Leaning

I'm not actually all that familiar with RemyBrown, since I've not been reading anything they post for a 'long time now.
. . Still, if I did vote for a ban, I think he'd need to have broken DebateCraft laws/rules.

Kohai Round 1
COC, categories I expect are Identity‑Based Conduct and Metadata.
Argues Rem is a repeat reaction fishing troll.
5 likes, hard to quantify.
Will Con disagree with Pro summation of Rem's work targets?
"I am a rage baiter, I find it funny." - RemyBrown.
Personally I find many of Rem's posts trite and banal, they'd annoy me less if he stopped taking up forum space by creating a 'single thread called RemyBrown.
Kohai appears to give 'enourmous amounts of examples and data towards proof of Rem being a rage baiting Identity obsessed annoying number of posts troll.
I wonder how whiteflame will counter.

whiteflame Round 1
Argues permanent bans are the most extreme measure.
I suppose marking Rem as offensive 'could work, but I also think hide content marked as offensive should be active for users as the default.
Sure Rem, is high on the forum leaderboard, but that's a mark 'against him in my book. It shows how much a detrimental user is taking up screen time from useful website users.
"entice users to read" " It’s not AI"
I don't find such ringing endorsements, and it seems like an attempt at whitewashing,
We 'are a small still growing site, but is Rem encouraging or discouraging growth?

Mod Tools
Argues again the use of hide offensive content, and that this site is tooled towards user choice.
Argues the value of free speech, (I do find this persuasive)
I find my opinion tied.
Reason, though Kohai has done well in making case that Rem is a spam troll, whiteflame has sanded sharp edges of that depiction.
whiteflame has also leaned into lesser methods of mod intervention and value of free speech.
Hm, at this point I think Kohai needs to lean more into if Rem has broken site rules.

Kohai Round 2
Argues Mods have already used the lesser moderator tools, yet Rem has persisted in the same behavior.
"recycling the same basic argument ad nauseam and utilizing identity groups to gain reactions." (Yeah, that 'is pretty annoying waste of space by Rem)
Argues his framework and checklist are clearer than the one suggested by whiteflame.
Argues the replies to Rem's threads are by a small number of people. Inflating it's seeming posative engagement. (Additionally as Rem say's themself, they are trying to rage bait people, thus the number is inflated even more by just being a rage bait thread, little of value added.)
"an account operating chiefly to provoke through identity-based rhetoric regardless of technical compliance."
I like the way Kohai uses AI, for data 'finding, not in writing his arguments.
whiteflame needs to address troll accusation against Rem.

whiteflame Round 2
Argues Rem is merely using parody and absurdity in forum to highlight social issues.
Hm coc, "Insincere or clearly satirical attacks on identity groups in trolling or parody contexts."
This conflicts with Metadata not allowing "Trolling, deceptive, or incendiary identifiers."
Again emphasize that anyone can, at any time, change their content settings to avoid seeing Rems posts.
Argues some past conduct by Rem has already been addressed by the Mods, and should not weigh heavily unless repeated, which whiteflame argues they have not.
Argues it is not duty of Mods to remove bad or parody arguments.
I 'suppose, but Rems content still seems an irritating amount of human slop troll spam to me.
I'll need to skim debate again, bit undecided.

Kohai Round 3
Argues Round 1 negative experience was not addressed.
"because he operates chiefly to provoke through identity‑based rhetoric"
"not be read as parody or satire, but rage bait."
"WF mentions that the COC states under no actions merited: "Insincere or clearly satirical attacks on identity groups in trolling or parody contexts"; however, this does not mean that all forms or parody is protected. "
"Marking yourself as satire or parody does not make you immune to moderation."
"Throughout his body of work, Remy never identifies himself as a satirist or parody account. However, on repeated occasions, he does explicitly label his posts as rage bait."
Hm, is there a difference between clickbait and 'ragebait?
Personally I think either often results in lack of earnest honest conversation.

My reason for voting out Rem 'needs to be due to breaking the site laws.
COC does not allow "Slurs or persistent identity‑based hostility." or "Trolling, deceptive, or incendiary identifiers."
A problem though is I assume Rem avoids outright slurs. I'm not a fan of not allowing people the ability to state their gripes with group/s. Politics and religion are full of such.
The COC is broad, but a bit vague. Heh, which is what this debate is about I suppose, example/precedent.
"I know it when I see it" - Potter Stewart
"Our site needs to set a strong precedent that we will not tolerate marginalizing women and rape victims for shock content and rage baiting."
"for shock content and rage baiting." is what stands out to me. Hm, need to consider again whiteflame parody argument.
I'm leaning Pro.

whiteflame Round 3
I'm not strongly moved by the risk argument either way. What matters is the law/rules we decided on for the site, and whether Rem is breaking them.
Kohai quote of Rem 'identifying as a Rage Baiter is compelling. I'll probably read comments in debate as well, since such is where I expect Rem will make their own case.
Rems posts are more than values one disagrees with though, arguably he 'is a troll rather than satirist. If he didn't post his arguments in the 'way he does, I'd be less inclined to vote against Rem. Also the 'amount is annoying.
Argues against cumulation of many small events.
I'm not sure about this argument. I've heard some stores keep a tally of small thefts, until the amount stolen is worth jailtime. People sometimes build up multiple offensives in crime, that are not weighed individually but according to pattern and amount.
3 strikes are made of three 1 strikes, 3rd strike straw camels back. Bridge weight limit exceeded. Beaver gnawed through the tree.
"Do you believe that RemyBrown has harmed the site?" YES
"Do you believe that any harms he has caused have not been and cannot be addressed through any means other than a permaban?" YES, BUT SUCH IS DIFFICULT, VIOLATIONS ARE NOT EXACTLY QUANTIFIED.
"Do you believe that the choice to permaban RemyBrown is worth the broader risks to how site moderation is perceived, both in its use of the tool and who dictates its use?" YES, BUT WHAT MATTERS MORE IS WHETHER REM 'IS A TROLL OR NOT. WHAT MATTERS IS WHETHER HE CAN BE CONSIDERED TO HAVE BROKEN SITE RULES/LAWS.

I am inclined to vote for a ban, guy identifies as a ragebaiter, their threads are intentional.
. . . Debate was a tie I'd say, both sides did well, easy to read. Kohai impressive data gathering, whiteflame impressive mitigation, alternate views of Rem and consequences of decision.
LEANING THINKING, WILL READ OTHER VOTES AND COMMENTS
Savant,
What is to stop 'any offensive person from claiming they are just doing satire?
How can a request to Rem, that they stop being 'so rage baity, repetitive, crude, and offensive, be measured?
"It was voted in Survey #2 that an account that existed solely to make rage bait posts should be banned, but as has been pointed out, Remy’s account does not solely make rage bait posts"
Argues Rem should not be blindsided with law changes.
Argues worry of Mod changes in future, and given precedent power. (I find this convincing)
Mikal,
Various animals I've had, like to keep edging forward into places or towards food they know they're not supposed to have.
"So what now, Jack Sparrow? Are we to be two immortals locked in an epic battle until Judgment Day and trumpets sound?" - Barbossa
When the site becomes big, I dislike the idea of a mass of individuals 'constantly having to be shooed away from the rules line.
Shoresy,
I appreciate freedom of speech and different views and values. I don't appreciate people who are irritants for the sake of being irritants.
. . . I dislike people who tried to prevent Jordan Peterson from speaking.
. . . Society has many venues, but not all venues need accept all people, such as trolls.
fauxlaw,
Argues parody subjective.
Argues for Free Speech. (I appreciate Free Speech, but social clubs have a right to limit free speech in the case of rage baiters.)
Double_R,
Argues for progressive punishments, not outright ban, but that there needs to be 'a ban at 'some 'point.
I find thins convincing as reason to vote Con, and soon push for another 'temporary ban on Rem.
Helz,
Argues Rem repeatedly identifies as a rage baiter.
Suicide taunts,
(Well, I do think 'greater society ought allow even that. Smaller communities 'within that society though, I am for allowing their banning of such. Course it's a difficulty of 'what to allow smaller communities to ban or not. Where does larger society and small community line exist?
Personally I think stores 'should be allowed to refuse service to anyone, for religion, race, or creed. . . 'Except, the problem of 'living. One 'needs food to live. Darn socialism pops in as a solution, allow federal stores that deny service to no one. But allow private store discrimination. Tangent by me)
Mod team enabling Rem, (Fair point. . . But I think it will be easier to get a vote here against Rem)
RemyBrown,
Takes no responsibility and claims all political disagreement is rage bait.
I was leaning tie, now leaning Pro.
SatanLucy,
I don't agree with 'too 'much free speech.
Law is vague sometimes, frustrating, but just how existence is often.
I think the main people that talk to Rem are either outraged or puzzled by him.
SkepticalOne,
Thinking about the line.
"Slurs or persistent identity‑based hostility."
"Trolling, deceptive, or incendiary identifiers."
Grr, I find it hard to vote Pro.

Final RFV,
While annoying Rage Baiters are not 'necessarily Trolls. Ragebait is sometimes like clickbait on YouTube videos, which I usually always dislike button.
I dislike Rem, but I am not convinced he has crossed the blurry hazy line. Grr, But the blasted line blurs and fades between, so he kind of 'has crossed it 'repeatedly.
Avoiding blindsiding him is a strong argument.
People 'can hide offensive users and content.

. . . My vote goes to tie. If just debate, I'd vote Pro. Difficulty is information outside of debate. I am not deeply familiar with Rem.
I've not kept track of when he was banned and how much his behavior has or has not changed.

RFV Short
Con had more sources backing their claims and was able to push their definition of AI in the debate harder than Pro.
Pro makes some decent starts of arguments, but needed to back them up more with sources, demonstration, or example.
Handwaving is more workable strategy in conversation than formal debate, because in conversation opponent is usually more willing to meet you halfway.

Debaet Thoughts
Title,
Eh, depends on what one values, could go either way.
. . . But without tech, humans can be conquered by other humans, or even killed by animals.
Comments,
Hm, seems to be about AI specifically?
Eh. . . Depends again on what one values, but being less about tech in general, could be a bane easier I think.

novelnotions R1
Hm, I'm not 'sure that AI runs DebateCraft.
Timeframe is a question as well as definition of AI.
I'm sure AI 'is being used in a number of useful lifesaving ways, but it 'is good to give specific and sourced examples.

Argues that AI assists humans rather than replaces them.

Mag1cman R1
I wouldn't say Con refutes Pro here, but that is in large part because Pro has been a bit vague so far.
AI/LLMs, this is why debates should be specific in description I suppose.

Con uses source to argue AI contribution to climate change,
I say eh, we were on the way to climate change before AI.
. . . One might argue AI can be solution or mitigation to climate change, if we ever got AI workers going. Perhaps AI aid in global warming predictions or influencing the public.
But these are my thoughts, not Pros.

