Clarification/feedback: when I say pros anti Russia case was weak, I meant that even if con says to turn it against him (because we become no different from our enemies), the cyber security issue was muddled over due to pro’s oversight. It’s not as strong as his first argument. Con needs to realize that even if pro is fighting himself, he is not outweighing himself until you tell me it is equal or worse than the actual hackers rather than the Russia/China entities. I know pro didn’t say that independent hackers would keep attacking regardless. But you also said it. So you’re basically doing a “eye for eye makes world blind” route, which is fine, but tell us that US would also be violating information and other problems that pro says is unique to China. Yes, you said this about our offense being equivalent to the opponent offense. But pros framing of it shows that we have reasoning. Turn that against pro and highlight that the countries reasoning may also be equally justified. Make the stalemate impossible to break through on all sides. Then, I would vote for you.
As for pro... you should have had a generalizing statement for rebuttal in my opinion. For example: “when we do nothing but defend, the enemy is too powerful. But if we attack, we gain a unique advantage that the opponent can’t get past quickly.” The contrast would greatly help especially as you sidetracked to Econ sanctions which is not really a big impact in cons case.
Con leans heavily, heavily on the war-related type of arguments. He performs decently well, but I don't know how it compares to the benefits generated by taking down hackers, a huge benefit given by pro and still fulfilling the safety framework that Con depends on. I buy that Pro's argument is self contradictory regarding international relations -- if other countries' retaliation is difficult to manage, why does the US have a significant advantage? Similarly, even though Pro tries to say that other countries are causing problems, Con shot through the core by saying that cyber offensive operations are not actually doing anything, and increasing the effects of war. Yes, I know that warfare is devastating, but how devastating is this war going to be? Con needs to compare it to Pro's world and note how it's equal or even worse-- a simple few sentences would suffice, saying that a full blown WW3 with new information system worries resulting would pull his case back to match footing with Pro's ideals. But Con does not do this. I SEE that he is winning the reasoning, but he is not winning the impacts. Pro's arguments of "what if we did not have cybersecurity" are nearly useless, but nevertheless, I clearly am able to tell that the hackers' attacks are indeed problematic. Pro manages to pull back to this in the conclusion and prove his point. As such, arguments to Pro.
1. That criminals will cause cyber crime, causing problems in emergency service sectors.
2. He also notes that FBI uses wiretapper to gather intel and take down hackers (especially with gain of private information).
3. He asserts that hackers' attacks are quite dangerous and the cyber offensive operations have caused crimes to fall greatly as a result.
4. He lists the trillions of dollars and many lives lost, with a huge impact if cyber op's didn't exist.
5. He then says it enforces the norm, and Russian hackers' interference caused problems with cybersecurity, along with China.
6. He states that China is pushing UN to take its own norms (thus wrecking havoc as a result).
7. US fed. is building a different kind of ruleset to push against these problems.
Pro admits in CE that he cannot know precise impacts actually prevented. Let's see if Con can break through that.
CON argues:
1. he talks of safety violated, which he puts as framework
2. he notes that security is problematic with US strategy
3. he talks about how the cyber op. only escalates the attack and makes it impossible to differentiate from other kinds of war
4. he notes that the retaliatory efforts would be greater on the opposing countries due to the problems with cyber operation
5. he values defense over offense (only 2% are working on it), to prevent attacks, because it is best at deception and not destroying organizations
6. he further says that defense is a good alternative to offense since it doesn't escalate the battle
7. he declines the cyber op. uniquely deterring terrorists since it is already occurring
8. he notes that using the cyber op. caused problem with Russia and caused immediate threats, furthering his retaliation point
9. he says it is not a permanent solution especially that China's prowess still remains an issue
He partially dropped PRO 1, but that's not incredibly significant in my opinion.
PRO rebuts:
1. He says the self-defense is justified especially since intelligence is reliable
2. He says retaliation is very expensive and difficult to accomplish due to our info. advantage
3. More effective than Economic Sanctions since they are public [no idea how this relates to Con's case...]
4. He notes that there have been actual no attacks from NATO as Con tried to note
5. He reminds that other countries will still hack US and our counter would be similar to Con's problems
6. He tells us that countries' stealing of our tech would cause defense to become useless (Is this *actually* happening?)
