Should I have mentioned human cloning? I couldn't find a good way to penetrate the scientific basis on normal grounds even with uncertainty added to try to absolutely reduce the babies' rights. I lost motivation because I felt he didn't give a good reason why you should be punished for taking the 1% chance (especially since the doctor is the one actually being punished instead of MisterChris's argument about charging woman with manslaughter).
Or maybe how Patmos's plan encourages quack doctors who are willing to risk getting jailed performing unsafe abortions rather than real doctors.
Can you be more specific in what "is more democratic" means? Does this mean in practice capitalism is more democratic? Or on a pure ideological basis? It's unclear which side should/can be argued.
there's one thing I can't get out of my head-- why didn't you buy that the idea that the fetus was only going to be a baby like 20% of the time? doing more research on if Chris's argument was possible to challenge, I found an interesting article rewording my link in a more direct way: "Viability is a claim about what action can be taken in the present based on an anticipated future that is never to be. Viability is a measurement only sensible as applied to a neonate post-birth, but it is used to define the status of a fetus in utero. Moral arguments from viability thus treat pre- and post-birth as though they were equivalent states, when the very argument is that they are not.
In the end, rather than seek moral absolutism where there is none, the only legitimate answer in law is to embrace individual moral judgment on its fairest terms. There is a human rights argument that the judgment of those most affected, pregnant women themselves, should matter most, and it is thus their moral judgment about later abortions in which collective faith and trust should be placed.36 This is the sentiment driving popular Trust Women abortion movements. Gestational time limits thus implicate human rights of more than access to services, but of women’s freedom in conscience, equality, and liberty. " (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5473036/)
admittedly it takes the moral grey ground rather than talking about how viability downright is ridiculous/implausible, and raises the woman's right as the only remaining resolution possible. Chris's argument is particularly worrisome because it infers that even if the baby's birth was determined by a 20 sided dice we should still refuse to give the woman the moral claim to her body. I'm not seeing a way to defeat it...
This debate is pretty much impossible under normal circumstances. I recommend you change the description so that people can't use the same solution to racism you asked for and say if nobody exists on planet earth than "all people have accepted homosexual marriage".
did you mis-tag me and my "poor RFD"? I didn't vote at all. I was giving my personal opinion. If you'd like, you can invite Ragnar instead next time as a voter.
personal thoughts: sum1 showed there was at least some correlation, but didn't truly link it to cause and effect, especially with Con's strong academic research said to be superior throughout the debate. The impacts are also very vague as Con notes in an almost Whiteflame-like way. Sum1 needs to show significant and strong reasoning for school uniform enforcement, especially compared to "can or can choose not to, your choice". Sum1 could've made the point that letting people choose is counter-intuitive as choosing the uniform could lead to even more bullying as you infer your are poor, or a goody two shoes who wants to wear the uniform. But he didn't. Round 4 could've been crucial to turn this debate around, but sadly sum1 didn't use it. So with only the three rounds in place, Con demonstrated that US's freedom of expression is clearly violated and not truly contested. Sum1 could've mentioned how wristbands, necklace, earrings, etc. could still allow students to express themselves. He failed to do so. There are a lot of really good pro arguments but sum1 did not thoroughly express them all. Con put a lot of doubt in the ones that sum1 made.
Extra feedback: If you cannot find impact, Pro, try evaluating more on the trustworthiness of the studies, especially since it's Kenya vs an overarching view. Stand your ground with extra logic if you cannot find the studies that show the reasons why uniforms enforce discipline. Link it to how work expects a professional standard which is upheld by the uniforms, and can enforce a better environment. Link it to how it allows students to be more organized with their closet and fully embody the idea of schools' teaching environment. In addition, variations of the uniform can solve a lot of the problems with expression that con point out.
I don't think you understand how "X causes Y" debates work. If I used Australia to demonstrate gun ban leads to crime rate dropped, that doesn't mean all gun bans cause crime rates to lower.
if you've been on debate.org, Debateart is not a site where you can impose incredibly strict and unreasonable rules. For example, If I created the same debate as you and said:
"Violation of any rules is a full 7 point forfeit. Forfeit a round = instant loss. No kritikis. Definitions cannot be contested.