Con uses source to point out AI influence on misinformation.
Eh, I suppose, but people ought just not be so taken in by AI content.

Con uses source for times AI gets stuff wrong.
Pro should look for information whether AI gets it right more often, or whether it can be used 'responsibly with knowledge of error chance. Many tools in life have error chance, trick is using them carefully.
Sources argument for AI being a detriment to critical thinking.

Argues against slop.

novelnotions R2
1) Argues humans find utility in a great many devices that do human work.
2) Argues AI could provide faster and more precise information.
3) Pro needs to be more specific about the massive gains.
4) Hospitals and Satellites value are probably more visible to people than AI's value.
Pro has point though with Debate website, value of either hedonism or education.
5) Argues AI accuracy can be improved.
Pro isn't 'wrong, but I think examples and sources are good. Previous inventions improved or source with expectation of AI improvement.
6) Argues humans are dependent on many technologies.
7) Pro isn't 'wrong that humans can also spread disinformation, but it would 'really help their argument to include sources.
8) Argues poor AI use in classrooms is failure to implement, does not mean AI is bad.
Eh, some people used lead pipes, just because they 'could have used lead differently, did not mean that it wasn't a bane for many years.

Lists some valued uses about AI/Applications.

Thoughts,
AI was not clearly defined pre debate.
Con has been using a lot more sources, they give 'bit clearer idea of 'measurement.

Mag1cman R3
"do not have drawbacks as severe as A.I."
"where "every second counts," is quite rare. If you are warned minutes in advance, that is still plenty of time "
Sources some causes of death by natural disaster,
Points out non argument by Pro,
Argues hospitals and satellites are widely recognized as useful.

Pro has a bit of a harder spot since AI is a bit of a new tech.
I think Pro might have had an easier time if they had argued 'more for AI being recognized to a wider degree than Con wants.
But as debate is, Pro engages with a lot of Cons arguments of the more specific LLM AI.
Yes Pro sourced AI definition and made an effort to widen AI definition, but they needed a stronger effort.
Debate description being lacking, I am forced to use my own judgement on what is being debated.

Argues AI will not fix misinformation, but worsen it.
Hm, I don't really understand the various different AI.

"issue of dependency"
Pro 'does handwave a bit, yes voters might know what Pro means, but it's better in debates to argue the point, to give examples or sources.
. . . Some tools 'do make humans individually less capable, though they arguably add to human at large power.
I think that is an angle that Pro could have leaned more into, their 1-5 applications were along such lines.

"Calculators"
I'm bad at math.
Con argues death of critical thinking.

Con argues the ease that AI can generate misinformation.
This is something Pro 'could have addressed, by arguing existence of apps that check for fake creations.
A flaw though, is that such fact checking is not currently built 'into regular use.

Classroom argument by Con isn't as strong, but Con 'does have classroom sources from earlier.

Question of defining AI in debate.

RFV
I don't think Pro's logical points and conclusions make sense or follow from the claims.
I'm not sure IQ works as they implied.
Con, I think went with wordplay, but even if not 'defined in description, the implied meaning seems clear enough of what strongest debater is.
. . . Course, Pro has made joke debates before, so it is within possibility before their round 1, that they 'could have followed up with some type of strength argument.
1 round debate, neither side really criticizes.

Pro
I'm not sure IQ tests go up to 9000.
. . . I also sometimes wonder if there are limits to certain abilities, whether intelligence or strength.
. . Take math for example, there are various ways of doing an equation, but certain ways are best. One can max out their math ability, but for certain math tasks, the best one can accomplish is the ideal method.
Ideal method perhaps is attainable with average skill.
Speedrunners for example, are limited by the laws of the video game, even if some super fast Superhero were to speedrun a video game, the game is limited in such a sense that the max score is attainable even by the less able non superhero.

Strongest debater, smartest person assumes smartest person has greatest ability to win debates.
I glanced down, Con looks to be going for physical strength, I'm eh on wordplay.
. . Another angle would be to argue the effect of personality and achievements. Though one might be most able debater, they might not have chosen to 'achieve such, and from a certain point of view, would thus 'not be the strongest debater.

"P1. the only things I can perceive are those which are already part of my mind"
Hm, but we must 'sense the world to gain knowledge I think?
Playdoh does not have various shapes within it, though it has capability to become such by outside influence. Well, bit of nature and nurture, easier to mold playdoh than sand or a rock.

"P2. Parts of my mind cannot be greater or stronger or stronger debater than the whole mind, as they are already parts of mind"
I don't get it.

"Because other debaters cannot be proved to exist as independent minds, and I am proved to myself, I will always be the strongest debater."
Feels odd somehow. A fool could claim that others are not independent minds, doesn't make it true.

Con
Goes with the strength argument.
I just don't care for wordplay in debates, I think it is apparent 'enough what Pro meant by strength.

Is there a such thing as the right to marriage?

Ought there be for, Slaves in history, Someone in a different country, two people of different nationalities, same sexualities?
Consider American slavery laws or older Norman Conquest laws.

America during the Revolution talked much of Natural Rights, whether God given or Naturalistic Expectations.

SomeDebatePerson ROUND1
"Marriage is an agreement and contract."
Hm, not all marriages were agreed upon by the two married, time existed before paper contracts, but there were verbal contracts and understandings.
Course one might call times and places where one party or the other does not agree to marriage, slavery.
Semantics maybe.

"The government has the right to put restrictions on this"
The Right. . . I worry I'm overthinking, The 'Right. . . Right of the 'Strong.
Pro mentions age and mental capacity.
Can the Right to something not include such restrictions, or can one only have Rights to Unlimited Rights?

I don't see why someone couldn't have the Right to a Divorce.
Practically, depends most on culture though, I'd say.

LEANING THINKING
Rights are laws enforced and expected by individuals and groups.
If an individual or group enacts, expects, or legislates a Right to Marriage, it therefore exists?
. . . Hm, criminals exist, and societies that many would call evil in their laws.
Does a murderer have a 'right to murder? In their mind perhaps.
Or the state in it's executions.

Mal ROUND 1
Has an interesting perspective on Rights, such as the Bodily Right to Eat,
Though that seems more a requirement of function, than a right to me.

Argues for the function of humans in reproduction and family units.

SomeDebatePerson ROUND 2
I'm not 'unconvinced by Mals argument of RIGHT/EXPECTATION/PROBABLE.

I'm not convinced by SomeDebatePerson's source,
It says "there is no consensus on what rights are considered human rights"
But this requires Mal point such out, not me.
Mal 'did not that Rights were not defined in the debate description or round 1 by SomeDebatePerson.

Bill of Rights is mentioned in SomeDebatePerson's source, including Right to Bear Arms. Yet this is age based in America, yes? Yet clearly interfered with and not universal to all nations.
Nor do all nations agree on Freedom of Religion as a Right.
'Personally I am torn between the two sides in the debate, but lean towards Mal's naturalistic definition.
Though personally I think Rights are opinions spoke, evoked, expected and recognized yearning in others.

Would Right to marriage not be included in Freedom of Religion?

BETTER ARGUEMENT by SomeDebatePerson
I think is their historical argument on multiple spouses, extramarital affairs, and homosexual relationships.
Though it is also a destructive argument, in my view highlighting the subjectiveness of Rights.

SomeDebatePerson reminds all of debate description.
"Pro argues that marriage is a human right. Con argues that it is not a human right."

Inalienable confuses me though, Rights are obviously allowed or not.
There is expectation that they 'ought always be?
Except that expectation depends on individuals and groups 'allowing.

LEANING THINKING
I think SomeDebatePerson is doing well with destruction of Rights.
But they are open to subjective and legalistic attack, or marriage right laws existing.
Mal Naturalistic argument still not bad either, but I will have to read on further to see how it develops.

MAL ROUND 2
Some of what Mal says comes of as patronizing, though one assumes Mal is simply attempting that the debate should continue with best communications.

Argues human specifically refers to the living biological organism.

Questions where do human Rights come from, that no nation ought legislate them,
Implying Naturalistic argument I think, that Human Rights come from Human Nature.

Rights/Ability, is an interesting argument.

I don't think SomeDebatePerson is 'wrong to use legal, cultural, or dictionary.
Common understandings of words and phenomenon is useful to know what is being spoken of.
Though, it 'might make SomeDebatePerson's groundwork a bit broken and slippery, to use many different definitions.

Mal is a bit patronizing I think, though not to point of misconduct.
Just might end up irritating opponent or some readers maybe.

'Right to single other partner is a bit weaker argument I think,
Right to be able to contract agree to X partners, is better argument I think,
And still works within Naturalism Argument.

Mal is single minded building Natural Human Rights argument, which is not 'bad strategy.
But they could also be criticizing SomeDebatePerson arguments more I think.

One of the arguments I've been looking for from Mal
"law abiding people already have the right to marry by law"
One of the weak spots in SomeDebatePerson's Legal Arguments in my view.

Human Rights 'can be Religious debate I think, though it is not main focus in this debate I think.

Maybe it's 'just 'me,
But in a debate phrases such as "Do you get what I'm saying?" come off as patronizing, I think.

Nose picking,
Mal's arguments also have their own weak points perhaps.
Ability/Human Right, is not the most common understanding of Human Rights.
Side note, do Human Rights Trump Legal Rights?

"legislation didn't come into existence by civilization or by civil allowances but are initially human allowances, human entitlements."
Is a 'great argument by Mal for Naturalistic View of Human Rights and Expectations.

LEANING THINKING
Personally I'd give Mal the edge 'currently,
SomeDebatePerson nonagreement of Human Rights between nations legally hurts them.

SomeDebatePerson Con ROUND 3
I don't believe in human souls.
Ability to reason and think, arguably comes from genetics.

Declaration of Independence,
Again, it seems to me that SomeDebatePerson is covering to many angles and points of view.
It makes for broken and slippery ground I think.

Ah, argument I've been looking for from SomeDebatePerson,
Criticism of Rights as Ability/Function.
Right to sex, Right to rape.
. . . Still, I expect Mal will make counter to that, that such usually results in unhappy dysfunction of humans, death, conflict. Thus is 'not the ideal function, thus not Human Right.
Still, I see what SomeDebatePerson is going for, we shall see how it plays out.

Divorce, Legal Action.

Humans 'do have the right to masturbate or to kill themselves in some countries.

Coupling/Childcare/Marriage are of Naturalistic Human Needs is Mal's argument,
As eating is Naturalistic Human need, is the common point I think.

I 'really think the State Defined Human Rights argument is flawed, due to it's paradoxes.
Human states have 'frequently legislated/created new rights or disolved old rights, that other nations claim are human rights.
Mal already made argument of disagreements between countries, yet countries calling their own legal rights human rights.

The picking your nose argument doesn't quite work,
Because I don't think Mal has said that humans cannot enforce legal laws against human rights.

