used to negate this study. RJ seems to resolve the same problems as CP. Even if we accept that Con is self-contradictory, it's hard to say what we lose out on if we accept "both CP and RJ inflict harm on students", because Con infers there's a lot of negative impact. Pro argues that RJ extends this harm to families, but isn't really that specific on what we lose out on if we actually inflict RJ. Sure, I can buy that they're similar in philosophy, but there's definitely some slight harms that seem to be plausible. Since I know next to nothing on the subject, I can't say one side clearly won over the other, unlike Undefeatable's analysis.
Undefeatable told me he wasn't 100% confident in re-analyzing and told to be wrong or subpar again, so he asked me to give my thoughts. I'm typically worse at debating (and thus don't care about my pride), but I go into more detail about specific ideas because I don't think I can make conclusions as easily as Und. This should be a more fair/thorough vote.
Reviewing pro's round 1, he establishes that the suspension related punishment is terrible, especially with segregation and separation from school. He realizes it worsens academic performance, and with key stat of "15~20% more likely arrested". He also proves that the minorities and boys are especially affected. He uses Baumrind to prove there's no lasting harm, and that says Gershoff is junk science, though I'm curious how this research is flawed exactly. He uses appeal to authority and states that the current discipline is ineffective, and that children would often take CP allowing a deterrent through pain.
I agree with all voters' analysis that FT's round 1 is completely underwhelming and utterly destroyed by Pro's constructive. He tries to establish a rational foundation for no punishment at all, but the idea that children would just resolve themselves is a bit strange. The later Justice system is interesting, but I definitely need more on how it's effective especially compared to CP. So Pro is crushing Con here 10/10. Let's see if Und is right about Con over turning the argument.
Pro's round 2 counters immediately with a retrospective and prospective approach. He says that it's required by justice, and that the Con case isn't that different to exercise of power. The eventual means of deterrence would still be same in the end. So that's quite interesting. Pro also re-establishes that CP is meant to prevent misbehavior, and prevent disruption. He points out that Con's idea is still a "discipline system", and extends to families as well. He knows that Con has nearly no evidence, contrasted with his disciplined school climate including Hermann, CNN, and other ideas. He also adds upon the needs of society to create a power structure, with employee to supervisor. I agree with Und's note that this is a bad comparison because unpaid interns cannot be CP's by supervisors. Still, there's quite some substance to be rebutted here.
Con clarifies that the punishments means the deliberate infliction of harm on children, and states that Fronius along with Augustine says there's a great amount of improvement of school climate, potentially proving that Pro's case is non-unique (RJ and CP would both improve the situation). He does use a mostly emotional argument here, but there's definitely psychological studies he could've easily brought up. Anyways, I think I'd buy the idea of worse behavior in children. Con notes that 2018 study remedies the weaknesses in the sources. In particular, he says there's a casual inference, and Pro's "better outcomes" are not truly proved by Fuller or Larzelere and Baurmind. He also conclude in Gersoff 2016 in that the long-term compliance is poor. So I think I stand with Ragnar here that it's kind of 50/50 overall. There's a lot of ideas on RJ that have just been brought up, and the studies are not completely certain regarding who's correct and who's not.
you two seem like people who want to score absurdly high on tests. What do you think of this topic?
is it possible? Could it be, your very first lost after 100+ debates... I wonder, if he's finally got you! This is perhaps the only topic plus opponent you've picked so far that are severely challenging in my opinion. Besides that one Oromagi debate you had way back on DDO...
want to go again?
thoughts?
Enemy Forfeited debate
Meh I was mostly being cheeky. Even white flame could propose 100 debates to you and you could probably find the one that would be hardest for him and make it difficult for you to lose. In that term you’d be S tier. It’s just real life doesn’t allow for that a lot of times. If someone wrongs you, you have to instigate the court case personally and defeat them. You can’t pick your fights all the time.
If Pro is on the level of Oromagi at least, I could imagine Barney losing for the first time.
Thoughts?
wow you are right. I added a review here if you are curious: https://favesongs.wordpress.com/2024/05/28/4-da-ladeez-skate-blade/
I don’t normally argue this way but the topic is pretty difficult for pro so I’m testing you by using some slightly tricky tactics
it's devil's advocate time! you'll probably win, but it's good to teach young people about debating :D
can you make the argument time one week or at least three days? I'm very busy but I can play devil's advocate for fun
ping
Difficult to vote on. I think pro made the topic too open ended and did abuse some things here and there.
