Total votes: 397
full forfeiture
full forfeiture
CON concedes.
full forfeit
full forfeit
concession
full forfeit
PRO fails to provide definitions, set burden of proof, or the wincons for PRO and CON. Such provision is the responsibility of the instigator and oversight of those responsibilities leaves a big opportunity open for the the contender to exploit.
PRO presents several points in favor of capitalism as an economic system. PRO suggests that capitalism promotes innovation, which can improve healthcare and make products cheaper and more available. PRO also argues that capitalism has helped to reduce poverty around the world and has decentralized wealth from governments and oligarchs. PRO cites Adam Smith's concept of the invisible hand to suggest that individual self-interest leads to overall societal benefit. PRO contends that capitalism promotes free trade, which can drive economic growth and reduce global poverty.
CON wisely defines terms, burdens, and wincon but I think CON misses a big opportunity to qualify PRO's burden. That is, showing that Capitalism advances society to some degree in some situations is a very low burden to meet and conventional wisdom (at least in the West) gives PRO a powerful advantage. PRO's failure to define gave CON an oppotunity to set PRO's burden much higher- that in the aggregate, the advances of Global Society outpace the impediments imposed on that society by Free Trade- a much, much higher pole to vault.
CON argues that capitalism has been associated with unemployment and has contributed to economic downturns like the Great Depression. It is also true that some companies and individuals have taken advantage of their employees or exploited resources for their own profit, and that this can have negative consequences for workers and the environment. These are important issues that should be considered when evaluating the impact of capitalism but CON arguement feels like mere problem-finding rather than actually comparing Capitalist economies to non-Capitalist ecomies and demonstrating superior employment numbers, less exploitation, etc in those economies.
In R2, PRO does a good job of setting aside CON's complaints and making a case for the big picture." I never said capitalism was perfect and ensures absolute progress, the thesis was that capitalism advances society." I particularly like PRO's offering of specific examples Capitalist Venezuala rejected capitalism and went into retrograde: Communist China embraced capitalism and rapidly advanced. I really, really wish PRO had backed these examples with solid objective sourcing that directly linked capitalism to progress.
CON stuck with specific drawbacks in R2 and never really went to the heart of the wincon: societal advancement. Sure, desalination might pollute but does such innovation and big water projects lead to societal advancement overall? PRO say yes, CON never really makes a case against. CON's example of slave trade furthers his exploitation argument but I think weakens his unemployment argument: no slaves are ever unemployed. Is slavery only a feature of Capitalist economies? No, of course it isn't. I think CON's last point on environmental stress had great potential: sure the Industrial Revolution made us all less poor but if Earth becomes uninhabitable as a result, the society was let down.
Both sides had points but PRO got away with a very low bar to achieve: Capitalism advances society. PRO did show that the terrible scourge of human poverty has been improved and that increased innovation has a track record for solving problems that come up, even problems created by capitalism.
Arguments to PRO. Good, if sometimes subjective sourcing on both sides. Excellent grammer and conduct all around. Well done.
PRO wisely limits techniques in the DEFINTION section. I would have liked to have seen a statement about what must proved and a less generic definition of preferable. In 1v1 combat, it seems to burden should be to prove which technique is more likely to achieve domination, control, victory.
PRO claims that grappling is overall better in most circumstances in a 1v1 fight than striking. The argument cites several points in support of this claim, including:
1)In a comparison between a Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu instructor and a Tae Kwon Do master, the BJJ instructor was able to win the fight using grappling techniques.
2)Grappling is more versatile and can be effective for people of different physiques, including those who are leaner or stockier.
3)While both grappling and striking require physical fitness, grappling can be more forgiving for those who are not in peak physical shape.
4)Grappling allows for greater resistance and control in a fight, allowing someone who is skilled in grappling to potentially win a fight with minimal effort.
5)Grappling is often more legal in self-defense situations, as it allows for non-lethal control and restraint of an opponent.
Overall, the argument asserts that grappling is a superior fighting technique in a 1v1 situation and provides 6 instructive videos and 3 relevant sources to support these claims.
CON wastes time with irrelevancies and terms already defined and agreed to.
1) CON unhelpfully frames his first counterargument as a question
What does one need to know more about to consistently guarantee they will not lose general brawls? CON never gets around to answering what degree of knowledge is required to not lose a fight, instead drifting off into non-sequiturs about professional fighting and non 1v1 scenarios. Honestly, I can't even tell if CON is talking about knowledge about striking, knowledge about grappling or some other knowledge. He seems to say that a striker with sufficient grappling knowledge could quickly win but never gives an example or offers an support.