LEANING THINKING
I'd say Mal has edge in the debate so far.

Mal ROUND 3
Comes off as patronizing with their "Word of advice"
And some other stuff further down.

Eh, I think a soul/spiritual/religious angle 'could work on a debate about Human Rights, but I don't think SomeDebatePerson has dug into it enough for it to yet, for it to have strong effect.

Took a couple hours break, back to reading again.

Eh, I think Mal has the edge on naturalistic purpose/expectation of organs.
Course they don't 'have to be used that way, but Mal's argument is largely interpretation of Human Rights as Naturalistic.

"No duh"
Mal, I 'really think it makes readers dislike your arguments if you use language like this.

Thinking to myself again, some animals pair up in the wilds, for life. Some separate. I'm not sure it takes 'legal action to dissolve it.

Mal argues Human Rights/Expectations are legislated into the land, not the other way around.

I think SomeDebatePerson has done well earlier in using sources and definitions, but Mal 'has attacked them a fair bit here and there.

If we had more options in voting, I'd probably give SomeDebatePerson the Conduct points.

SomeDebatePerson ROUND 4
I really think it's swinging and missing for SomeDebatePerson arguing against Human DNA mattering. It's much easier for Mal to Focus on 'Human Rights applying to humans because were are 'Human DNA. Rabbits generally don't get Human Rights because they are not Human.

Course, interesting thought, if aliens existed, would they have Human Rights?
Possibly not, Person Rights maybe, but aliens might not have same mental or physical needs as humans. Not need exact same Rights, Alien Rights instead.

Animals 'do make contacts though, take dogs for example, they contract with humans they imprint on, are trained on, loyalty to 'that and those humans.
You might say that is not paper contract, is not well thought out, lacks consent.
Hm, course Animal Rights exist, in the sense they are 'given by humans.
But Mal's argument of Function/Right works out well for him in such a case.

Voting.
Family can kill you. (Yeah, but will continue line)
Divorce, Homosexuals, Scabs,
SomeDebatePerson asks a 'lot of questions, but I think Mal has done a better job of grounding their ideas.

Mal Round 4
An argument I was expecting and looking for,
Mal focuses on 'Human Rights.

Mal acknowledges means of survival can kill, but how else is one to survive.

Debate might have gotten a bit off course, and become more a debate about what Rights, what Human Rights are.
Debate probably could have been 3 or 4 rounds long.

SomeDebatePerson Con Round 5
Mal already made the argument that Rights are,
Expectation of function, probable, survival, survival of line, need,
Course there are criticisms of such a point of view.
. . . Possible that SomeDebatePerson let themself become too immersed into Mals arguments, and has neglected own definitions of Human Rights some.

It's a bit late to define marriage, but Mal in earlier arguments did seem to identify it in implications as two parents who have kids together and raise said kids.
Though there 'are as SomeDebatePerson has argued earlier marriages of many partners, or homosexual marriages.
One can see how this does not destroy Mal's arguments though, Mal can argue such are oddities to the norm, or acceptable by fufilling human pairing needs.

Per round 4 Mal said,
"The body does allow us the right to separate. You can call it "exiting marriage" , whatever you want."
Though right after they 'do imply an ought to stay together to preserve self and family.

Mal has had a more clear definition of what makes something a 'Human Right.

SomeDebatePerson brings up interesting ideas,
Can Mal's Human Rights ever be in contradiction with one another? can they change based on circumstance?

The homosexuality in Rome and Greece didn't tend to be 'marriage though I think.

Mal Round 5
Hm, they 'were around for the final round.
Course one might consider SomeDebatePerson's round 5 arguments to be dropped. .
But eh, one might argue debate 'bit circular, and one can use earlier round for consideration.

RFV
Possible SomeDebatePerson's harmed bit in not having more expansive description, but part of debate sometimes is bit more open description as not everyone goes in same box.
I think Mal was able to build a strong foundation for their arguments and stick to it.
While SomeDebatePerson perhaps got pulled a bit off course.
Mal possibly could have criticized SomeDebatePerson's Legal Human Rights more.
Mal loses some points for conduct.
But still, my view is that Mal wins out, debate also was circular enough, that missing final round did not hurt him that much I think.

SatanLucy Round 1
Going by Wikipedia, Juno is the Roman equivalent to Hera, and would hold Queen of Goddesses title I think.

The rhyming in SatanLucy's poem isn't bad.

Capitalization of letters in first part is missing compared to later parts.

Venus is more about love than darkness or night I'd figure?
Hm, glancing online, AI argues Venus known for being born from the seafoam, known for smoothing and calming waves.
Lady of the night/evening can be euphemism for sex workers.
Venera, the historic Soviet space program that survived the extreme darkness and hostility of Venus.

At a 'glance though, poem seems to be more about general praising and statements of reliance. Which isn't 'bad in itself.

GreatfulGoy Round 1
Hm, bit longer, and doesn't quite rhyme 'as much as Pro's.
Con's is more personal, yet seems more heartfelt somehow, in all the questioning, personal perspective, references.

Is it a 'poem though?
Eh, poem vague word, I would think.

Inclined to tie.

READING COMMENTS AND OTHER VOTES
#2, SatanLucy 'did say in the description that this is not a rap battle.
#3 Savant argues a rap requires diss.
Hm, I 'think I'm inclined to SatanLucy's thinking, but it's also a bit of a gray area, value of detailed description I suppose.
#5 Dissing of Mods,
One 'can make the argument that Con's round 'widened his source material. Thus that Pro's was more on topic.
Other view is that Con's round was 'still centered around Jesus, simply in a deeply personal lens.
#6 Music
Eh, ancient poems included music often, lyre. Modern poems as well, like those fancy jazzy poem performance clubs with finger snapping and light drums.
#16 "Clear in description that this is not a rap battle"
Hm, arguably there is a common understanding of what a rap battle is? Even if vaguely meant? . . Lot of Rap battles I've happened to see 'do focus on diss. Contention with other side. Which this debate did not have.
Is there a difference between a Poem Battle and a Rap Battle?
Hm, possibly poems tend to be slower, more focus on words than music. Though I maintain that poems were and 'are often read with music.
#44 "concede"
?

REREAD
Pro, part 1, repeats a bit about infinity and such, but it's not 'bad to repeat focus.
Part 2, "In storm in Queen's heart, my heart is found" not really 'my style for words to repeat.
Part 3, I can feel a mad focus of sorts, light and heavy, off kilter, I like it. "Win every fight" is what I mean by off step, it's a short following longer sentences, abrupt.
Part 4,
"Every gift from the Lady
Lady of the night
Every step of the Lady
Her own right"
Lady, she makes right. Would be what I would have written, in 'that part of repetition, I feel a kind of expectation in that "Her own right" that it is going to start with Lady.
I don't think it's a bad poem, especially when framed as personal strengthening poem of sorts.

Con,
To my thinking, God is above true names.
I like how Jesus rhymes with thesis.
I don't get the steel tip boots. Love even of those who Persecute I assume, that they may become less wicked.
Questions forgiveness even of evil people,
Questions what God wants,
"Tell me where Holy Spirit it in Nigeria "
Tell me where IS THE Holy Spirit it in Nigeria, 'possibly better?

The mixing of Jesus and God is a bit confusing, though Con admits such in start.
"Yeshua the one they name wrong as Jesus, even I do it, that's the thesis,"

Mods, makes song personal, which isn't 'bad, makes it more heartfelt in a way, powerful in emotion one 'see's in a person.
Arguably Pro's song also spoke much of themself in relation to Venera.

Questions death of the innocent, yet survival of villains.
Con's poem much more personal focused than Pro's.
Which isn't 'bad, I'm just looking for metrics to judge debate.
Arguably debate rules poems as ought be more focus on the two subjects, then interpersonal relationship.

Con speaks of being a tool of God, speaks of where art God.
Speaks prayer of hope for God.

RFV
Neither poem is 'quite my cup of tea, though I recognize the powerful emotions in both.
Pro's quicker shorter, madness felt, more on subject,
Con's longer, wider, which is good, but arguably lends away from debate description focus.
. . . Eh, I'm inclined to a tie.
Hm, question of Con's post being rap or poem?
Sorry, the intricacies of literature escape me.
If Con had addressed any of Pro's poem in their post, I'd be more inclined to call it rap.
Rap 'is poetry of a sort arguably.

It's been too long since I've read the Bible. . . Ah well. . .

Pro
'Appears to be making sneak argument based on the wording of debate titles.
If debate had more description, rounds, or more words in round 1, I might be able to better understand what or why Pro is getting at.
I think that context improves voter responsiveness. It is like that idea of two yard sales exact the same but in one way. One of the yard sales has a little note going along with each item, that tells a story about the item's providence and travels, people it has met.

When I see Pro's argument, I see a word trick.
But perhaps instead Pro worries about the idea of Hell,
Perhaps Pro wants to weigh the costs of following the Bible or not. Perhaps Hell would not be 'so painful as the 'greatest of pains?
But Pro's argument lacks context in this debate.

Con
Uses many sources for fire and pain.

I'm just going to address one,
(Isaiah 33:14)
https://biblehub.com/isaiah/33-14.htm

“Who of us can dwell with a consuming fire?
This rhetorical question underscores the recognition of God's holiness as a consuming fire, a metaphor used to describe God's purifying and judgmental nature (Deuteronomy 4:24, Hebrews 12:29). The question reflects the understanding that no one can stand before God in their sinfulness. The consuming fire represents God's ability to purify and destroy sin, emphasizing the need for repentance and holiness to dwell in His presence.

Who of us can dwell with everlasting flames?”
The everlasting flames symbolize the eternal nature of God's judgment and holiness. This phrase suggests the perpetual state of God's righteous judgment against sin. It points to the eternal consequences of sin and the need for redemption. In a broader biblical context, this can be connected to the concept of eternal separation from God for the unrepentant, as seen in passages like Matthew 25:41, where eternal fire is prepared for the devil and his angels. The question implies the necessity of divine intervention for anyone to stand in God's presence, foreshadowing the need for a savior, fulfilled in Jesus Christ, who enables believers to dwell with God through His atoning sacrifice."

Arguably there are Christians who consider the fire to be a metaphor.

Con addresses the wordplay, and argues their own argument is more thorough by addressing forever as well as greatest pain.
Con argues greatest pain could be in the everlasting part.

RFV Con
More sources, more arguments, criticizes Pro's arguments.
Being a 1 round debate, Con has great advantage able to address Pro's arguments, while Pro is not able to address Con's.

I hold friends pretty high. . .
Which is also why I try to avoid making them.
There 'are situations where I might put friends first, would theoretically risk life or wealth for.
Depends on a person's definition of friend and idea of duty.
. . . Even friendly acquaintances though, there are times I'm willing to put them first.
Though in the back of my head, there's always an analytic arguing all a selves actions are selfish for one reason or another. But that's too 'much pedantic semantics.

