Helz

@Alyssa

I am sorry that you feel that way.

While I do understand what you are asking I just do not feel that it matters as far as "Where did pro disagree" and such. It was you imposing an unfair standard that changed what the debate was after the debate had started. I voted based upon what existed prior to the debates start.

You may disagree with that and feel that people can alter debates as they go. I simply feel that any contest that does not have structure is a joke. I do not ever see myself changing that view.

And again- The rules you tried to make were slanted in your favor. Thats just not cool regardless of if ChatKnight disagreed with them or not. And you did effectively change the entire debate in a huge way.

"Is it good" allows for positions of scope. For Iran? For the region? For the world? For Islam? Etc. Tons of stuff could be unpacked. You forced the argument into the position you wanted to argue cutting out large portions of stances limiting discussions. And then you doubled down by adding a factor of time saying that long term good does not matter if short term harm is caused.

I have studied debate for very long time and I will flatly say this to you- There is many ways to win a debate. You can outplay your opponent with valid arguments or you can maneuver the discussion in your favor. You did both in my opinion. But I do not consider you shifting goal posts and re-defining the debate after you accepted it as valid. Had you done so before hand I would think differently but yes- I am critical of that and I do not see why you view me voicing that both sides fulfilled their win condition in a flawed format as a bad take.

I am very open to understanding what you think and how you feel things should go. I will listen to what you tell me but I do have a very solid point here that I gave a lot of consideration to. If you feel I am just bad because you disagree and think you should be allowed to move goalposts and create slanted standards mid debate thats on you.

Because I feel your framework has 3 major problems-

1- It was moving the goal posts 'after' the debate already started. The time to declare win conditions was absolutely prior to the debate. Not in the middle of it.

2- The framework you created placed 2 obligations on your opponent with only 1 on yourself. That is just not fair.

3- The framework you created changed what the entire debate was. The presented debate was if it was good or bad and you changed that into a debate about if it was good or bad for Iran.

This is why I did not factor your framework into my decision. It did not impact the result and given what Savant voiced you will be the winner. With that I have two questions for you-

1- Why does my take bother you? I gave a neutral vote with fair reasoning and I still have not herd you say what you feel is unfair about it past I did not go along with what you wanted

2- Do you think I have bias here? Why would I possibly have a reason to vote neutrally on a topic as I repeatedly state I felt you showed more skill in the debate? I do not even understand why I am getting the 5th degree of questioning here.

@Alyssa

I do appreciate you linking me to the rubric. I was unaware and will keep it in mind.

I am not sure where you see bias from me. I use the words "I feel" sure. I do have feelings on whats objectively fair. And its not like I took a position pro or con here. I simply worked off what was established prior to the debate. Shifting the goal posts during debates is something I am rather sensitive to which is what I do feel you did.

"You think my framework is unfair? Cool, point to me where Pro makes the argument my framework is unfair."
This is asking something I have directly quoted and explained already. Yes- 100% you created a framework where Pro must argue 2 qualifications while con must only argue one -and- you did shift the criteria of good or bad into a tangential 'good or bad specifically for Iran' after the debate had started. That did very objectively happen and I have directly quoted you and explained where I saw that. I am unsure why you are dredging this up.

Seems like your opponent violated AI violations and you will win regardless. But again- I have no horse in this race and do not have a personal relationship with either you or your opponent. I have directly and repeatedly asked how you feel I should have evaluated things differently but from the pre-established qualifications of what the debate was I do feel both sides substantiated their win condition. One of the problems when debates are created that do not have a diametrically opposed win condition is that both sides can win.

Dude cheated with AI? Savant was more thoroughly digging than me which I will learn from. Im rather new and learning how stuff goes here but I am truly just giving an unbiased take on how I see things. I am sorry if you dislike my conclusion but I do not understand where you do not see the position I am voicing. Its absurd to me for people to move goal posts after a debate was started and I do see a very hard slant in the framework of wincon you created. I do not recognize you imposing your own rules that favored your position after the debate started as valid. I feel thats a very fair view from me that is very clearly demonstrated in your argument.

And yet again I will voice I felt you argued better in many ways. Duno if you care about that but I have been very clear about that. 'if' I was simply voting on who was the more skilled debater 100% you had it in this showing -but- thats unfair imo. The best person does not always win in contests. Its not a question of who is the best but rather who does the best in that contest across any field of competition if that makes sense.

Well to narrow it down, I will again voice that I do feel you debated better here.

I will again say that yes, I do absolutely feel your framework of win conditions imposed an additional obligation on your opponent as well as that it shifted what the debate was at its core from "was this good or bad" into "was this good or bad specifically for Iran"

I do simply feel its more fair to go off what was in the title and description than a framework you made that I do feel is slanted in your favor by design.

I do understand you were responding to an argument in R4. But I also do see it as you invalidating their position bringing time into the situation. You effectively acknowledge short term harm and passively recognize long term gains while presenting a cost benefit invalidation. Its a valid take, but does pivot the qualification from if there is good to weighing good how quickly and diving into the ethical questions of if the means justify the ends. I do not think it is a bad position to unpack.

Im again unsure of what you feel a more fair evaluation could be and totally open to hearing it. I have no emotional attachment to the positions I am voicing. Just cold logic.

Well yes, I do think the description box is part of the debate. Its where I see rules outlined and specifics declared on how things should go. Without that all you have is a prompt and I do feel that is recognized by the server owner given my discussions with them as well as how I see the community viewing topics with comments to modify that description prior to starting a debate.

The idea that Pro has to defend is just a concept in formal debate. When someone makes a claim they must defend that claim and the opposing side argues against it. That can be modified to a neutral but it is a general function in formal debate overall.