What do you think? One prime competitor could be plants vs zombies
anyone?
wanna have a go?
What do you think of my argument? Given the Declaration of Independence, is this “Fei hua” or something else entirely? 🤔
Well I think the guy was exaggerating to make a point, he’s like “of course that is a question”. An article talking about Fei Hua also said the useless questions could also be Fei hua …“ On several occasions I have been in a restaurant in China, eating with a pair of chopsticks, when a Chinese person has approached me and asked “can you use chopsticks?” The correct response here would be “fèi hùa!””
The Chinese custom and slang has extended the wasteful/rubbish/nonsense to include obvious statements with flattery or just flowery “yes. Yes it is. Sun is bright today.” And the parents worries lead to command you to get a good grade is a meaningless statement, of course you already know to work hard and get a good life. It’s this kind of obvious statement that you already know is true, hence nonsense or a waste of time
To be fair one of the con for the topic said “to be or not to be that is the question” is also truthful nonsense
Wanna have another go? I thought of a specific example where truthful nonsense may have resulted in some unclear incoherence that may outweigh the con argument….
Funny commentary on Oromagi believing he would lose again to Barney after his lost on DDO. He was probably one of the few tough challengers as he carefully picks his debate and has a weird but succinct style overall. I’m actually not sure who would win on a neutral topic like minimum wage or something.
what do you think? is US's massive life loss count controversial, or actually not compared to China's insane policies?
Thoughts?
good luck man!
also, lmao the AI is *horrible* at debating the button-that-can-resurrect-most-loved-one topic, that one's a toughie.
oh dear, I plugged in this topic to GPT and it just repeated the same paragraph over and over no matter what questions I tried to feed. Good luck Michael!
to be fair, he defeated me in an abortion debate where I played devil's advocate, and I think I'm half decent. So there is that...
either is possible. Edeb8's creator somehow managed to implement it in between rounds shown as a small chat window between the two debaters.
why not, I like to have some fun.
pls vote
vote pls?
so you're encouraging people to multi account? I don't think there's a lot of people who would accept this debate within the first 24 hour of them joining the site
voting time.
Source of the video being 7th place: http://prntscr.com/26hqlgw
Done.
thoughts?
why am I the judge lol
thoughts?
Con however counters that the hypothalamus functions does not mean there is a distinguishable gender identity. The loose connection with experiencing stress, depression, anxiety, etc. is not inherently associated with the "non-treatment as identification". He doesn't say it out right, but I understand he means that *mistreatment* (pro's case) is different from the respect of the gendered identity. He repeats that Pro is using strawmen, because the studies have "fixed standards of sex" -- therefore the individual experiences contradict such. Con seems to have missed out that the disrespect of transgender overall had led to the slippery slope of bullying and suicide, rather than the extremely specific use of pronouns. I cannot buy that Pro's case merely considers that the correct pronoun is used, as the treatment of transgender people includes acceptance of them as well. Con continues after pro's forfeit to say that the individual identity cannot be gendered. There is no clear standard since only the individual's identification can loosely highlight the gender.
Pro counters aggressively telling that the oxytocin with brain chemicals must form the identity. He adds that the brain matches the person's identification, clearing up any ambiguous standards. The experience did not lead to the change of gender. In addition, he adds that the psychology is inherent within the neurology, and that the comparisons means that the individuality must lead to the gender types. Finally, pro stands on the idea that gender is the exact experience of reality, rather than preference.
Con closes up by saying that the distinction between sex and gender were made. The implied conclusion of gender identity I buy, but he misses out in the psychology and neurology correlation. The idea is that the psychology can speak to how neurology can work. However, he comes back around to talking about how the specific wording of pronouns can't be equivalent to all the negative impacts that Pro lists. He tells them that the ending result is that the individual decision of gender is the way to go, and that there is still very little way to judge the standards of the transgender.