Rohith Round 1
Claims most friendships are not a boon, and have potential to turn into a curse.
That so called friends are often false, and because they know much of you, they can more easily harm you.

Leaning Thoughts,
I think there's truth in what Rohith says, friendships are often transactional. One is getting something, or paying an old duty. But that is 'all social relationships, even family.
Family too can betray, often knows more weaknesses about you than friends,
Yet, when it 'works, family is invaluable in survival.
Even dysfunctional, invaluable in survival, because family is chosen first above outsiders.
. . . Course in the 'worst families, outsiders will be chosen above you.
(Shrug) Of family and friends, very context dependent.
. . . But in 'general, family and friends are close knit, are agreements and duty, help each other. Valuable to make, to lean on, to network.

Mal Round 4
Claims friends are not secondary, argues that is an absolute statement.
Argues friends are subjective.

Leaning Thoughts,
Everything in life is subjective, but probables are spoken of, norms and expectations of definitions.

RFV TIE
I think Pro had better arguments, more expansive on the subject than Con.
Spoke of the danger of accepting friends.
One can say 'anything is subjective.
Still, I don't think Pros arguments are better to the degree I'd vote for Pro.
Both sides forfeited so many rounds, sure Con was 'around, but I'd really prefer to have seen even one more round of argument from Con.

TITLE/DESCRIPTION
I don't know 'how many immigrants are allowed into America, I'm just against the idea in general,
Except for going out of our way to attract the best of the best,
Or accepting a number of immigrants out of our countries duty towards them. We owed a lot of people in Vietnam and the Middle East because we got involved in those places, so if they were on our side and would be in danger for having been on our side, seems right we accept them as countrymen.
. . . I hate the idea of population replacement, a country should have loyalty to the people already there.
. . . I hate the idea of cheap labor, lots of jobs should pay more, or we don't 'need those jobs.

SatanLucy PRO ROUND 1
BUILT BY MIGRANTS
America was 'headed by the Britain I think?
Though migrants of many places were arguably useful in filling out the continent.
But don't we have 'enough people by now?

PROPERTY RIGHTS
USA 'does let foreigners buy property yeah, but that doesn't mean they can migrate.
And it doesn't mean the government doesn't still own that property, just the way it ended up going in America. Darn American taxes.

FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT
BODY AUTONOMY
Hard disagree, and obviously untrue. National borders exist.

WANTS AND WEALTH
'Some of us want more wealth,
I'd also argue that more people doesn't always mean more wealth for the majority of the population.
Wages for instance are better when there is less people, reference Black Plague effect on wages.
USA is resource rich, infrastructure with, society safety rich. We don't 'need more people to build our wealth.

INCREASE OF KNOWLEDGE
Depends how society is structured, and many of your claims are a bit at odds maybe.
If we want a bunch of ditchdiggers, they aren't going to intellectually create all that much.

Were I Con, I suppose I might argue 'which immigrants are inventing, ditch diggers or higher class immigrants.
Might question how much left is there to invent.
Might look for evidence of inventions decreasing over time, also existence of AI decreasing need for human inventors.

Also a thought occurs, immigrants who take money out our system and send it back home.

MILITARY SUPERIORITY
We 'do need a population for the military, but
1, I dislike replacing our people.
2, One should have concern about foreign agents.
3, We could require military service as 'a means to join the country, but many of these requirements for high grade immigrants likely also reduces the number of immigrants.

BIRTH RATES
No, we can do without less people for a time until our 'own people bounce back, and they 'will. We don't need to replace 'our people.

I would rather increase spending to encourage our own people to breed,
And create quality government run orphanage.

ECONOMY, PRODUCTIVITY
We have concerns about global warming.
Less people for a time means more government control over property, means government can design and build needed infrastructures.
Better designed cities, railroads and powerlines.
Part of what holds government back is large population, people owning property in the ways.

RIGHT OF CHOICE
National borders exist everywhere.

SAFETY FROM HARM
We only have a duty to our citizens.
If people want to crusade, then let them join a charity organization or move to those less well off countries and fix them theirselves.

EQUALITY OF HUMANS
Simply put we are not equal.

COUNTERS
MIGRANTS TAKING AWAY JOBS
Americans are the same tribe. Priority oh humans often radiates outward.
Self, family, city, state, country, humans.
By our laws there is expectation to prioritize our nation above immigrants.

CRIME
If enough migrants committed crime, then I think it would be fine to be more choosey about who we let migrate.
We 'do judge whole populations by statistics. I'm not going to travel to a neighborhood known for criminals, even if they are American.

WAGES, HOUSES
Americans are 'already citizens, they are already tribe, already accepted the good and the bad.
There is idea of duty and commitment, idea of game theory loyalty and contract.

PRO ROUND 1 THOUGHTS
An annoyingly number of arguments, which is not to say it does not have an effectiveness.
I think Pros better arguments are of the power of population.
Were I Con, I would research how many immigrants we 'currently let into America. If we already let in enough currently, than most of Pros arguments can be negated by the needs currently being met.

Tickbeat CON ROUND 1
Makes Serial Killer argument for Rights not being absolute.
I think this is a good objections to many of Pro's 'Right to X arguments.
People 'don't have unlimited Rights to X.

IMMIGRANTS MAKE PEOPLE WEALTHY
"Well, regardless of whether or not that's true" - Con
Seems a bad move, I get what you're going with with the serial killer example, but migrants are not serial killers. Example contrast seems too extreme.
Migrants are not necessarily illegal migrants.
Legal Migrants 'may cause trouble, but you need to state the downsides of Migrants in debate I think.

KNOWLEDGE
"84% of inventors are natives." isn't bad. If I were Con I would also make historical argument, inventions often happen worldwide and end up in multiple countries, not just country of origin.
Does well to continue argument into all avenues, natives do more work than immigrants.

This isn't bad, but Pro has decent quote and source,
"Immigrants represent 26% of the national workforce but account for 35% of computer programmers, 43% of engineers and 57% of all chemists."

POPULATION
Is still going up argues Con, and argues replacement is not solution.

Pro might do well to argue need for new population proportion to old (Though I do not personally find such convincing)

RIGHT TO ENTER, RIGHT TO HELP
Con makes serial killer example against the notion, argues nuance to laws and rights.
Compares nation to house, and right to refuse access.

Argues other countries do not have a 'right to our resources, uses example of charity.

CRIME
Argues the difficulty of tracking illegal immigrants.

CON ROUND 1 THOUGHTS
Going alright, I think Pro might have a bit of an advantage in sources used so far for statistics. But I am biased towards Cons side.
Prioritizing own citizens agrees with my own values.

BOTH SIDES ROUND 1 THOUGHTS
I think Pro might be doing slightly better on sources and statistics,
Con is doing well to argue for commonsense laws and values, borders exist, limits to helping others, limit to government sacrificing it's own citizens for noncitizens.

But both should keep debate Title in mind, how many immigrants are 'currently allowed in America?
Are illegal immigrants really counted in this?

PRO SatanLucy ROUND 2
MENTALITY OF CARE
We are able to refuse care to others by the laws we all agreed to.
Ownership of house and property.
If others want to help others, then let them leave this country to go help them.

"It starts with not caring for migrants, and ends with not caring for anyone."
I disagree, I can care for people less the further outside my various rings they get. Self, family, city, state, country, outside of country.
Doesn't mean I don't care for anyone.

The problem is people demanding my money, country, and people be degraded because of their idealism.

SERIAL KILLER
Pro acknowledges serial killer violated various laws, but disagrees that migrants are serial killers.
Has source arguing lack of connection between immigration and crime.

US POPULATION
Bah, do we want to end up with population and ownership of America like that of the original Native Americans?

PERSON'S HOUSE
Pro is gaining edge here I think,
I think Con made big mistake in focusing on illegal immigrants,
I'm pretty sure the title just says immigrants.
Pro bolds this down further in debate.

PRO ROUND 1 THOUGHTS
Doing well, highlighted immigrants not just legal immigrants,
Source was good.
I'm still not personally convinced, but debate wise, doing well.
. . . Well, except that 'neither debater has really addressed how many immigrants we are 'currently getting.

Tickbeat ROUND 2
Turns Pro's argument of care against itself, we must care for ourselves first.
USA 'does provide a lot of aid at times.
I'm a bit inclined towards a tie, though if I had to vote for person, still probably be Pro.
Con is too insistent against immigration completely, they should acknowledge 'some immigration.

Argues people should fix their countries, not run from them.

SERIAL KILLER
Argues serial killer is meant as example for why immigrants cannot justify max immigration.
Questions immigration source findings not being reflective of sources.

BIRTH RATES
Argues for us to fix problem not just import more people.

HOUSE EXAMPLE
Seems to be argument against 'right to cross borders.
Clarifies they mean legal 'right.

ROUND 2 THOUGHTS
I lean tie, disagreement I think is in values.
I think Pro has slight edge, in uses of immigrants.
But 'neither is really addressing 'current number of immigrants.

SatanLucy ROUND 3 PRO
Ugh, I hate dropped arguments argument, and would argue many of these were 'not dropped.

MENTALITY OF CARE
Fairness is a matter of perspective.
Homelessness might decrease with less people in country and lower class job payments go up.

I find the cato study confusing.

JOBS
If a migrant can 'create a job, than the homeless person could have created that job.
Pro makes state comparison based on migration and job employment.

I still say bah, because I dislike replacement.

TICKBEAT CON ROUND 3
BIRTHS,
Argues we should fix problem.
Argues he has responded to many of the so called dropped points.

ROUND 3 THOUGHTS
Just because I don't note everything doesn't mean I didn't read it.
Eh, I think the debaters missed the title a bit.

Pro's strongest arguments it seems to me are economical.
Con's strongest seem to be Native Tribe value.
Both question whether immigrants would (Pro)create or (Con)steal jobs.
Both used sources, though I think Pro was a bit more prolific in that.
I lean heavily towards tie, though if I 'had to pick a winner, it'd be Pro.
I found the 'number of their many arguments annoying but effective in round 1,
Pro does decent job arguing economic value of immigration,
But. . . And this is a problem for both parties, I am confused by 'how much immigration is current, where the good and bad of it would be in amount.
Though Pro addresses this slightly in Round 3 and Con seems for 'some immigration.

I found some of Cons examples a bit confusing such as the murderer and the house examples, but they weren't 'bad examples, just need polishing I think.
I found Con's Tribe and Right arguments convincing.

RFV,
I just think the debate got stuck on disagreement of framework and starting conditions.
Though parts of title concept were debated, I think the debate stalled.

Both sides make some fair points,
I think Con arguments have 'slightly more weight, but they ignored Pro's arguments too much, Con also forfeited last round.
Eh, evens out to tie, feels like.

Title
Is an interesting concept, line between religion and culture can be blurry, or not at all.