2) CON addresses the degree to which one can secure victory against almost any standard street opponent.
CON concedes that an expert grappler can defeat an average striker while asserting that an expert striker can defeat an average grappler- this concession does not give us any reason to prefer one technique over the other.
CON argues that striker is preferable in non 1v1 situations but that is deliberately ignoring the debate parameters.
PRO politely reminds CON that the defined condition is 1v1.
PRO counters that in a street fight, the control lent by grapple is superior to the punishment dealt by strike, which can easily exceed appropriate levels of violence or even backfire on the striker. PRO offers a persuasive illustration although I would have like to have seen some support from expert opinion here.
CON asks us to read the comments section for a second time but VOTERS may not consider arguments, discussions, explanations outside of the the ROUNDS of this debate. CON leans into PRO's control argument agreeing that grappling provides better control which is why it used by rapists and police - a persuasive argument for PRO but also argues that grappling requires greater weight and strength.
PRO addresses this concern directly in R3- arguing that size and strength can be a decisive factor in any match but when matched against a larger, stronger opponent, strike tactics are less likely to control the outcome and more likely to self injure. PRO convincingly offers a few tactics that might be used to overcome or control a larger opponent.
CON forfeits R3, effectively killing any chance he had of turning these arguments to his favor.
PRO effectively reinforces with Round 3 with additional counters and examples. I would have liked to see a more effective summary of his arguments in respect to CON's arguments, but agree with PRO that CON spent too much too time arguing rules, comments, and used far less effective sources.
I though CON's Ted Bundy illustration in R4 would have been an effective example if any of Bundy's victims had been trained in striking and had been documented warding off Bundy. Too much of CON's argument relied on hypothetical assertions like this without giving us the kind of 1v2 brawl video illustrations PRO used so effectively. Both sides needed some expert opinion: for example, I assume the US Army has a strong opinion on this subject and well supported arguments, etc.
ARGUMENTS to PRO.
PRO's use of sources was far superior: He used examples to show, to illustrate the principle he was describing whereas CON merely used sources to tell us again what CON told us. CON used fewer sources and of these, more sources felt tangential to CON's thesis.
SOURCES to PRO
CONDUCT to PRO for CON's forfeit
If the standard for then debate was "made the most good points without refutation" then CON would have won this debate pretty easily but it is not. PRO very wisely demonstrates that laying out definitions, burdens for proof, and wincons for a semantically focused argument can and should beat even a persuasive but undefined argument. CON should in future use that DESCRIPTION to lock in definitions, parameters, and burdens before the opponent takes that advantage away from the instigator.
As it stands PRO correctly, efficiently points out that can only indicates that it is possible for an actor to be great leader and since GREAT is a relative term, PRO wisely lowers the bar to simply above average. PRO very effectively locks in low burden for himself- all he has to do is find at least one above average leader who was also once an actor. PRO gives us three solid examples (although I am not convinced that Schwarzenegger was an above average governor) and takes the win.
CON essentially concedes the debate with " being an actor does not necessarily make someone a great leader." Nobody claimed as much, the only claim before us is whether at least one actor has ever proved to be an above average politician. Whatever your politics, Reagan clearly fits that bill.
Arguments to PRO. Excellent form on both sides but PRO understood that he who defines the match first with a legitimate standard is most likely to win on their terms.
full forfeit
argued wrong side and forfeited all but first arg
PRO offers 6 excellent arguments favoring school uniforms but does not go into much detail and only offers on scant argument and sources for each of these:
1) Relieves student insecurity about style/fashion/branding.
*sourcing another debater making the same argument is nowhere near as effective as actual peer-reviewed scientific study
2) Enhances equality
*a private boarding school is an extremely biased source here
3) Prepares students for professional clothing requirements
*broken link to source
4) Less expensive alternative to retail
*again we are asked to take an academic source's word for this. Real expenses would have been much stronger
5) Enhances school branding/spirit
*no sources
6) Enhances school security
*still relying on one debate source and one academic source
CON depends heavily one falsehood
1) The working world doesn't do uniforms often
*unsourced and manifestly false- Fast food, airlines, courthouses, police, fireman, athletes, postal workers, deliveries, hotels, military, doctors and nurses, the list is very long. Neither side bothers to give me the stats and I won't look them up myself and "often" is a relative term but left to my personal experience, I see workers in uniforms every day and will count that as "often" enough to make CON's argument manifestly false.