I think Undefeatable in his rebuttal with inability to type reduce physical down to psychological he wanted to make an argument like this article: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/yes-free-will-exists/. It's just a bit more complicated and deduced from negation rather than positive. Too complex for me lol
you might want to re-read my vote. I don't like how dishonest Pro was in setting up and unwilling to think of other ways to prove the resolution. It's entirely possible to win this with usual definitions, merely very difficult
If this debate was "It is more philosophically justifiable to trust in Wikipedia as a reliable source of information than Fox News", he would have to define trust because the philosophy behind trust is more complex than accuracy and bias. However, because Con agrees with Brooklyn university and tries to have Pro shoot himself in the foot, we accept that accuracy + bias form together trustworthiness as a result.
think of it this way, In a "net benefit" debate we do not debate what precisely is actual benefit. There does not need to be an inherent standard (unlike utilitarianism), but rather we evaluate the impacts of the ideals through common sense. Take UBI for example. Obviously you would want to gain 1,000$ dollars financially. The purchase power is a net benefit on its own. Now we bring the US gov in, and say, the budge increase would be a net detriment. There is no Kritik where we say we must have the budget be so great that the gov is completely destroyed, replaced with a better one, because that is simply absurd to think about. Granted, in a non net-benefit debate, we could definitely argue whether to keep the US gov structure, but destroying the entire hierarchy merely to support UBI is insane and head-scratching. Now, personally Whiteflame has told me that it may be plausible to prove in a net benefit debate about public schools, that the entire system is so broken we must completely tear it down and break it back up. But once more, the Charter school relation must be shown that it will indeed challenge the system so much that it will renovate it completely. Even though there is no "universal standard" for "benefit the quality of education" or "benefit the finance", the widely agreed upon standards create a tautology for the beneficial debates.
If the finance grows, it is presumed to be a net benefit. If education results in people learning more information, however useless, it is presumed to be good. Challenging the entire framework system only works in a legality debate, which this is not about. So we have to ... "trust in trust", if you get what I mean.
Sure he hasn't, but with only 5k of argument, it is assumed that based on Brooklyn University's basic standard of evaluating reliability that Wiki adheres to it the most. It just so happens that he wasn't able to outweigh editing problems and prove Fox's numerous errors. Even Stanford Encyclopedia (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trust/) says Trust is warranted when:
plausible, again, only if the conditions required for trust exist (e.g., some optimism about one another’s ability). Knowing what these conditions are requires understanding the nature of trust.
well-grounded, only if the trustee (the one trusted) is trustworthy, which makes the nature of trustworthiness important in determining when trust is warranted.
justified, sometimes when the trustee is not in fact trustworthy, which suggests that the epistemology of trust is relevant.
justified, often because some value will emerge from the trust or because it is valuable in and of itself. Hence, the value of trust is important.
plausible, only when it is possible for one to develop trust, given one’s circumstances and the sort of mental attitude trust is. For instance, trust may not be the sort of attitude that one can will oneself to have without any evidence of a person’s trustworthiness.
Now of course, there can be two different kinds of trust: 1. Vast majority of rational people believe in some information; 2. The fact is proved beyond reasonable doubt with axiomatic backing. As we cannot use 2 inside this debate, we are forced to deal with the subjective level of trust. The plausibility, grounded nature, and justification of the trust all lead back to emotional bias influencing ideals and accurateness of the fact. It is true that humans can be wrong about their trusted ideals, but in general, experts should be able to deduce ideas and facts better, making the research on wiki that much more reliable than the ones about fox news. Pro just failed to link it back to how knowledge's power allows wiki to win out, compared to Fox's inability to surpass even legal definition of trust. Even with Tabula Rasa in our mind, the establishment of trust is intuitively from our experiences, from gathering information, from repeatedly checking upon facts and thinking over if they are correct. Therefore, philosophically we must accept Oromagi's definition from the basis. Due to the problematic of using tertiary sources and citing the Wiki page for academia, however, Con thoroughly wins here.