Mal Round 1
Is being invented by secular society 'enough though, to qualify it as a religion?
Are customs and clothes religion or culture?
I also assume governments are still creating new holidays in 2026.
. . . Are 'all holidays secular religion, or only 'some?

SomeDebatePerson Round 1
Definitions of secular don't help too much, though one 'does say,
"b: not overtly or specifically religious"
Secular Religions are 'commonly accepted to exist.
Arguably debate itself makes assumption of it.
If debate was is USSR example of Communism, one could try arguing that Communism doesn't exist, but that seems an odd tact.
Still, Con makes an attempt of it.

Holidays such as Santa Christmas, still have values, ideas, ideals. Such as gift gicing or charity Santa ringing bell, control of behavior, be good or Santa won't reward you.

Still,
"Also, what kind of religion lasts for 24 hours and comes back every year?" is an interesting arguement. . . Some religions do have specified days of fasting once per year or so, and Christmas in a more Christian sense no presents, might still be practiced once a year.
But question 'does pop up then, one might not say the day of fasting in a religion 'is the religion.

Mal Round 2
Feels a bit wasted.

SomeDebatePerson Round 2
Insists his arguments are valid.
Adds bit more thought.

Mal Round 3
Arguably, definitions are best placed in the debate description.
Agreeably, debates can be about whether dictionary definitions are most valid.
But 'really Mal can just use dictionary themself to show Secular Religions as a common concept, and argue acceptence of such was implied.
Or use Cons own definitions against Con.

"Whatever one wishes to practice like that."
Fair, there's nothing 'stopping such a religion from existing.

SomeDebatePerson Round 3
Argues definitions should be what is commonly defined, not personal.
I don't think Religion 'has to have spiritual world.

"Not all holidays are beliefs."
Better, more on topic.

Mal Round 4
Debate has clearly devolved into disagreement on terms of debate.
Argues religions 'can be 24 hours once a year.
Hm, what about the rest of the year then? Can a person have more than one religion then?

SomeDebatePerson Round 4
I'm not against definitions, but sometimes definitions change or are disputed as accurate.
Arguably many though not all people believe in various holidays.

Mal Round 5
I 'do think there is a difference between beliefs and customs.
But SomeDebatePerson seemed mainly to disagree with concept of Secular Religion existing in any form.

SomeDebatePerson Round 5
Forfeits round.

whiteflame R 1
Framework, Quality of Life
UK to EU, to avoid $ decline
Global reach
'Had then, opt out of some requirements
2016, Brexit 51%
Leaving = $ harms
Migrant sources changed
Rejoin, trade benefit
More porous border would strengthen economy

Savant R 1
Agrees to Quality of Life Framework, but argues for long term quality of life
VAT, ability to reform easier
Wage growth
Swiss, Singapore.
Outside the EU, it is common for countries to subsidize critical industries
EU stagnant investment
Plants
Brexit Trade not static
Other options outside of EU
Potential future outside EU markets bigger
Cost of living projected to stabilize 2027, high wage growth
Argues EU has same boat migrant crisis, and UK by freedom has options EU doesn't

Thoughts Round 1
Person going second always has last word, 'currently I'd rate Con higher, but this is only because Pro has not yet used rebuttals or answered criticisms.
Bother sides prolific in sourcing claims, so sources likely won't play into debate, unless they devalue each others sources.

Whiteflame Round 2
1, Argues long term predictions unpredictable.
Above not highly convincing to me, as Con says being out of EU allows flexibility to new problems. And people long term plan for a reason, reasonable enough expectations and plans.
Better argued might be to 'also focus on EU as 'reliable and close partner, in case of future trade or military world wars. Or perhaps natural disasters. Though, this is modern travel age, I'm not sure how convincing such tactic by Pro would be.
2, Eh, but short term should not be indulged at cost of long term.
3, Argues both should be considered
Source for EU UK trade, talks about 'now more than decades far future.
Investment, argues EU reliable investment unlike other options.
Inflation question.
Important part to me, is question in case of a disaster, is UK better off with reliable but inflexible EU, or unreliable but flexible autonomy.
Summer winter fruits interesting, 'personally though, I'd say just find new ways to process and preserve UK fruits.
Pro questions TCA’s review mechanism ability to enact substantial change.
Subsidies
Questions UK ability to find success with different roadmap than other countries who achieved success
Note to self review VAT, I don't understand it
Claims Con DROPPED Labor demand, talent pools
Talent pool seems paradox though, Pro claims less people for work, but also claims more boat people
I'm not sure Swiss example works against Con, if Swiss are not EU member, then UK can follow their method of encouraging EU migrants without being EU.
Singapore
Argues EU handles Security/Human trafficking better

Savant Round 2
Defends long term impacts as more impactful. Gives the obvious arguments
Pro should use examples of nations failing at long term planning, though I think such examples are more common of 'extreme countries, such as ones with dictatorships.
Con might do well if he can show reliability of long term planning in terms of nations and decades. EU 'is always next door, reliable, even if stifling.
Con argues The CPTPP reasonable and projected decent alternative to EU
Vietnam
Argues Pro appraisal of VAT is short term rather than of changing market
Negotiation power to the UK buyer not EU seller
Attacks Pros sources for investment
Defends subsidies
Plant act, direct benefit partial solution to UK food needs relying on outside also trade with nations of similar laws
EU AI Act, stability vs innovation, stagnation vs growth, is big part of debate
Con attacks Pro sources, this may be pivotal part of debate, depending on how much Pro is able or unable to attack Con sources
Defends wages
Defends UK roadmap as being necessarily different from country example, but argues UK is following same 'principles, principles requiriung different roadmaps
Argues Pro’s source concedes “Higher rates could be linked to a greater capacity…to identify victims.
Argues UK border control improving

Thoughts Round 2
Short vs Long term
I think Pro should lean more into Stability, use historical examples more to emphasize value of EU being near. . . Also ironically far future predictions.
USA has history of central vs decentralized government and laws effect on nation, other countries have 'same history I'm sure, that could be drawn on.
Neither side has addressed national identity vs EU identity much. EU laws and open travel seem to erode national identity a bit in favor of EU identity.
Con might have done well to focus on degree of uniqueness UK has with history of Empire and colonies, Con 'does state some of former colonies as being trade partners.
Con might also lean more into nations outside but near EU have for foreign nations.
Con might argue food variety a luxury not necessity, and that variety can be created. There are many ways to cook the food one 'has. As is seen by nations variety of local grown food types.
Note to self review what is so 'damaging about being part of EU?

Whiteflame Round 3
Argues shorter term effects are known and the long term effects should focus on reliability.
Brexit harm is arguably 'temporary though, by Cons arguments
Argues Brexit GDP loss is 'known short and long term
IF the UK remains reliant on the EU as a market, doesn't seem so strong, as UK still able to negotiate with EU for better deal and find other partners.
Pro Argues shipping and distance costs. Value of supply chains near.
2023 vs 2025 sources, comparison, Pro defends one of his sources.
I'm not sure I find labor shortages argument convincing, I think labor shortages exist when country isn't paying working class enough, Con 'does argue current shortage is part of wealth shift from higher to working class.
There's 'always people someplace that 'can do labor.
Pro attacks Con investment arguments.
Argues Pro assumes UK will be able to 'find markets from their position as other countries have.
massive worker gaps,
38% of UK businesses are not growing and 12% of them shrinking
Switzerland, those job registration requirements affect only 6.5% of the workforce
Singapore, those levies are far lower for high skilled labor
that the EU has failed to detect victims (non-unique: the UK has massively underestimated its numbers
whack-a-mole where crises must be resolved by agreements that may never materialize (no deals with any of the top 5 source countries)
I 'think I might lean towards Pro in arguments. Though I still think he's wrong that the UK needs or would be better off in the EU
Still, Con has last word.
And question of who defended and attacked opponents sources better, might go to Con, but that is only part of argument

Savant Round 3
Argues long term impacts hit far stronger than short term impacts, thus reason to care about long term. Assumably even with less certainty of how long term will turn out.
Notes concessions and damages that would occur by rejoining the EU
Argues long term impacts and proven ability to plan for future is proven by examples.
It is true, I didn't see Pro point out many times that long term planning has failed countries.
Pro argument of distance easier for layman to grasp than investment and investment terms.
Con argument of nations with bad economies revitalizing through global market, convincing that UK can do so as well with it's already advantage.
Pro might have done well to argue bad state nations were only able to upgrade 'because their start was so bad. But that for UK it would be a downgrade 'because of good starting position. UK might not be able to leverage position higher.
. . . A human already in motion lets say, can maintain running speed, but still can't get faster.
A human not in motion can get into running speed, and is much faster than when stationary.
Already having motion or means doesn't mean one will improve, I am trying to say.
Pro might have done well to argue danger of AI bubble popping.
I think Pro should have focused even 'more on value of EU as near and stable partner. Pointed more to dangers of historical war, disaster, disputes.
Con argues CPTPP are rapidly growing, points to expected value of global market, and EU difficulty adjusting
Con points out UK advantages in bargaining trade with EU
I think Con does well to point out UK uniqueness, but could have done even more, UK is 'more sea and air nation than some EU nations? (I am unsure) but it possibly has geographic advantages. Also historical colonies relationship advantage.
Con argues EU often prioritizes nations other than UK.
Is EU lifting and securing UK, or stifling it for security that can be achieved without EU?
Con mentions UK global weight
Con addresses shipping costs,
Looking back, Pro 'bit slow to start with justifying why proximity means one ought be trade partner, losing ability to address Con arguments and sources about technology solving shipping problem
Subsidies confuse me on both sides.
Something both might have argued, is whether there are clear winners and losers in the EU.
If everyone wins at similar level, then might be boon to Pro.
If everyone wins, but some are able to leverage better, then might be boon to Pro, if UK could be one of such.
If everyone wins, but some are able to leverage better, then might be boon to Con, if they can show UK would 'not be one of the better off.
If everyone wins at similar level, then might be boon to Con if they can prove UK can leverage self outside of EU.
Pro does not dispute that the UK’s high VAT threshold (which would be impossible in the EU
Pro’s 2025 article cites a paper which acknowledges that uncertainty significantly declined after new trade agreements came into effect
Pro reverses cause and effect with regard to expenses—his source says that “ECB rate spikes” are causing the companies (REITs) themselves to become classified as sub-investment grade, not that sub-investment grade assets are leading to higher costs. In UK investment funds, long time frames will help to flatten risk
Pro drops my point that higher wages and competition for labor benefit the working class
quality of life, which is the highest value in this debate
Pro doesn’t dispute that Switzerland and Singapore have restrictions the EU would not allow—to emulate those countries long-term,
Hm, short vs long term. Pro does well in the short and now, Con in the long. Cons future 'are predictions though.
I am leaning towards tie, well, leaning Con.
Pro would have done well to focus even 'more on stability of EU and potential and historical dangers. Instead I think Pro spent too much time on criticizing long term planning as a concept.
Con disputes Pro travel sources.
Going to vote Con, I think Con did better in sources by maintaining own and criticizing Pros more. Pro criticism of long term planning not as great as could be. Some of Pros focus on proximity were a bit late. Debate seemed pretty even subject, but advantage to Con perhaps by going last.
Pro focus on short term vs long term might have been a bit of an error, and though they made 'some arguments that EU was good long term, they made a number of arguments against long term planning.
'Should have been ALL FOR short and long term, but focused even more on Cons 'specific method of long term being dangerous.