Is setting a framework a "weird dynamic" or "unfair" no. Absolutely not. But in your case I see it as such because you declared this in your own words "Pro must argue that the assassination of Ali Khamenei will promote regional stability and peace within Iran" Key bit there- the "and" You make two demands on the pro.
Then for your condition you state "I must argue that this assassination will destabilize Iran" They get an "and" but you do not. You have created a larger burden on your opponent than on yourself. This is unfair. And yes- I do see it as a weird dynamic to jump into a debate and re-define the rules in your favor after the debate has started. That should objectively be done and agreed upon prior to the debate in my opinion.

As to if you said pro has to prove "long term" regional stability your R4 argument suggested it here- "I categorically reject the idea of short term tragedies being worth long term prospects of peace." This shifts the qualification of points temporarily (which were not qualified to begin with) invalidating their position. While I think your argument had merit here its again re-defining the criteria which was poorly established prior to the debate starting.

As to this question (Quoting it for ease) "And I'm very confused as to how this debate isn't an example of "Pro needs to argue something and Con needs to counter it" or how both sides of this topic can be true. The topic is "was killing Khamenei good or bad". I'm not sure how both sides of that can be true at the same time."
The devil is in the details. You define 'good' as 'good for Iran' with the additional burden on pro of 'good for the region' and the follow up assertion of 'short term good.' I simply looked at the description and saw was a "tyrant toppled or Pandora's box opened?" being the qualifying factors. Thats two separate things for each side to justify. Did each side do so? Yes. But again- This is why I feel the debate did not have a diametrically opposed issue to begin with for fair objective voting from an outside perspective.

Feel free to explain to me how you feel I should have viewed the situation. I studied debate in college and have many years in practice. If you see a more fair way I could evaluate the situation please let me know and I am 100% open to hearing it. Do you feel it would be fair for me to vote based upon your adjustment of the win qualifications given it was certainly slanted? Or that I would vote based upon what was agreed prior to the debate? Or maybe that I simply voted for who showed the most skill regardless of if they did well?

Feel free to tell me where you think I am wrong and I am a new user here and could be missing a lot but I feel saying you were the better debater while its a tie is a pretty fair concept. And any single user on the forum can disagree and tip the scales in either way.

@Alyssa

The functional issue was more that core debate itself did not hold a diametrically opposed issue imo. Was a tyrant toppled? Yes. I feel that was substantiated. Did it 'Open pandoras box' also yes. I feel you argued that very well.

Between the two of you I feel your arguments were much better. If I were to vote for the better debater in this thread I would hands down give that to you but that would be biased of me in some respects. Formal contests are not about who was better but rather who won. If that makes sense. In this situation I do not see a place where I can call one side or the other the victor if I am considering the clarification in the description as the qualifying factor of winning.

To answer your first question I feel your framing would have been a strong improvement to the format although it did have a substantial burden shift- "Pro must argue that the assassination of Ali Khamenei will promote regional stability and peace within Iran, while I must argue that this assassination will destabilize Iran."
This places an additional burden on the pro. They must both argue regional stability in addition to arguing it created peace within Iran while you would have only had to argue if it was destabilizing for Iran.

Thats a bit unfair and I feel its a weird dynamic to shift the winning qualifications of a debate in general after the debate has started. If this is normal for this site ehh.. Call me wrong but also I feel theres a structural issue with how debates are done if people after starting a debate get to change the rules.

For the second one R4 doubled down on that. You do point to long term goals of regional stability that you outlined as a requirement for Pro but not for yourself and you outline that it made things less safe for Iran which relates to your requirement. Then you reject long term gains for short term costs as justified which is slightly outside of your earlier framework.
This is followed by a very clear statement: "the winner of the debate is the side that best proves that the assassination of Ali Khamenei promoted or harmed stability within Iran" which again- I feel is outside of the established debate upon creation.

Duno if that helps explain my opinion. I absolutely feel you debated very well and better than your opponent but those were the factors I considered. I generally feel Pro should prove something and con just needs to counter it well while this one held a weird grey area of two sides being required to argue separate things that can both be true at the same time. Then the factor of 'is adjusting win-con mid debate binding?' feels like an entire debate in itself that draws to moving goalposts.

I wanted to vote on this one and did read through it but this debate was a mess imo. Somehow the initial question of was it good or bad got shifted into was it good or bad for Iran by the end of cons argument while pros argument started with people are happy about it and cons equally countered with ramblings of how people felt about it. (The quote saying "By attacking the peaceful nuclear facilities" made me laugh my ass off that Con sited btw. Thats fucking funny. Peaceful nuclear facilities? Really?)

I'm honestly not seeing much to suggest it was either good or bad with intention and result not being addressed and instead leveraging on reaction with little drawing back to long term implications backwards in time or forwards.

I do think Alyssa debated harder though if that matters. Just my opinion.

I appreciate the debate. Took me a second to figure out the format and I did everything I could to avoid searching data points past dates laws were passed. I was not even aware which side I was arguing but that was fun. Would be cool if the site created a more open format for topics imo and I would honestly like to see some framework created to handle AI use but that was a good time.

I am of the exact same line of thought. While I do not disagree with AI's use I absolutely think it should be declared up front and defined in terms of how its used prior to engaging.

Im not sure if there is an area to suggest rules for the site but this would make a lot of sense especially when debates are handled as formally as they are.

Im not gona vote but I do feel that absolutely any use of AI in a debate is unacceptable. Maybe you just edited with it but its something that I see as an utter abuse of debate in general and should probably not be touched. Would be like competing in a video game competition and hacking but 'just to modify your UI'
Maybe you did not gain direct advantage but just hearing you did use AI in any form at all makes me not want to debate you. (not saying this to be judgmental, just saying it for feedback on what you consider doing in the future.) Take that feedback for what it is.