2) Students should be prepared to dress formally
* CON completely failed to notice that PRO has made a decent argument that uniforms "Prepares students for formal scenarios" All formal dress is a kind of uniform with widely varying parameters so accept PRO's argument that uniforms are good practice for formalwear. I don't buy CON's "formal without uniform" argument without a lot more detail: isn't any formal requirement a type of uniform? A tuxedo is as much a uniform as business casual- the rules are just different.
CON has given us one obviously false argument and one argument in support of PRO.
In Round 2, PRO forfeits and CON drops all of PRO's six arguments in spite of promising counters.
PRO correctly argues that CON's argument for formality aligns with PRO as an advantage. PRO then gives a few more unsourced but rational arguments:
7) Uniforms teach discipline
*no supporting arguments
8) Uniforms make excellent hand-me-downs
*more of a support for the less expensive argument in R1
9) Uniforms promote conformity
*just a restatement of the first argument
10) Reduces teacher bias
* No sourcing but I buy that some teachers make clothing based assumptions
CON acknowledges PRO's new arguments but doesn't lift a finger to counter any of them.
CON argues against his own "working world doesn't do uniforms argument" by switching to "mostly lower class does uniform." CON fails to explain why schools should not prepare students for lower class jobs.
CON argues that some races, body types, personality types are not suited to strict school uniform but provides no sourcing and straw mans a bit since PRO never argued in favor of "strict school uniforms." Also, most retail clothes also fail to flatter some body types and personality types but we have no comparion/contrast from either side.
At the end PRO offered 8 arguments, all insufficient in terms of examples and sourcing but most credible and at least partially persuasive. CON argued against his own R1 complaints of relevance and argued in seeming favor of PRO's plan to prepare students for formal situations with uniform requirements. CON's unrebuttable, last sentence argument that not every type is flattered fails t consider the same condition in non-uniform schools.
Ultimately, CON dropped 8 weakly supported arguments and offered no persuasive arguments in re[;y. ARGS to PRO. SOURCES to PRO for using 4 (fairly weak, biased) sources while CON never bothered. CONDUCT to CON for PRO's forfeit. Overall, PRO gets the point.
full forfeit
full forfeit flight from the undeniable power of Shakespeare
PRO makes a pretty traditional argument- that the gap in earnings between female workers in the US and male workers in the US is not due to a pronounced difference in wages for the same job but rather reflects higher pay for for skills that men are more likely to be capable and/or trained for- engineering and coal mining are two examples PRO gives.
CON forfeits the first half of the debate, offering no counterargument for PRO to take on. PRO merely extends. CON fails to make any positive argument in the final round and doesn't counter PRO's argument in any particular. CON interprets PRO's thesis as "PRO must prove that women are not paid less than men" but this was clearly not PRO's thesis or intention. CON states that PRO has the burden of proof and weak as PRO's argument is, he does at least bring an argument to his thesis and provide some relevant examples. CON makes no argument beyond misinterpreting PRO's thesis and provides no examples. CON hypocritically criticizes PRO for not sourcing his claims while also not providing any sources. As the only debater who made an argument, PRO must win this debate. CON reliance on a narrow interpretation of thesis is all the less compelling because the forfeit denied PRO any opportunity for clarification or re-direct.
ARGUMENTS to PRO
CONDUCT to PRO for CON's forfeit.
BARNEY is NOT a GOOD DEBATER
As always, any debater who sets a generic, subjective standard without defining that standard deserves to lose her debate outright. There are few move more amateurish then arguing that something is good without defining what good means in context.
PRO makes 3 argument, all quite weak
One: PRO argues falsely that "not good" is a neutral condition that ought to be presumed, shifting to burden of proof to CON. SInce PRO failed to define "good" in the context of this debate this argument must fail. If "good" is defined as, say, most likes in the FORUM section then PRO's argument is obviously false. Worse, PRO rather muddies the question of GOOD vs. BAD by invoking Socratic ethics. If PRO is applying some moral standard here, he fails to make the case. As instigator and maker of a claim that contradicts the debateart.com convention, the Burden of Proof here is 100% PRO's.
Two: PRO argues that Barney lacks the traits of a good debater but the only trait PRO mentions is analysis and instantly offers that he is incapable of making such an argument. PRO argues that win/lose record is an example of a debater's trait but this is obviously false. By definition, debaters have little influence over their win/lose and so that record can't be ascribed to debaters as a trait. We need only look at the top ten win/lose records on this site and note that there are 3 or 4 debaters found there that couldn't format a proper syllogism if their life depended on it to understand that win/lose records are political artifacts with no connection to qualities or traits or performance or conduct of individual debaters.