RFV
Pro opens many possibilities,
Con closes Pro possibilities and cannibalizes arguments,
Large part of debate seems to hinge on "intelligent" and probability.
Burden of Proof: Shared
Pro argues that theism is more likely to be true than false. Con argues that theism is more likely to be false than true.
. . . (Expletive) (Expletive) Just wanted to look at the Ruberik again. Got another debate to judge other than this one. (Expletive)
How does one 'gauge probability here?
Tie, the lack of solid definitions at 'start leaves question of how to define intelligence difficult per this debate.
Though 'personally I disagree with Pro's idea of intelligent unintelligent being. . Hm, I don't want to spend more time on thiiiiss. Well, being also wasn't defined at very start, was something disputed. I'm voting tie.

RFV Longer
LancelotDuLac Round 1
Does well to rephrase debate framework, guidelines, definitions.
Does well, (Though cheap, even if understandable) to twist definitions and minimum requirements for all he can.
Not as well, Suggests universe needed a cause, and argues chance intelligent being in other universe caused it. The 'potential error here is if Con argues it is nature of world end and start itself. Maybe universe just got cold killing everything, then contracted and exploded.
Does well, to use sources for Big Bang
RFV
GreatfulGoy Round 1
Use of numbers 1-5 is nice for contentions, makes them easier to follow.
Does well with 1. Head off unintelligent Gods. But may need to address Pro intelligent unconscious systems, even though I think such is bad argument by Pro, it 'is an argument.
Does well to argue intelligent design needs 'intelligent 'design. Theists may accept evolution as a 'means of intelligent design, but they don't consider it the intelligent designer itself. Certainly atheist scientists wouldn't call evolution intelligent design/er.
Error, Contention 2 miscommunication between debaters.
Does well, suggests Unintelligent deity or mechanism.
RFV
LancelotDuLac Round 2
Does well to clear of Christianity vs Atheism misunderstanding.
Does well to reinforce cause and effect previous inhabitants are Gods argument (Even if I think it's kind of dumb, darn debate initial definitions) But Con will need to address argument.
Does well to defend Polytheism angle.
Not as well, Limited intelligence okay argument, 'no intelligence, harder to defend.
Does well to argue God could have 'used evolution as their method, but Con 'did state God of the Gaps earlier.
Not 'as well, is 'possibility of God or previous people. 'But Con has not pushed back on this yet I think.
RFV
GreatfulGoy R 2
Does well, to argue against human level intelligence, would need to address Greek gods intelligence level, possibly argue their true form was not the characters in myth, but as allegory symbolism for what they actually are, unintelligent thunder, bad luck, causation karma, art of smithing, so on.
Which Con 'does do, indirect by way of Hinduism.
Not as well, pre-existing reality, Pro 'did use sources for Big Bang Claims.
Does well, asks why assume an intelligent God cause, instead of alternatives such as unintelligent Gods.
Not as well, such Gods need be argued for. Debate is feeling bit 50/50.
RFV
LancelotDuLac R 3
Does well to head off any introductions of new ideas to debate, as I think Pro has more arguments 'for his probability than Con. But Con 'has done fair bit of damage to Pro arguments (In my view) Reason why this may be tie in end.
Does well to hijack agnostic into agnostic theist.
Does well to argue singularity.
Not as well, the unintelligent intelligent process.
Does well in defense of Deism being form of Theism.
RFV
GreatfulGoy R 3

Mumblings RFV

LancelotDuLac Round 1
Argues both sides hold BoPs, argues debate about probability,
I don't believe in multiple timeline or multiverses.
Universe. . . Hm, maybe existence isn't the same thing as universe,
Definitions Pro is using seem very. . . 'selective.
Argues the God or gods don't need to be all powerful or all knowing to qualify for theism.
I don't find the intelligence argument very convincing, but debate itself is very scant in definitions.
Would one call a 'clock intelligent? AI is 'artificial 'intelligence, faux pretend intelligence is what.
Be harder to prove a more fictional god such as one of Lovecraft's I'd think.
"God(s)
An intelligent being or beings who created the universe"
I dislike the argument that the universe before the last Big Bang, might as well have had some intern called Bob, cause next universe, therefore he is a/the god.
"something cannot come from nothing." - Seems a bit of a sidebar paradox, that I've never heard resolved to my satisfaction. Why consider time before Big Bang a 'previous universe?
But is sidebar, is sidebar. and from certain point of view, time before big bang 'was previous universe, but one sees the infinite regression yeah?
'Forces of universe also weak in my view, over application of the word intelligence to non intelligences. Attacks idea of nonintelligent intelligence.

GreatfulGoy Round 1
"Pro suggests this is Christianity vs atheism" Error by Con, I see 'why they thought that, but Pro went right offtrack of Christianity in round 1, and in round 2 Pro explains self how he did not mean it the way Con interpreted it.
1. If Unintelligent Cause means Con win.
2. Error by Con misunderstanding Pro. Pro ought to have used deist or theist vs atheism, so I can see 'where misunderstanding came from, but 'does appear to be misunderstanding.
3. 'Does deity need origin, Atheism 'or Theism, both have infinite regression paradox I 'think?
4. Doesn't seem strong case, apex god would still be a 'god per debate description definition.
5. Agnostic is more 50/50 I think, needs to lean at least 1% more into Atheism I think.
Ahhh, I hate both sides self serving limited definitions, course debate description starting position is greatly to blame.
@Self, if Pro's Intern Bob died when Big Bang happened, could we still have belief 'IN them? I may believe in Mencius's teaching or previous existence, but I don't 'currently believe in him. . . Because he's dead.
Course on another hand, a number of polytheist gods might have gotten killed off, yet people believe IN them? Unsure.
Bad things happening is not strong case against god I think, plenty of evil gods or good 'and evil gods.
I'm also not convinced 'every step needs to have been intelligently done by the creator. Some theists figure god/s just set ball in motion, then let it go where will. Some desists for instance.
@Self, Consciousness is weird, some people depict stars as neurons, universe as giant thinking thing, us like little cells of bigger organism.
Who moves the mover argument by Con.

LancelotDuLac Round 2
Ugh, I often think 'everyone has dropped arguments to some degree.
Pre reality is still just reality, I assume. But you could leverage universe definition.
@Self, 'is it a new universe though? Or just flower opening and closing? Eh, point of view.
Also I don't think intelligent design argument was 'dropped by Con, but possibly you felt it should have been better addressed.
Defends existence of errors and intelligence limits.
Autopilot or mechanical intelligence is fine IF there is an intelligent being who designed or set it in motion.
Intelligent blood cells seems a stretch, why specify 'intelligence in debate start description, why not just say 'being.

GreatfulGoy Round 2
Unfortunately, definition of intelligence was left to debaters to disagree on. Is not more detail defined in start conditions.
I 'think deists 'are theists?
'Personally, debate still 'feels tied to me.
I think Pro currently winning, but only because Con not addressing a couple arguments in ways that I would. But then on another hand, Pro not quite 'elucidating his arguments to show all meaning I am thinking.
BoP shared, Con focusing more on attacking Pro arguments, than building his own?
But Con 'has made arguments such as God of Gaps.
Con pointing out multiverse not mentioned in lot of religions is not bad argument, but Pro made multiverse argument more by ways of 'some science claims I think.
@Self Control F searchwords is your friend.
I don't think (Per this debate) that deity needs their own origin, Some of Pro's 'gods are pretty mundane previous universe people butterfly effect.
Con 'could stand to state better alternative causes than intelligent God/s. Con did offer Hinduism, but that would still need to be 'argued for to an extent.
Intern Bob God 'is semantic abuse, but debate starting conditions were bare bones, fair game maybe.
Well, possibility preludes probable.

LancelotDuLac Round 3
I feel as though both sides have shown 'possibility of Gods creating world, 'probability harder to pin down. Con has unthinking Gods, but focused way more on attacking Pros arguments.
But Con is able to cannibalize Pros arguments to an extent.
Feels 50/50 though.
Agnostics not 'knowing Gods is fine, but without some ability to gauge if they are intelligent, leaves probability of intelligence low.

GreatfulGoy Round 3
You didn't betray God I think just speak in debate as if giving a lecture on what and why others might believe something.
I don't think deism is loophole, lot of people think there 'is a god, even intelligent god, but there is lot they are unsure of.
I don't think loophole use was malicious. Debate initial settings for both is to blame.

RFV
'Possible that debate could have been more precisely defined. But I'm basing my vote on what I see as the point of contention.

"Man is not good by nature."
Mr.Ace explains in round 1 that this means,
"this statement suggests that a human being feels a subconscious, internal pull toward doing "good"—an impulse that clearly does not originate from upbringing, morality, or socialization."

My view is that ChatKnight was able to include many example of early and later life good human tendencies.
. . . Hm, Mr.Ace 'did make an argument about such being self serving at times, and argument I think he missed was 'awareness and mindfulness of actions.
Is something good if we are unaware of it or it's consequences? He 'hints towards that, but doesn't fully tackle it in my view.
I'm also not sure it would pan out.

It's a bit questionable 'what a natural Nurture would be for humans.
Without Nature can there 'be a nurture or vice versa?

I also think Mr.Ace's Tarzan argument was a bit flawed (For his view of human evil) in that it would counteract 'that view as well. If a human in the dark is nothing.
. . . Though arguably even 'nothing is something. . .

I'm leaning towards either Con or Tie. But not Pro I think. Hm.

. . .

"I contend that man is naturally guided by primitive instincts (much like any other animal) which are neither inherently good nor evil; they are simply animalistic" - Mr.Ace R1

I wonder if debate might have been better focused on whether nature of 'any type is good or evil.
ChatKnight focuses a lot on opposing the ideas Mr.Ace makes for man having a tendency towards evil over good.
But he 'does argue human goodness with toddlers.
A toddler is not a 'completely alone feral human though. Hm, maybe some humans been adopted by wild animals? But then is that a form of nurture?
The idea of a human in a box, is a 'bit absurd, as ChatKnight argues, abnormal and stunted nurture, and Id argument math.