CON defends:
1. US already caused escalation without the justified self-defense
2. US's action on Iran were greatly ineffective
3. the countries are not just trying to save face
4. Notes Pro didn't contest Russia's hacking of the electrical grid
5. Reminds that defense is not escalatory
6. Says again that defense would work better combined with the counter-attack side, rather than pre-emptive strike
7. Reminds of only short term solution which was dropped by pro (this is true)
8. Tells us that defense is still less attacks overall which is good for the US (good in the long term)
PRO Conclusion:
1. The allocation of the economy is still best for offense because we exploit network technologies (noted to be dropped by Con)
2. says that defense is useless since it doesn't really stop the probing and finding weaknesses
3. Rebuts that attacks are costless.. (I don't know who to buy on this, since they contradict with no sources)
4. Tells us that Cyber ops must need more time to know for sure, since not enough info
That final round blitzkrieg... I still don’t think that time’s vagueness disproves “age” of something lol. Not to mention pro already asked one billion questions about God and you never answered
nice vote. I think the difference between Und.'s usual style and his friend's research is that Und. tends to stack analysis and impact together in a way that is very hard to refute. But his friend used an ideological style that failed to show **precisely** what people actually gain, other than partially resolving racism, but is problematic when put to reducto ad absurdum. Und. seemed to understand that the equality picture is very hard to actually find impacts of, which is why he argued partially for Deontology. Tough resolution.
dare you challenge my well-written essay written from years ago? It may not be as well researched as Smoking Ban, but the kritik here is definitely not as easy...
honestly, Undefeatable's standard is a bit high, plus BoP is shared here. Remember that he likes to stack argument on argument to try to win which could pile up at the end... bleh.
in the best interest of humanity? you're inviting kritiks where the best interest of humanity would be solving global warming or abortion first. Maybe just say it'll produce a net benefit for humanity if we transition to veganism?
feel free to take a stab at a vote. I have bias towards Pro (and likely jump to support many of his refutations) so I will probably not be voting on this one
I read it over but I'm going to put off a vote because I personally don't know about either side. I think "regulated" likely killed pro's case (his case was a bit more for generic sale of organs), though I'm still not 100% convinced about the hazardous job comparison negation at the very end. You say we shouldn't add fuel to the fire, but neither do you say anything about inhibiting dangerous jobs and actually reducing the coercion. So if Organ donation was an existing job (as in Iran), would you prohibit it? That's what makes me hesitate. And you say violation of bodily autonomy is unique, but pro keeps using words like back breaking labor and implies an image of greedy businessmen everywhere (especially in the black market) that makes it difficult for me to swallow your rebuttals. It's a bit weaker than your usual impact analysis, because your distributive justice just becomes really vague. What do you think?
go ahead and challenge whoever you will.
That is not the definition of sovereign. Other states have to recognize it as a separate state with power
Clarification/feedback: when I say pros anti Russia case was weak, I meant that even if con says to turn it against him (because we become no different from our enemies), the cyber security issue was muddled over due to pro’s oversight. It’s not as strong as his first argument. Con needs to realize that even if pro is fighting himself, he is not outweighing himself until you tell me it is equal or worse than the actual hackers rather than the Russia/China entities. I know pro didn’t say that independent hackers would keep attacking regardless. But you also said it. So you’re basically doing a “eye for eye makes world blind” route, which is fine, but tell us that US would also be violating information and other problems that pro says is unique to China. Yes, you said this about our offense being equivalent to the opponent offense. But pros framing of it shows that we have reasoning. Turn that against pro and highlight that the countries reasoning may also be equally justified. Make the stalemate impossible to break through on all sides. Then, I would vote for you.
As for pro... you should have had a generalizing statement for rebuttal in my opinion. For example: “when we do nothing but defend, the enemy is too powerful. But if we attack, we gain a unique advantage that the opponent can’t get past quickly.” The contrast would greatly help especially as you sidetracked to Econ sanctions which is not really a big impact in cons case.
DECISION
Con leans heavily, heavily on the war-related type of arguments. He performs decently well, but I don't know how it compares to the benefits generated by taking down hackers, a huge benefit given by pro and still fulfilling the safety framework that Con depends on. I buy that Pro's argument is self contradictory regarding international relations -- if other countries' retaliation is difficult to manage, why does the US have a significant advantage? Similarly, even though Pro tries to say that other countries are causing problems, Con shot through the core by saying that cyber offensive operations are not actually doing anything, and increasing the effects of war. Yes, I know that warfare is devastating, but how devastating is this war going to be? Con needs to compare it to Pro's world and note how it's equal or even worse-- a simple few sentences would suffice, saying that a full blown WW3 with new information system worries resulting would pull his case back to match footing with Pro's ideals. But Con does not do this. I SEE that he is winning the reasoning, but he is not winning the impacts. Pro's arguments of "what if we did not have cybersecurity" are nearly useless, but nevertheless, I clearly am able to tell that the hackers' attacks are indeed problematic. Pro manages to pull back to this in the conclusion and prove his point. As such, arguments to Pro.
RFD
PRO argues:
1. That criminals will cause cyber crime, causing problems in emergency service sectors.
2. He also notes that FBI uses wiretapper to gather intel and take down hackers (especially with gain of private information).
3. He asserts that hackers' attacks are quite dangerous and the cyber offensive operations have caused crimes to fall greatly as a result.
4. He lists the trillions of dollars and many lives lost, with a huge impact if cyber op's didn't exist.
5. He then says it enforces the norm, and Russian hackers' interference caused problems with cybersecurity, along with China.