Okay. But if the source wasn't published on NCBI, could we really trust it? The discussion admits, it doesn't capture structural racism. You need replication to prove generalizability. They admit potential selection bias. They underestimate structural racism and myocardian infraction. So basically it's saying "don't trust us" in a roundabout way.
you know, I just realized something. If your determinism argument works, then we have no control over our thoughts, and so the genes determine morality ultimately. What a weird inference, but, it seems to work.
to be fair, 99% of research says they are problematic. From Undefeatable's Systemic Racism debate for example, the source (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4133127/ -- which Undefeatable notes, gathers dozens upon dozens of sources to prove its ideas) admits:
" limitations should be noted. First, although we obtained numerous measures of structural racism, these measures do not fully capture the construct of structural racism.
our results require replication across different spatial scales to determine the generalizability of the results.
Although we controlled for health insurance, there may be racial differences in healthcare access for a diagnosis of myocardial infarction, and clinical outcomes would partially circumvent this potential selection bias
our results are likely an under-estimate of the relationship between structural racism and myocardial infarction"
All trusted research MUST say it is not comprehensive and there is more work to be done. It is impossible that all research and information is conveyed with 100% accuracy, even with collection of sources or meta analysis. Despite admitting potential bias and limitations, the causation and correlation is highlighted.
Yes, I placed very little impact on the paradox however, the scholarly basis destroys pros own argument. Pro wanted to say, you judge research by accuracy and bias. Con says you can’t even use as reliable resource of info.
I think Oromagi has gone rusty from lack of framework based debates. If he was arguing about Death Penalty he would likely argue it from a legal perspective, but also likely miss out on moralistic framework, economic basis, etc (and probably fail to justify which one we should prefer the most). That's what I feel at least.
funnily enough, I have a bias towards Wiki. The mediabiasfactcheck.com almost completely convinced me, until I realized that this was only part of the framework where Pro was working under. If the title had been the same as my debate (which Oromagi tries to establish the framework that it is the same), with identical arguments given, Oromagi would've certainly gotten my vote
If it helps to see my perspective, check out the "abridged debate" which I added to my RFD which I try to reduce their arguments as much as possible so that only the non repeating essential claims are there.
to be fair, when first reading over the debate, I made all the linkage for Oromagi necessary to win the debate. Oromagi wins if I accept:
- When people casually read over sources they don't care about research standard of citation with tertiary sources
- We ought to evaluate the information that Wiki provides, and its status with correctness, rather than the potential downfalls
- We should evaluate the established credibility, by the 8 different scholarly standards, ignoring the research standard that Con tells us
But he didn't say that we should assume all three. He just kind of put these three implications here and expected to win based off that, despite the plausibility that the reliable source of information use should be based off of a research framework (rather than a casual framework). As Pro did not justify this exact differentiation, I feel like he loses if I don't add extra ideas that he's working for.
thanks. Hopefully, you won't be able to trash me in Fruit's argument that wiki is not a reliable source of information at all, relative to research. Providing information is subtly different from being a source of information.
It kinda does seem bandwagon but I didn't really go completely tabula rosa as I mostly went from assumptions I already had from reading the first two rounds. The last round and context of debate as a whole does change the decision overall in my opinion. By Virtue of Fruit continuously doubling down on the same point, he's able to achieve the impact of the central argument, contrary to Oromagi who never disputed that he used the same source for standard of research (unlike my debate against you, "source of information" is different in precision against "information that is provided", which I believe is what Oromagi wanted to argue)
Should I have mentioned human cloning? I couldn't find a good way to penetrate the scientific basis on normal grounds even with uncertainty added to try to absolutely reduce the babies' rights. I lost motivation because I felt he didn't give a good reason why you should be punished for taking the 1% chance (especially since the doctor is the one actually being punished instead of MisterChris's argument about charging woman with manslaughter).
Or maybe how Patmos's plan encourages quack doctors who are willing to risk getting jailed performing unsafe abortions rather than real doctors.
You might as well directly challenge Misterchris. He is the only user above 1600 who wants and can argue con side well.
Can you be more specific in what "is more democratic" means? Does this mean in practice capitalism is more democratic? Or on a pure ideological basis? It's unclear which side should/can be argued.
