Kohai's avatar

Kohai

Administrator

Member since

ELO 1536 Debates 26 Friends 33
Sign in to follow
Kohai

Abortion is NORMAL (only competent debaters respond)

Kohai voted Tie · 23 days ago

This debate went off track very quickly. The biggest problem in reading this debate is that it's unclear what the resolution is or what the burdens are that needs to be met.

First, the title is "Abortion is normal." But what does that mean? The rest of the debate went into a semantic dispute on whether or not it is murder / not murder.

Pro established that the definition of murder was illegal killing of a person on purpose. This framework and definiton was accepted by con so I will accept this framework.

Con immediately established the real problem: In some countries abortion is illegal killing which does meet the crtieria of murder. Pro states that those countries that criminalize it do so based on religion and not logic. Then finally we get some discussion on the bigger picture if abortion is wrong. But as con stated, that was an entirely different topic from what was originally posted.

Ultiamtely I'm voting a tie here because the debate went in many different and unrelated directions and the ultimate burden was unclear and unmet by either participant.

Advice to pro: For debates like this be very specific on what the actual resolutions and burdens are. Do you want to debate the ethics of abortion or the legality of abortion? These are two entirely different questions.
Kohai

There is no evidence that atheism exists

Kohai voted Con · a month ago

Burdens: Con needs to prove two main things: 1) There is *evidence* that Atheism exists; and 2) That this evidence leads to certainty that atheism exists.

1 round debates are always challenging to judge due to the fact that the opening side never has time to defend their opening. That said, I'll weigh this based on the framework provided by pro.

Framework
Pro is the only one to present a framework:

"Any evidence given for atheism is logically insufficient to establish certainty = It is impossible to prove with certainty existence of atheism."

Since the negative does not create their own framework, I am forced, by the voting rubrics, to use this framework when weighing these arguments.

The framework essentially covers pro's argument in a nutshell: It is impossible to prove anything with absolute certainty and thus it is impossible to prove that atheism exists.

Pro provides two main arguments:
1)Munchausen trilemma: All evidence requires evidence resulting an circularity. In addition, all evidence is circular, including people's claimed testimony (one of con's main arguments in their round).
2) Incompleteness theorem likewise proved that any closed system of claims results in inability to prove claims within a system

Con opens up by challenging whether or not these two things even apply to the resolution and using reducio to show why they don't. Ultimatley I do think con's arguments here are more compelling.

Next, he presents two major pieces of evidence for atheism: personal testimony, atheism being the default state, and everyday logic.

Atheism being the default state is ultimately what wins this debate for con. If the default state actually is atheism then we can confidently say that there is certainty that atheism exists.


Ultimately con wins the debate on the following reasons:
1) Con met his burden to prove that *evidence* for atheism exists;
2) Pro's arguments lead to reducido ad absrudum and don't apply to the resolution;
3) The default state is atheism, meaning absolute certainty for atheism actaully does exist.
Kohai

Atheists will NEVER be convinced of the existence of the gods of theism

Kohai voted Con · a month ago

This is essentially a semantic debate based around the words never and atheist.

pro maintains that an atheist cannot change their minds otherwise they’d be a theist. Con states that there are cases where an atheist could be convinced of the existence of God and gave several mechanisms for which this could happpen.

Pro’s response ignores the point and states The topic is about atheist believing in God, which is impossible

So boiling it down, pro’s argument is that by definition an atheist cannot believe in God. However, that is not what the debate resolution actually states: Atheists will NEVER be convinced of the existence of the gods of theism

So the real question comes to how to interpret that. Am I supposed to interpret this as meaning an atheist could never become a theist or am I suooosed to interpret this as centered on the definition of atheism and their respected views of theism.

Since there’s no discriotion and no framework I’m forced to decide this based on the wording context and how a person would normally interpret that phrasing the former is far more in line and con points that out.

For those reasons I think pro’s semantic definition debate collapses.
Kohai

Is it wrong to make slaves of some people?

Kohai voted Pro · a month ago

This debate went off track quite fast.

Pro makes several arguments that go completely unaddressed (ie humans cannot own anything worth less than themselves, no one is greater than another person) etc.

Con’s only reply is about enslavjng certain types of criminals. Pro argues that
1) Jail / custody is not the same as slavery
2) For those crimes the death penalty is better.

Ultimately this debate got off track very fast. But due to the unaddressed openings by round 1 and pro showing jail =/= slavery this debate goes to pro
Kohai

Should Israel have AI, and is how they are using it, is it right?

Kohai voted Con · a month ago

Intro

I'll begin by prefacing my RFD by stating that I wasn't quite sure what this debate was supposed to be about. I also wish to give a warm welcome ot Noah and congratulate him on his first. debate. I'll also commend both debaters for superb conduct throughout.

Resolution Analysis

The title of the debate isn't really clear and the burdens aren't either. The title
"Should Israel have AI, and is how they are using it, is it right?" implies that there are two things that Pro needs to prove: 1) That Israel *should* have AI; and 2) The way they are *currently* using it is ok. Even worse, the resolution isn't clear about when and where AI should be used by Israel. That becomes a problem because in round 1 pro brings up two completely different areas: military and economic use of AI. The economic point by Pro is dropped by con but is never brought up again. The entire rest of the debate centered on only how Israel is using AI in the military.

On AI use in the military I think con does a better job of establishing the significant harms and risks that AI could make. Specifically, I think con does a better job at handling the issue of false positives and connects those to real world harms better than pro. Example, con showed that a system with 10% of false positive can produce substantial harm and these real harms were left largely unaddressed by pro.

Advise to pro

Since you are new to the site and to debating one thing I suggest is to have a more narrow and much clearer resolution.