I have a bias towards pro's case, however, even setting aside what I already know, I can tell the two are talking over each other. Con tackles very basics and tries to argue the idea that the self identity must be separate from the biological sense. After all, we can only socially treat them as what they claim to identify as, regardless of what they actually are. However, Con doesn't seem to realize the power behind the biological evidence, and glances over by trying to muddle lines without telling us why the results don't matter. He says the hypothalamus doesn't clearly list the gendered trait, yet there is clearly dropped, the oxytocin and CRH evidence to demonstrate a role in maintaining the identity. On the other hand, Pro's case misses out on the "treatment as gender they identify as", partially losing to Con's reducto ad absurdum, without telling us why. Yes, it's basic manners without a clear cut impact. But give us the emotion. Tell us the story. Bring it whole and put a box around the mistreatment that you believe Con is vouching for. You put so much concentrated effort to demolish Con's basic mistakes that you didn't realize the Social Keypoint to the debate. Yes, I buy that you are winning scientifically. But are you winning socially? This is the key point to the debate.
Because there is only two days left and moderators do not seem to be able to review Zedvictor's poorly made vote, I will be using enough points to tie this debate. I can buy that Con is slightly winning in terms of the absurdity that the neglect of a person's pronouns would lead to horrifying impacts. Yet I can't buy that the biological support is unsubstantiated, especially since the psychological link is clearly there in the correlation. To con, I recommend him bring more juice to fully tell us just why the brain and the mind cause the ambiguity to occur. Tell us why this unclearness means that you can't treat people as they desire their identity to be. Tell me outright that Pro is mistaking Mistreatment (bullying, shaming) with mere impoliteness. Because Pro's case is extremely unclear on a socially offensive side. Pro must tell me what it means to treat them as the gender they identify as. Does this include Con's reducto ad absurdum? Why or why not? Make a stance. Tell me the principle of why it matters. Why the small details can gradually lead to disastrous results.
Pro opens up with a lot of scientific evidence backing the transgender people's brain identity, added with clear impact that stigmatizing them will lead to depression and suicide. This is an excellent opening, but opens up cans of worms to the interpretation of "treated as gender they identify as".
Indeed, as Con counters, the Hypothalamus function may not be mainly concerning identity, especially since the brain and mind may be separate. Secondly, Con tries to point out that the "individual" is more than just the personal experience, but also the values, emotions and perspectives. The idea that "desire to live" is conflicting with the example of "treating as someone's race" which may be confusing in the end. Con's argument is a muddled twister that's relatively complex and hard to untangle, so I'll try to explain more with round 2.
Pro continues the idea that the gender dysphoria is clearly regulated by CHR, with the key hormone for gender identity. Furthermore, he shows that it's responsible for the gender identity, which links to the idea that the gender is identifiable via the self. Thus, the con principle of abstract thought is too ambiguous. So the "emotional blackmail" works in a way that basically shows you can't accept the harm presented with the bullying. The denial of the personal identity can lead to the bullying and cause damage.
I'm gonna do what's called a pro gamer move
in Elo ranking, you're supposed to Elo Up when you tie as a worse player/debater. Did you mean that your elo was higher?
Can you confirm what would happen to Und's elo if this was voted to be tie? They agreed on tie but I'm sure they wouldn't want lower rating lol
I thought the person with higher elo gets lowered rating due to tie...
you could've put your R3 concluding remarks ("mindless obedience" especially) way back to round 1 to establish a stronger critique of CP, and use the studies earlier on. Not sure Coal had enough characters to refute RJ's benefits. Also, I was considering unique benefits of RJ compared to CP, since Coal was basically saying you're doing the same thing as he is. The problem with your final round is that I can see why Und thinks it's enough to win by a landslide, but at the same time, there's a lot of stuff missing that allows Ragnar's vote to make sense. As such, I'm reluctant to vote for either pro or con. There's too much uncertainty in both sides' statistics and unique benefits.
Part 2
Pro re-points that Con doesn't prove the unique benefits of RJ -- he pushes it over in that it's unclear how different the punishment is. Certainly, if Con wins on the harms on the children, he can prove that RJ has a good case. But if he's unclear or tied on this, it seems to me that RJ and CP can both be permitted, just implemented at different times. In my opinion, this is a dangerous thorn on Con's side. Pro says Con says some form of discipline is necessary, and doesn't prove that the physical infliction causes some kind of unique harm. This may be the key point that forced Ragnar and Pie to vote for Con. Pro repeats that the Fuller source was only refuted by ad hominem, while the Baumrind accusations were only that Gershoff was incompatible with scientific standards. The co-mingling of statistics also doesn't help Con in this idea. He also says when you only focus on spanking, there is no lasting harm. He further uses Sweden to indicate that CP doesn't inherently relate to the violence. He ends the evidence with testimony support by repeating Hermann.