I hope you don’t mind me accepting. I found your argument far more flawed than MisterChris
define illegal in mostly all cases
there's one thing I can't get out of my head-- why didn't you buy that the idea that the fetus was only going to be a baby like 20% of the time? doing more research on if Chris's argument was possible to challenge, I found an interesting article rewording my link in a more direct way: "Viability is a claim about what action can be taken in the present based on an anticipated future that is never to be. Viability is a measurement only sensible as applied to a neonate post-birth, but it is used to define the status of a fetus in utero. Moral arguments from viability thus treat pre- and post-birth as though they were equivalent states, when the very argument is that they are not.
In the end, rather than seek moral absolutism where there is none, the only legitimate answer in law is to embrace individual moral judgment on its fairest terms. There is a human rights argument that the judgment of those most affected, pregnant women themselves, should matter most, and it is thus their moral judgment about later abortions in which collective faith and trust should be placed.36 This is the sentiment driving popular Trust Women abortion movements. Gestational time limits thus implicate human rights of more than access to services, but of women’s freedom in conscience, equality, and liberty. " (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5473036/)
admittedly it takes the moral grey ground rather than talking about how viability downright is ridiculous/implausible, and raises the woman's right as the only remaining resolution possible. Chris's argument is particularly worrisome because it infers that even if the baby's birth was determined by a 20 sided dice we should still refuse to give the woman the moral claim to her body. I'm not seeing a way to defeat it...
This debate is pretty much impossible under normal circumstances. I recommend you change the description so that people can't use the same solution to racism you asked for and say if nobody exists on planet earth than "all people have accepted homosexual marriage".
wanna try voting? It's not really philosophy, but it's pretty logical.
ez vote
did you mis-tag me and my "poor RFD"? I didn't vote at all. I was giving my personal opinion. If you'd like, you can invite Ragnar instead next time as a voter.
personal thoughts: sum1 showed there was at least some correlation, but didn't truly link it to cause and effect, especially with Con's strong academic research said to be superior throughout the debate. The impacts are also very vague as Con notes in an almost Whiteflame-like way. Sum1 needs to show significant and strong reasoning for school uniform enforcement, especially compared to "can or can choose not to, your choice". Sum1 could've made the point that letting people choose is counter-intuitive as choosing the uniform could lead to even more bullying as you infer your are poor, or a goody two shoes who wants to wear the uniform. But he didn't. Round 4 could've been crucial to turn this debate around, but sadly sum1 didn't use it. So with only the three rounds in place, Con demonstrated that US's freedom of expression is clearly violated and not truly contested. Sum1 could've mentioned how wristbands, necklace, earrings, etc. could still allow students to express themselves. He failed to do so. There are a lot of really good pro arguments but sum1 did not thoroughly express them all. Con put a lot of doubt in the ones that sum1 made.
Extra feedback: If you cannot find impact, Pro, try evaluating more on the trustworthiness of the studies, especially since it's Kenya vs an overarching view. Stand your ground with extra logic if you cannot find the studies that show the reasons why uniforms enforce discipline. Link it to how work expects a professional standard which is upheld by the uniforms, and can enforce a better environment. Link it to how it allows students to be more organized with their closet and fully embody the idea of schools' teaching environment. In addition, variations of the uniform can solve a lot of the problems with expression that con point out.
You might like this
To be fair his name is Undefeatable not Victorious
easy-ish debate to vote on.
I don't think you understand how "X causes Y" debates work. If I used Australia to demonstrate gun ban leads to crime rate dropped, that doesn't mean all gun bans cause crime rates to lower.
now its your turn to end your win streak!
ikr, and it wasn't even whiteflame who did him in.
Checkmate is not wylted. Wylted likes to do debate about rape, pedophilia, etc. not affirmative action and god being a murderer
if you've been on debate.org, Debateart is not a site where you can impose incredibly strict and unreasonable rules. For example, If I created the same debate as you and said:
"Violation of any rules is a full 7 point forfeit. Forfeit a round = instant loss. No kritikis. Definitions cannot be contested.
I define Worshiping God as Worshiping a murderer.
Good luck."
I guess the premise is too difficult to prove as is. I need a more stringent topic to win my side.