Three: PRO argues that nobody on this site is a good debater when compared to debaters outside of this site. Unfortunately, PRO has forgotten the one rule he set for this debate which was that "we only consider debateart .com" Having violated his own single rule, PRO invalidates this argument and makes an excellent case for losing this debate outright just on rules violation
CON starts with two arguments based on win/lose records which I have already stated are objectively non-persuasive. There is no relationship between the quality of debaters on this site and win/lose records.
CON's third argument finally begins to adress the quality of a "good" debate- public recognition, dodging traps, overcoming truisms, meme-worthiness. I think there plenty more important qualities but CON goes way ahead here by defining a standard.
In rebuttals, CON correctly calls out PRO on his subjective standard and gives one good example of the unreliability of win/lose records for analyzing debate quality. CON refutes PRO's lame 'analysis' argument by providing one example debate that definitely demonstrates some skill in analysis. CON correctly call out PRO for failing to abide by his own rule setting the scope of this debate.
In ROUND2, PRO deceptively pretends that he did not limit the scope of this debate to debateart.com, earning a lost point for conduct.
PRO explodes his already failed second argument by confirming that win/lose/leaderboard is no reflection of quality. PRO entirely undermines the majority of his ROUND 1 here.
PRO then undermines his undermining by further relying on win/lose to counter CON's examples of quality debating. PRO's failure to define GOOD up front effectively give him no ground against CON's very reasonable examples of quality. PRO can't make up his mind from one paragraph to the next whether win/lose records is an indication of quality.
CON quite rightly objects to PRO wild inconsistencies regarding scope and win/lose record. PRO correctly stands by his example of quality in his debate style as entirely unrefuted (mostly because PRO seems to feel no obligation to define some objective standard for quality.
From first to last, PRO fails to erect any rhetorical goalpost for his assertions,fails to set an objective standard for "good," and consistently contradicts and undermines the argument he devoted all of his energy to in ROUND1- comparative win/lose.
PRO never really built a substantial case on any particular and made CON's job pretty easy here. ARGUMENTS to CON
CONDUCT to CON because PRO violated his own single rule for this debate, limiting scope to debateart.com and then pretending that rule does not apply to his (entirely absent) defintion of a "good" debater.
YOU PICK the TOPIC. I SHALL do my BEST with IT.
This conversation doesn't really qualify as any kind of debate according to any objective debate standard. Essentially, every possible advantage is given to the contender for entirely shock (comedic) effect. This voter considers a debate under these terms non-moderated and essentially subjective. Basically, the instigator has ceded the stage and so it up to the contender to knock our socks of with full license. CON chooses " "THBT: North Korea is currently the best country in the world." which not only fails to knock the socks but is doubles down on the subjective nature of this discourse by choosing generic, totally non-controversial geographical question. On comedic or subjective stylings, CON scores a zero.
PRO seems to agree with this voter's thinking by arguing that the topic is irrelevant to victory in this debate.
" However, all the resolution entails is that to win, I must choose a topic alone. Consequently, all voters need to do is vote for pro based on the proposition of any topic at all."
This statement of thesis excludes the relevancy of topic and on this we agree but CON badly misses there was a second condition to the instigation: " I (the instigator) shall do my best with it."
So it not true that CON wins " based on the proposition of any topic at all," rather the winner is determined by whether PROdid "his best with it."
Given that PRO has two rounds and no ground to argue with, I set the standard for best at an extremely low bar. CON essentially forfeits his opportunity to show us his best and his second argument hypocritically faults CON for not setting a standard for "best" while ignoring the fact that he also forget to set a standard for "best" regarding our evaluation of his effort.
So- did PRO do his best? Not even close. PRO's only argument is ultra-weak and stupidly hypocritical. Total fail. Since PRO did not even try, CON wins this debate.
YOU PICK the TOPIC. I SHALL do my BEST with IT.
This conversation doesn't really qualify as any kind of debate according to any objective debate standard. Essentially, every possible advantage is given to the contender for entirely shock (comedic) effect. This voter considers a debate under these terms non-moderated and essentially subjective. Basically, the instigator has ceded the stage and so it up to the contender to knock our socks of with full license. PRO chooses "THBT rape should be illegal in the United States" which is not only fails to knock the socks but is doubles down on the subjective nature of this discourse by choosing generic, totally non-controversial public policy. On comedic or subjective stylings, PRO scores a zero.
PRO seems to agree with this voter's thinking by arguing that the topic is irrelevant to victory in this debate.