Con delivers his ultimatum a little late. If only he had done this in round 1. There's a lot of doubt I have in his case, especially since he argues against deliberate infliction of harm, rather than the "justice restoration". He states that the intention to repair are different, especially to negate the "mindless obedience to authority". I find this frustratingly useless -- it requires a better story built up for the case of CP. He relates this back to the inherent American values, but alas, this is also too late. He should have done this round 1. But okay. He continues that the Gershoff's later study in 2018 improves upon the previous work, in that the customary spanking was better than the punishment. There was enough experimental evidence to cast further doubt in Pro's arguments. He also re-asserts that L&B along with Fuller also talk of the parent-child relationship, rather than public school teaching. This is also very late in the debate, and Pro cannot address this. I like Und's advice about making public school look more friendly, but I don't think it's necessary without a fourth round involved. Finally, Con argues that Fuller doesn't successfully defeat Gershoff in depth. He repeats his American ideals, but this is completely useless.
In my opinion, there isn't enough information to make a decision. The time line seems to fix Con's problems with Gershoff's "better study" in 2018, with a potential fourth round that could've been used to negate this study. RJ seems to resolve the same problems as CP. Even if we accept that Con is self-contradictory, it's hard to say what we lose out on if we accept "both CP and RJ inflict harm on students", because Con infers there's a lot of negative impact. Pro argues that RJ extends this harm to families, but isn't really that specific on what we lose out on if we actually inflict RJ. Sure, I can buy that they're similar in philosophy, but there's definitely some slight harms that seem to be plausible. Since I know next to nothing on the subject, I can't say one side clearly won over the other, unlike Undefeatable's analysis.
Undefeatable told me he wasn't 100% confident in re-analyzing and told to be wrong or subpar again, so he asked me to give my thoughts. I'm typically worse at debating (and thus don't care about my pride), but I go into more detail about specific ideas because I don't think I can make conclusions as easily as Und. This should be a more fair/thorough vote.
Reviewing pro's round 1, he establishes that the suspension related punishment is terrible, especially with segregation and separation from school. He realizes it worsens academic performance, and with key stat of "15~20% more likely arrested". He also proves that the minorities and boys are especially affected. He uses Baumrind to prove there's no lasting harm, and that says Gershoff is junk science, though I'm curious how this research is flawed exactly. He uses appeal to authority and states that the current discipline is ineffective, and that children would often take CP allowing a deterrent through pain.
I agree with all voters' analysis that FT's round 1 is completely underwhelming and utterly destroyed by Pro's constructive. He tries to establish a rational foundation for no punishment at all, but the idea that children would just resolve themselves is a bit strange. The later Justice system is interesting, but I definitely need more on how it's effective especially compared to CP. So Pro is crushing Con here 10/10. Let's see if Und is right about Con over turning the argument.
Pro's round 2 counters immediately with a retrospective and prospective approach. He says that it's required by justice, and that the Con case isn't that different to exercise of power. The eventual means of deterrence would still be same in the end. So that's quite interesting. Pro also re-establishes that CP is meant to prevent misbehavior, and prevent disruption. He points out that Con's idea is still a "discipline system", and extends to families as well. He knows that Con has nearly no evidence, contrasted with his disciplined school climate including Hermann, CNN, and other ideas. He also adds upon the needs of society to create a power structure, with employee to supervisor. I agree with Und's note that this is a bad comparison because unpaid interns cannot be CP's by supervisors. Still, there's quite some substance to be rebutted here.
Con clarifies that the punishments means the deliberate infliction of harm on children, and states that Fronius along with Augustine says there's a great amount of improvement of school climate, potentially proving that Pro's case is non-unique (RJ and CP would both improve the situation). He does use a mostly emotional argument here, but there's definitely psychological studies he could've easily brought up. Anyways, I think I'd buy the idea of worse behavior in children. Con notes that 2018 study remedies the weaknesses in the sources. In particular, he says there's a casual inference, and Pro's "better outcomes" are not truly proved by Fuller or Larzelere and Baurmind. He also conclude in Gersoff 2016 in that the long-term compliance is poor. So I think I stand with Ragnar here that it's kind of 50/50 overall. There's a lot of ideas on RJ that have just been brought up, and the studies are not completely certain regarding who's correct and who's not.
thoughts?