I think Undefeatable in his rebuttal with inability to type reduce physical down to psychological he wanted to make an argument like this article: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/yes-free-will-exists/. It's just a bit more complicated and deduced from negation rather than positive. Too complex for me lol
the ultimate matchup
MisterChris's argument
vs
MisterChris's refutation guide
who would win?
you might want to re-read my vote. I don't like how dishonest Pro was in setting up and unwilling to think of other ways to prove the resolution. It's entirely possible to win this with usual definitions, merely very difficult
I wonder if I can make this a "net balance" debate. Hm.
we asked for clarification. Pro was confused. Pro offered a similar legal definition from Cambridge in R2 and essentially conceded the debate.
You just admitted it has to be a crime. Lol
You’re allowed to cast another vote, just get rid of the part where you mention stuff that the two didn’t say.
bump
bump
To be fair though, I could pull the 9,000 IQ move with saying you are still alive in heaven or hell so you never truly die lol
Come back when you have the correct definition of murder. It’s like saying 1=2 and you define 1 as 2.
If this debate was "It is more philosophically justifiable to trust in Wikipedia as a reliable source of information than Fox News", he would have to define trust because the philosophy behind trust is more complex than accuracy and bias. However, because Con agrees with Brooklyn university and tries to have Pro shoot himself in the foot, we accept that accuracy + bias form together trustworthiness as a result.
think of it this way, In a "net benefit" debate we do not debate what precisely is actual benefit. There does not need to be an inherent standard (unlike utilitarianism), but rather we evaluate the impacts of the ideals through common sense. Take UBI for example. Obviously you would want to gain 1,000$ dollars financially. The purchase power is a net benefit on its own. Now we bring the US gov in, and say, the budge increase would be a net detriment. There is no Kritik where we say we must have the budget be so great that the gov is completely destroyed, replaced with a better one, because that is simply absurd to think about. Granted, in a non net-benefit debate, we could definitely argue whether to keep the US gov structure, but destroying the entire hierarchy merely to support UBI is insane and head-scratching. Now, personally Whiteflame has told me that it may be plausible to prove in a net benefit debate about public schools, that the entire system is so broken we must completely tear it down and break it back up. But once more, the Charter school relation must be shown that it will indeed challenge the system so much that it will renovate it completely. Even though there is no "universal standard" for "benefit the quality of education" or "benefit the finance", the widely agreed upon standards create a tautology for the beneficial debates.
If the finance grows, it is presumed to be a net benefit. If education results in people learning more information, however useless, it is presumed to be good. Challenging the entire framework system only works in a legality debate, which this is not about. So we have to ... "trust in trust", if you get what I mean.
Sure he hasn't, but with only 5k of argument, it is assumed that based on Brooklyn University's basic standard of evaluating reliability that Wiki adheres to it the most. It just so happens that he wasn't able to outweigh editing problems and prove Fox's numerous errors. Even Stanford Encyclopedia (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trust/) says Trust is warranted when:
plausible, again, only if the conditions required for trust exist (e.g., some optimism about one another’s ability). Knowing what these conditions are requires understanding the nature of trust.
well-grounded, only if the trustee (the one trusted) is trustworthy, which makes the nature of trustworthiness important in determining when trust is warranted.
justified, sometimes when the trustee is not in fact trustworthy, which suggests that the epistemology of trust is relevant.
justified, often because some value will emerge from the trust or because it is valuable in and of itself. Hence, the value of trust is important.
plausible, only when it is possible for one to develop trust, given one’s circumstances and the sort of mental attitude trust is. For instance, trust may not be the sort of attitude that one can will oneself to have without any evidence of a person’s trustworthiness.
Now of course, there can be two different kinds of trust: 1. Vast majority of rational people believe in some information; 2. The fact is proved beyond reasonable doubt with axiomatic backing. As we cannot use 2 inside this debate, we are forced to deal with the subjective level of trust. The plausibility, grounded nature, and justification of the trust all lead back to emotional bias influencing ideals and accurateness of the fact. It is true that humans can be wrong about their trusted ideals, but in general, experts should be able to deduce ideas and facts better, making the research on wiki that much more reliable than the ones about fox news. Pro just failed to link it back to how knowledge's power allows wiki to win out, compared to Fox's inability to surpass even legal definition of trust. Even with Tabula Rasa in our mind, the establishment of trust is intuitively from our experiences, from gathering information, from repeatedly checking upon facts and thinking over if they are correct. Therefore, philosophically we must accept Oromagi's definition from the basis. Due to the problematic of using tertiary sources and citing the Wiki page for academia, however, Con thoroughly wins here.