. . . Hm, Nature and Nurture,
Mr.Ace 'acknowledges Nature as something that exists, though he argues 'primal. . .
Hm, is this a sailboat situation? Sailboat in open space spins, needs water for counter.
Car in air spins wheels, needs ground for traction.
. . .
"torn between the desire to do good and the animalistic (natural) drives and instincts of man. He is just as capable of empathy as he is of extreme envy, brutality, and ruthlessness.
- Mr.Ace R3

Why does Mr.Ace not define 'good acts as animalistic natural drives? He does,
"By negating the primal goodness of man" - R3
"I want to draw attention to the fact that man by nature does not only possess traits that are considered decent by society (deemed good by culture, socialization, etc.). I mean to say by this that man is not inherently good (unambiguously)" - R3
Arguably man 'might have more cooperative traits than selfish harmful traits? Like horse compared to zebra? (Hm, but this is 'my argument, not Con's)

I think Con 'could have done more in debate, if he had not forfeited rounds.
Thus I am leaned to a tie.

RFV Longer
"Man is not good by nature."
Mr.Ace explains in round 1 that this means,
"this statement suggests that a human being feels a subconscious, internal pull toward doing "good"—an impulse that clearly does not originate from upbringing, morality, or socialization."

Mr.Ace R1
"primitive instincts (much like any other animal) which are neither inherently good nor evil; they are simply animalistic"

Arguably some animals are prone to certain types of behaviors.
Some more capable of empathy or teamwork, kindness?

ChatKnight R1
Gives many examples of instinctual human goodness.
Of course said goodness also 'develops out of Nurture, or curdles.
. . . But we 'do have a nature more easily trained for it.
Compare zebras and horses for example, in terms of how easy they are to domesticate.

Still, I expect Mr.Ace will give a number of 'negative examples of human instincts.

Mr.Ace R2
Eh, I'm not convinced by the isolation argument.
Take plant seeds for example, they have a nature to sprout and grow into plants.
But don't put them in dirt, don't give them water or sun, and they don't sprout.
It's still more in their nature to sprout than a rock.
Bury a rock in dirt, water and sun it, you just get a rock.

I think the Ring of Gyges is a better argument, it puts humans more towards the prone to evil or neutral track.

I'm not as convinced by the Prisoner’s Dilemma.
Prisoner’s Dilemma is logic, and humans are logical (To a degree), thus more than 'most other animals, thus more than just primal instincts.
Bit of self interest maybe, but ChatKnight 'does have the earlier in human life examples.
One can argue 'any behavior is selfish from a certain point of view, but I don't think that is normative.

I think Mr.Ace should have focused more on human evil examples.

ChatKnight R2
Argues the commonness of human cooperation shows it above selfishness.
Argues for a mixed but leaning towards good.

Mr.Ace R3
I'm judging the debate mainly by the metric of this statement,
"Man is not good by nature." - Title
Mr.Ace explains in round 1 that this means,
"this statement suggests that a human being feels a subconscious, internal pull toward doing "good"—an impulse that clearly does not originate from upbringing, morality, or socialization."

"Thesis that altruistic behaviors are more desirable in the long term than selfish behaviors."
ChatKnight doesn't strongly dispute this directly I think, but I don't see this as a strong argument for Mr.Ace

I think Mr.Ace does better with the slander of our foes. . . Slaughter?
Or the mean toddler taking a toy back.
But I found ChatKnights list of the commonality of man's actions in practice convincing.
. . . Of course a weaker spot of that argument of ChatKnight, is the amount of Nurture required for such.
But ChatKnight 'does make the argument that certain situations are abnormal for humans.
. . Hm,

I get what Mr.Ace is going for with their Tarzan example, but I don't find it all too convincing myself.
. . . .

I think ChatKnight argues well against such in Round 2, saying,
"Observing pre‑moral behavior in infants is not evidence that evil is our essence any more than observing a toddler’s inability to do calculus is evidence that humans are naturally bad at math. The Id model is a developmental stage, not a timeless portrait of human nature."
"cultivating a natural tendency that is already present"

ChatKnight R3
Mr.Ace R4
ChatKnight R4

Hm, any excuses, agreements, or apologies for dropped rounds?
No. . . But both missed a round, and ChatKnight more 'passed than was not around for final round. No hit on conduct I think.

RFV Short
Con missed 2 rounds, and the one round he participated in was too short.
Con didn't address enough of Pros arguments, and Con didn't expand enough upon his own.

RFV Longer
Well, even when I 'believed God, souls, and an afterlife existed, I was a Nihilist.
(Intellectually speaking)

Course, not everyone would agree with me on that take.
. . .

I'm a bit doubtful of the flourishing argument.
I think 'humans promote and gravitate towards certain states due to our Nature,
If we ever meet aliens or create advanced enough AI, they might tend to value very differently states of being.
. . .

I don't quite understand what God 'is in various religions.
If God created and/or is everything, then the state of everything seems a bit tied to God maybe.
I'm not 'sure the Euthyphro Dilemma is such a dilemma.
Some people see God as goodness, and only able to do good.

It reminds me a bit of that, could God create a stone so heavy that he could not lift it, paradox.
Theists generally take the view that God is able to do all that can be done.
God is not 'unable to do a logical paradox, but that the logical paradox is incoherent a concept.

Title and Description,
"When trying to think, reason and calculate to achieve a goal,
man should ignore his emotions and not be guided by them,
if he is to achieve his goal,
unless goal is being emotional"

Being objective and detached, 'can let a person avoid tunnel vision I suppose. Open their eyes up to possible paths and viable options.
Avoid the desperation that makes bad options seem ideal.

Course. . . Emotion is also what often drives a person 'to accomplish goals,
Emotion something that 'focuses their interest in a task.


SatanLucy R1
"If goal is being emotional (guided by emotions), then yeah a man can be guided by emotions."
Well. . . Wouldn't one best be able to determine what the best method of becoming and maintaining emotion be, by 'being unemotional objective?

The goal is something 'achieved, this debate is about method 'to the goal I 'think.

"Even if emotions are included in the path, man is not guided by them but uses what logically achieves goal."
If a man cannot be guided by his emotions, can he be guided by the 'lack of emotions?

"For example, if smiling and being happy increases odds of forming friendships, man here isn't guided by emotions, but by pure logic which says "smiling and being happy = achieves goal"."

"man should ignore his emotions and not be guided by them," - Title,
I think I get what you're saying, a person should not let wanting to be happy, overcome his goal of forming friendships.
Maybe someone wants to feel happy, so they make sarcastic joke about someone they are trying to be friends with, because making that joke will make the joke teller feel happy.
But people are sometimes annoyed by sarcasm, the person should not have let themselves be guided by wanting happiness.
. . . But it's a double edged sword, as they 'are being guided towards their goal 'by the smile and feeling of happiness. They 'must follow and be guided by the happiness, to an extent.

"being guided purely by emotions means no calculation, and that makes goal less likely to be achieved."
But pure calculation means no 'drive perhaps.

SatanLucy R1 Thoughts
It's not a 'bad argument, but it might be harmed a bit by wording in the title.


ShtLp R1
Makes the expected argument that SatanLucy's title is different from their argument.

"If emotions are ignored, they play no role. If they are used instrumentally, they are part of the reasoning process."
Well, I'm not sure that 'using something, is the same as 'reasoning something.

if goal is not emotional, then a path towards goal cannot be guided by emotions.

"Even if emotions are included in the path, man is not guided by them but uses what logically achieves goal." - SatanLucy
The path one walks, is not a guide, one might argue.
"When trying to think, reason and calculate to achieve a goal" In Title
A path is something one designs to follow, but is to follow a plan, but is a plan a guide?
Yes/No,
I'm not 'trying to be semantic, Possible SatanLucy should have chosen different words.

"When trying to think, reason and calculate to achieve a goal, man should ignore his emotions and not be guided by them, if he is to achieve his goal, unless goal is being emotional" - Title

So what 'is SatanLucy arguing 'should be the guide?
"Calculation"? Reason, Objectivity, Dispassionate.
Use of the above to craft a plan, that if necessary one uses emotions, but quickly discards them if the plan calls for it.

ALL ABOVE LEANS ME TOWARDS TIE.
If SatanLucy had created debate with two rounds, perhaps they could have said what I said.
I mean. . . Arguably they 'did say what I said, just in not so many words, but that is only my interpretation and extrapolation.
I think SatanLucy would still need to say it themself.

What leans me towards ShtLp win, is their argument that emotion can play a role in conveying information to oneself,
Again, if this wasn't a 1 round debate, SatanLucy could dispute this, but it is 1 round debate. A form of debate that gives strong advantage to person going last. They get final framing and final word, and don't get their argument 'hit any by their opponent.

ShtLp 'does argue emotion is a partial guide on path to a goal,
Maybe so, I'm unsure, but passing over.

"Finally, logic alone does not generate goals. It tells you how to achieve them, not what to care about. Most goals are rooted in values, and values are tied to emotional structure."
Maybe so, I'm unsure, but passing over.
. . . A company or a military complex planning a goal, whose entire purpose is simply to accomplish the goal, to feel emotions other than to accomplish the goal, is to be possibly diverted from the goal. To lose objectivity in planning for accomplishment of the goal.


Conclusion,
I don't think the debate was a bait and switch, but I think that ShtLp's arguments are clearer in meaning, easier to grasp and understand clearly what they are saying.

RFV
Pro does not quite address Con human purpose destruction argument.
Con does not quite address danger jobs being replaced and great advances in fields such as medicine helping humans.
Con does question whether there 'will be enough jobs for humans, as well as AI quality.
Both sides bring up valid points, but neglect a bit I'd say criticism of their opponents arguments.

Title and description, perhaps a bit vague.

Lunatic Round 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivKpzESQNwc
Litany Against Fear Musical Arrangement
Wasn't AI the cause of some catastrophe in that series (Dune)?

Hm, AI 'will be beneficial for humans long term?
Theoretically they could be.
Different nations have implemented various technologies differently.
Theoretically couldn't dark age or child labor in England have persisted?

Pro argues AI
Will not eliminate jobs. Requires humans to train on (So far),
AI training jobs, 'somehow I'm leery, but that's just a feeling.

Pro argues AI power to aid in great advances, such as medicine or economics.

Ultracrepidarian Round 1
Heh, Monty Python.
AGI 'might make humanity obsolete, though to be honest, I 'do wonder whether destroying all intelligent life might not be better.
Arguably even when given everything we 'need, and more besides, humans could still create meaning and challenges.
Contest with other humans, paint, self improvement.
Con argument can apply to various situations we have overcome perhaps.
"My coming would have saved you, set your people free in ways they cannot see. War would have tested them. Broken the weak with its violence, yet allowing the strong to arise. Violence gave you that strength, awakened you. I can see it upon your face, where two bullets left their mark." - Lanius, Fallout New Vegas
(But these are my thoughts, not Pros)

Con questions jobs created vs jobs lost. Statistics.
Argues AI a bit uncontrolled currently. Danger.
Hm, examples are often good to include, some human inventions such as plastic or leaded gasoline.
(Mine not Cons)
Con questions AI ability to 'do the jobs of the people it has replaced.