" However, all the resolution entails is that to win, I must choose a topic alone. Consequently, all voters need to do is vote for pro based on the proposition of any topic at all."
This statement of thesis excludes the relevancy of topic and on this we agree but PRO badly misses there was a second condition to the instigation: " I (the instigator) shall do my best with it."
So it not true that PRO wins " based on the proposition of any topic at all," rather the winner is determined bywhether CON did "his best with it."
Given that CON has one round and no ground to argue with, I set the standard for best at an extremely low bar. CON's first argument is nearly unintelligible but something along the lines of "rape is already illegal everywhere, so there's no "should" about it"
CON's second argument that rape should be legal in fiction, fantasy, and the imagination is easier to understand and I point I strongly agree with.
So- did CON do his best? Regrettably, neither defines the standard for "best" giving this voter a third reason to treat this debate subjectively. To the extent that I was able to understand both of CON's arguments (which is itself far above CON's usual standard) and CON made more objective effort than PRO - 2886 characters vs 1906 characters, this voter is willing to view CON's effort as "his best" and by this standard, awards arguments to CON.
forfeiture
full forfeit
It is more biologically and logically sound of man to have greater sexual attraction over a busty woman
PRO argues that big tits are adaptive because they demonstrate available food for offspring, therefore men have evolved to find big tits attractive
CON seems to assume that big tits means overweight and compares women to hippos, cows, and whales in a profoundly misogynistic fashion
CON made no argument in R1
PRO repeats his R1 in R2
CON falsely accuses PRO of not providing a biologically sound argument,
CON made no argument in R2
PRO repeats his R1 in R3 plus some non-sequitur
CON responds with a classic STRAW MAN asking characterizing PRO's argument as about overweight and extremely busty women over a healthier and only medium bust woman. PRO never made any argument for overweight or for extremes.
In R4, PRO defends his argument against CON's straw man
CON forfeits
In R5, PRO extends again while CON gish-gallops his strawman but wrecks his own case with his data showing that 89% of men and 91% of women prefer a C or D cup when only 29% of women have a C cup or larger. If we can call the top 30% of breast sizes "busty" then CON's data shows overwhelming preference for bustiness.
Even so, the fact that CON made no substantive argument in four rounds and really only contributed misogyny and ridiculous strawmanning to the first four rounds and then thinks he's going to make up for it with a bunch of facts and literally figures without giving PRO any chance at response in the final round is pretty shit conduct on top of failing to contradict PRO's very simple sensible argument.
ARGUMENT goes to PRO. Nothing CON argued came close to refuting PRO simple, nearly tautological argument regarding bustiness as adaptive. CONDUCT also to PRO since CON's who approach was slapdash, disrespectful, and ultimately anti-persuasive
PRO unreasonably outlawed counterarguments. Mall was right- there are more reasons to censor an argument than just fear of losing the debate. Inappropriate for children is a legitimate reason to censor some content. CON wins
full forfeit
for fit you're
full falafel of awful furnitures
Fruit flapjack
full forfeit by both
full forfeit
frankly fry fear, fry phoned five a fam.
Reasons in comments
krull krorfeit
CON stayed on topic and did not forfeit
sheep eats bear: twist!
null norfeit
#FuckTate fuck incel culture
forfeit forfeit forfeit
But you must never forfeit fully
not even once or twice
it fluffs the weasel wooly
and fursuits are not nice
doublefuckedup
Not much discussion for a 10kc debate. Both sides lazy.
PRO say God must exist because Abrahamic religion says so.
CON says he's seen no evidence for god.
BoP on PRO and it can't be said PRO tried to present any proof. Therefore ARGs to the skeptic
CONDUCT ot PRO for CON's forfeit
PRO fails to make any argument here. PRO's presentation is a tautology with the conclusion disguised to appear as an argument by deliberately incorrect use of grammar. We can confirm tautology by PRO's own reasoning
given that x is defined as y, x=y
That is not an argument. That is a statement of fact. CON's argument lacked clarity but correctly argued PRO's grammatical failure.
ARGs to CON since only CON made an any argument here.
GRAMAR to CON since PRO's statement of fact depended entirely on VOTERS ignoring his grammatical error. If PRO had used a correct form of the adjective, right-wing for example, the tautology would have been made plain and no rational debater would have accepted his unfalsifiable claim.
CONDUCT to CON. PRO made a debate 100% dependent on misdefinition but failed to define terms in DEFINITON and deliberately relied on an encyclopedia entry to define the word to further disguise the fact that he was relying on VOTER to ignore the incorrect usage.