Okay. But if the source wasn't published on NCBI, could we really trust it? The discussion admits, it doesn't capture structural racism. You need replication to prove generalizability. They admit potential selection bias. They underestimate structural racism and myocardian infraction. So basically it's saying "don't trust us" in a roundabout way.
you know, I just realized something. If your determinism argument works, then we have no control over our thoughts, and so the genes determine morality ultimately. What a weird inference, but, it seems to work.
to be fair, 99% of research says they are problematic. From Undefeatable's Systemic Racism debate for example, the source (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4133127/ -- which Undefeatable notes, gathers dozens upon dozens of sources to prove its ideas) admits:
" limitations should be noted. First, although we obtained numerous measures of structural racism, these measures do not fully capture the construct of structural racism.
our results require replication across different spatial scales to determine the generalizability of the results.
Although we controlled for health insurance, there may be racial differences in healthcare access for a diagnosis of myocardial infarction, and clinical outcomes would partially circumvent this potential selection bias
our results are likely an under-estimate of the relationship between structural racism and myocardial infarction"
All trusted research MUST say it is not comprehensive and there is more work to be done. It is impossible that all research and information is conveyed with 100% accuracy, even with collection of sources or meta analysis. Despite admitting potential bias and limitations, the causation and correlation is highlighted.
Yes, I placed very little impact on the paradox however, the scholarly basis destroys pros own argument. Pro wanted to say, you judge research by accuracy and bias. Con says you can’t even use as reliable resource of info.
lol yeah sorry, wasn't feeling up to it. I'm just tossing around ideas.
Sure. Try not to be too biased
I think Oromagi has gone rusty from lack of framework based debates. If he was arguing about Death Penalty he would likely argue it from a legal perspective, but also likely miss out on moralistic framework, economic basis, etc (and probably fail to justify which one we should prefer the most). That's what I feel at least.
funnily enough, I have a bias towards Wiki. The mediabiasfactcheck.com almost completely convinced me, until I realized that this was only part of the framework where Pro was working under. If the title had been the same as my debate (which Oromagi tries to establish the framework that it is the same), with identical arguments given, Oromagi would've certainly gotten my vote
he's from debate.org, he's not here.
I should've argued Nihilism instead. Doing nothing is the best solution possible, because nothing matters.
nuuuuuuuu
If it helps to see my perspective, check out the "abridged debate" which I added to my RFD which I try to reduce their arguments as much as possible so that only the non repeating essential claims are there.
to be fair, when first reading over the debate, I made all the linkage for Oromagi necessary to win the debate. Oromagi wins if I accept:
- When people casually read over sources they don't care about research standard of citation with tertiary sources
- We ought to evaluate the information that Wiki provides, and its status with correctness, rather than the potential downfalls
- We should evaluate the established credibility, by the 8 different scholarly standards, ignoring the research standard that Con tells us
But he didn't say that we should assume all three. He just kind of put these three implications here and expected to win based off that, despite the plausibility that the reliable source of information use should be based off of a research framework (rather than a casual framework). As Pro did not justify this exact differentiation, I feel like he loses if I don't add extra ideas that he's working for.
thanks. Hopefully, you won't be able to trash me in Fruit's argument that wiki is not a reliable source of information at all, relative to research. Providing information is subtly different from being a source of information.
It kinda does seem bandwagon but I didn't really go completely tabula rosa as I mostly went from assumptions I already had from reading the first two rounds. The last round and context of debate as a whole does change the decision overall in my opinion. By Virtue of Fruit continuously doubling down on the same point, he's able to achieve the impact of the central argument, contrary to Oromagi who never disputed that he used the same source for standard of research (unlike my debate against you, "source of information" is different in precision against "information that is provided", which I believe is what Oromagi wanted to argue)
RoyLatham