6. He states that China is pushing UN to take its own norms (thus wrecking havoc as a result).
7. US fed. is building a different kind of ruleset to push against these problems.
Pro admits in CE that he cannot know precise impacts actually prevented. Let's see if Con can break through that.
CON argues:
1. he talks of safety violated, which he puts as framework
2. he notes that security is problematic with US strategy
3. he talks about how the cyber op. only escalates the attack and makes it impossible to differentiate from other kinds of war
4. he notes that the retaliatory efforts would be greater on the opposing countries due to the problems with cyber operation
5. he values defense over offense (only 2% are working on it), to prevent attacks, because it is best at deception and not destroying organizations
6. he further says that defense is a good alternative to offense since it doesn't escalate the battle
7. he declines the cyber op. uniquely deterring terrorists since it is already occurring
8. he notes that using the cyber op. caused problem with Russia and caused immediate threats, furthering his retaliation point
9. he says it is not a permanent solution especially that China's prowess still remains an issue
He partially dropped PRO 1, but that's not incredibly significant in my opinion.
PRO rebuts:
1. He says the self-defense is justified especially since intelligence is reliable
2. He says retaliation is very expensive and difficult to accomplish due to our info. advantage
3. More effective than Economic Sanctions since they are public [no idea how this relates to Con's case...]
4. He notes that there have been actual no attacks from NATO as Con tried to note
5. He reminds that other countries will still hack US and our counter would be similar to Con's problems
6. He tells us that countries' stealing of our tech would cause defense to become useless (Is this *actually* happening?)
CON defends:
1. US already caused escalation without the justified self-defense
2. US's action on Iran were greatly ineffective
3. the countries are not just trying to save face
4. Notes Pro didn't contest Russia's hacking of the electrical grid
5. Reminds that defense is not escalatory
6. Says again that defense would work better combined with the counter-attack side, rather than pre-emptive strike
7. Reminds of only short term solution which was dropped by pro (this is true)
8. Tells us that defense is still less attacks overall which is good for the US (good in the long term)
PRO Conclusion:
1. The allocation of the economy is still best for offense because we exploit network technologies (noted to be dropped by Con)
2. says that defense is useless since it doesn't really stop the probing and finding weaknesses
3. Rebuts that attacks are costless.. (I don't know who to buy on this, since they contradict with no sources)
4. Tells us that Cyber ops must need more time to know for sure, since not enough info
dat forfeit... ouch.
That final round blitzkrieg... I still don’t think that time’s vagueness disproves “age” of something lol. Not to mention pro already asked one billion questions about God and you never answered
I have a very sneaky way to win this debate.
nice vote. I think the difference between Und.'s usual style and his friend's research is that Und. tends to stack analysis and impact together in a way that is very hard to refute. But his friend used an ideological style that failed to show **precisely** what people actually gain, other than partially resolving racism, but is problematic when put to reducto ad absurdum. Und. seemed to understand that the equality picture is very hard to actually find impacts of, which is why he argued partially for Deontology. Tough resolution.
wanna try voting on this one? I think Undefeatable wants some more specific feedback on why he lost... if he lost XD
define inferior
dare you challenge my well-written essay written from years ago? It may not be as well researched as Smoking Ban, but the kritik here is definitely not as easy...
honestly, Undefeatable's standard is a bit high, plus BoP is shared here. Remember that he likes to stack argument on argument to try to win which could pile up at the end... bleh.
Premise: Evolution is false
Pro: " I am not arguing that evolution is false"
Con: well then.
would you count eating lab grown meat as violating veganism?
in the best interest of humanity? you're inviting kritiks where the best interest of humanity would be solving global warming or abortion first. Maybe just say it'll produce a net benefit for humanity if we transition to veganism?
feel free to take a stab at a vote. I have bias towards Pro (and likely jump to support many of his refutations) so I will probably not be voting on this one
in round 1 I already stated you offered no unique benefit over vegetarianism.
vote if u can. should be pretty easy
perhaps you'd like to break the tie...
I read it over but I'm going to put off a vote because I personally don't know about either side. I think "regulated" likely killed pro's case (his case was a bit more for generic sale of organs), though I'm still not 100% convinced about the hazardous job comparison negation at the very end. You say we shouldn't add fuel to the fire, but neither do you say anything about inhibiting dangerous jobs and actually reducing the coercion. So if Organ donation was an existing job (as in Iran), would you prohibit it? That's what makes me hesitate. And you say violation of bodily autonomy is unique, but pro keeps using words like back breaking labor and implies an image of greedy businessmen everywhere (especially in the black market) that makes it difficult for me to swallow your rebuttals. It's a bit weaker than your usual impact analysis, because your distributive justice just becomes really vague. What do you think?
yes. I'm also seldiora. I'm trying to close my account after I finish my current debates as the loss record looks very bad.
make more puns and make it funnier. I'm a better troll than you man
maybe you'd like to vote.