Round 1 Thoughts
Both a bit light, I'm leaning a bit Con, but maybe that's my thoughts arguments. And the happenstance of what happens when one goes second in debates (Sometimes) Setting the debate vs being able to respond to all of opponents points.
So leaning tie maybe, Pro has points on what AI 'might accomplish,
Con has points on the lack of guard rails.
I don't find the AI taking away our purpose as convincing, I 'think humans would still have goals and ambitions.
Con does a good job in questioning AI jobs and regulation dangers.

Possible flaw in this debate, I think is vagueness of time frame and AI scope/ability.

Round 2
Forfeited by both.

Lunatic Round 3
Jobs, both sides could do well on referencing history, we 'have had technology advance before.
Cotton Gin did not eliminate slave labor, enhanced it really.
Some North Factories and tech though, lessened the economies of the south.
Typewriter human copier used to be more of a job, lot of people employed. . . Hm, I am unsure how to measure human employment and technology.
Lot of times it is societal 'structure, more than tech.
But lot of tech has removed from humans dangerous jobs, as I notice Pro argue here.

Pro argues job creation inevitable with tech. Eh, yes and no I think.
Luddites not happy with tech, but societies 'do restructure.

Pro control argument relies on a big 'IF we control AI.
Hm, another possible flaw of debate, is the inevitability of AI.
Is it a bit like debating whether an oncoming storm will be good or bad?
Maybe rips the houses down, maybe waters the crops.
. . . Some human inventions good, but how they were 'applied, they ended up being bad.

Ultracrepidarian Round 3
Looks short, I'm currently leaning Pro, but maybe tie.
Con argues employers not have reason to replace workers, but Pro 'has argued new jobs.
Hm, John Henry, Paul Bunyan. Neither side has addressed government or society response. Is more existing companies assumption and society 'job response.
When AI trained, less human trainer need.

Con brings up 'possible dangers, but does not 'state what dangers quite.

RFV
My vote goes to Con, 'even though the BOF is heavily placed on Con in the description, if Pro doesn't attack their arguments they stand fairly unopposed.
Con is also the only one to define fair, and Pro never disagrees with their definition or application.
I have vague criticisms of Con's arguments, but those are 'my criticisms, not Pros.
. . . On another hand, Con did not engage in the Free Will and Programming points by Pro.
The 'problem with the Free Will and Programming points though, is that they weren't in the description, thus they are not 'forced to be a point of contention for Con.
Pro 'briefly raises the 'idea of Free Will and Programming, but they didn't heavily 'argue them.
So Con is able to attack in their own chosen ways, and Pro never attacks Pros arguments.

Title,
"People hate me just because I am a bad person. that's not fair"

Hm, is that two contentions that have to be proved?
Or is the first assumed?
Eh, probably assumed.
. . . I wouldn't say I hate SatanLucy, I've found some of our conversations interesting. Of YouTube and survival methods, such as home farms, or being able to identify edible plants.

Description,
Puts burden of proof on Con, and I'd say clarifies the title.
Eh, is it 'fair to hate someone for being a bad person?
. . . Maybe in a way yes, maybe in a way no.
We're all much molded from our circumstances, genes and experiences.
But as Zeno said to the slave fated to steal, yes, and to be beaten too.
. . . Though I'd rather try not to hate people when they do something I dislike. . . Fair. . . Fair mi- . . Hm, what does 'fair mean?

SatanLucy Round 1
Seems to be a throw away round.

LancelotDuLac Round 1
I'm not sure if it matters if someone was a fat person or a morally bad person.
Pro seems to alude to fate, but on another hand, they 'do zero in on bad person being the reason.
And that is what Con narrows in on.

Ahab argument focuses on haters,
Some truth in that, but honestly some people 'are more hate-able (statistics wise) for their actions. One expects and individual who commits evil, to be hated by others.
. . . Though, earlier argument points out some evil people are liked.

Hatred seems an emotion to me,
And as Con Ahab argument goes, people have their biases.
I think 'real fairness might be hating everyone equally?

SatanLucy Round 2
Focuses on fate.

. . . Is it 'fair to hate someone for something out of their control?
. . . . . . We often don't think it's right to harm an animal for harming a person, a cat for example, scratching someone while playing. It's a dumb animal, doesn't know better.
Same with Ahabs whale.
. . . Course on another hand, some animals 'are malicious, and why 'not hate even a mindless storm?
Fairness. . . ?
Con is the 'only person in the debate to define fairness, and engage with said description. That's going to lean me heavily in their direction.

LancelotDuLac Round 2
I wouldn't say Programming and free will are unrelated, but Pro did not put significant effort into explaining 'why they are important,
Nor did Pro criticize Con's argument.

I don't think likability and hate-ability are 'totally separate from moral character,
They 'can be a reason for people to dislike a person.
Though admittedly, someone can make up for a bad moral character in other ways.
A person's moral character isn't the 'one reason people have for liking or disliking someone.

I'm not convinced by point 2,
If the whale didn't cause Ahab's leg loss, Ahab wouldn't hate the whale, regardless of whether it is fair of Ahab to hate the whale or not.
If a person behaves in an evil manner, there are often going to be people who hate said individual.
Predictably so.
. . . But the point Pro wants addressed is fate. They claim the evil person is 'fated beyond their control to be evil, and thus is not morally responsible?

I'm not sure there 'is such a thing as objective analysis, unless the analysis is within an agreed upon system. . . And even then. . .
Boxing has agreed upon rules, and both individuals are judged by them.
But before weight classes for example, a match can still be unfair.
. . . But the 'rules in their 'application are fair.
Hm, and that's Con's argument I think in 3, People have a moral judging system, and it get's applied to everyone in life.
. . . If someone was born with blue skin though, would such be a fair reason to hate them?
Just because it is an objective analysis of the individual?
Everyone being judged by the same bias, making it fair?

RFV Full Forfeit.

Thoughts Anyhow.

I suppose there are at least three ways for Con.
Argue the unborn are not people,
And/Or argue we need not weigh the unborn above ourselves,
. . Three. . Argue abortion in cases of where unborn would suffer incredible pain and/or die in mother or shortly after birth.
By this one can argue killing is not immoral, while murder is.

Pro R1
Distinct person argument.
Though possibly counter able by distinct DNA not necessarily person.

Humans value like argument,
Eh, some people value their possessions or pets more than other humans.
But this nihilism always gives me difficulties.
Besides one can argue social norms of human value.

Still, I suppose one could argue unborn are not 'people, then make arguments such as their overloading society.
But eh, there are other methods to avoid getting pregnant at all.
And there's always countries looking for immigrants.

Round seems a bit light by Pro.

Title,
Yes, well. . . 'Theoretically.
We might meet aliens, stop being human, or create some type of non human.
Should we extend it to anything 'currently existing though?
Description, Corporations are not people.

Hyper Round 1
"default to the reasonable interpretation that any substantial expansion over current law qualifies." - HR1
Hm, this assumes that there are no laws currently allowing nonhuman animals to inherit estate or sign contracts.
There 'are laws and contracts that apply specifically to minors, considered 'less capable than adults, but still given a measure of self authority and legal rights.

"All laws ought to make the world better" - HR1
For 'me, my group, and 'maybe others.

"All beings capable of feeling are morally relevant " - HR1
I sometimes worry that plants can suffer.

Defines some terms, argues precedence. Eh, 'objects.

Existing animal laws. . .
Hm, is personhood black and white?
Can it be understood as partial? As a dolphin is 3/5s a person?
A rat 1/5 a person?
The law of personhood loses a bit of 'meaning in such a case maybe.
If 'everything's a person. . Thinking. . . Thinking. . .
Too hard, I'd rather just have threshold, above this you're a person.
Animal rights can still exist.

Though personally I think we should just extinct anything nonhuman.
No animals, no moral quandaries.

"environmental entities" - HR1
Property.

AI. . . Best to argue against this as impossible maybe.
Argue that if an elf came through a magic portal, we'd give them rights, but until then, why bother or legislate.

Thoughts, HR1 doing well, brings up theoretical future, argues some current organisms deserving, argues such laws already exist.
Might have difficulty in defining personhood or stretching it. I'm also not convinced by the property arguement.

Kohai Round 1
Expanding current laws is not enough (for debate win) nonhumans must get 'personhood.
"deontological" KR1
"rights and privileges" KR1
How about just definitions. We shouldn't change 'truth, just for consequences. Something is either a person or it isn't. And I don't think a mere 'object is a person.

Argues against ship, corporations.
"In addition, the main difference between a non-human and a legal corporation is that legal corporations and their activities are under the complete control by humans. " KR1
Hm, what about a human in a coma?

Brings up orca and supreme court.

"How can a chimpanzee own property, enter into a contract, be held liable for their actions, or sue and be sued? " KR1
Well, even mentally disabled humans have 'personhood and human rights.
This might be a big chink in Kohai's arguments.
I might need to reread definitions of debate, and definitions by debaters.

"Legal personhood is redundant " KR1

"My opponent’s plan only gives legal personhood to highly intelligent animals. This contradicts his earlier contention that" KR1 “All beings capable of feeling are morally relevant.” HR1

Environment argument okay, AI is maybe sidestep but okay.
Thoughts, I lean Con, but I see two people have already voted Pro.
Some inconsistencies in Pros arguments, and I question personhood being applied to inanimate objects.
Note to self, I did not notice Con make Truth/Science argument.

Hyper Round 2
Note to self, "three policies" what were they?
Ahh, both of you, I hate all this haggling over burdens of proof. Course, people 'are shoved into debate without 'agreeing to burden of proof.
"Responsibility isn't a prerequisite for legal personhood" HR2
'This is an argument I very much agree with. Though, I think it's questionable whether organisms other than humans merit it. Very speciesism of me.
. . . Children will 'become adults, and elders were once young adults, either case though, usually more than other animals. Course there is 'really young kids, and old people with dementia.
This line of thought leads to children and dementia individuals lo- no, they're still human. And people of sorts.
There's a problem of 'defining person with such vagueness though.
. . . But one does not need something to be a person, to give it 'rights of a sort.
This is argument made in R1 against and for by both.
"Minors and people with disabilities are cared for by guardians, even if they can’t legally consent." HR2

Rights once granted 'can be taken away.

Animal rights. . . I think this implies expanding the definition of person, and create a sliding scale of personhood.
But that seems pointless, nonhuman animals is 'already an expanding of personhood in a sense. Without them 'being people.
But a animal is more a person than a rock, though still not.
Note to self these are my arguments not Cons.

I 'really hate the environment argument, though there 'is a sense and logic to it.
I still 'personally refuse it.
Con will have to make their own arguments.

Note to self review AI arguments.
AI intelligence is still 'theoretical. I think uplifted animals, cyborgs, chimera, or genetic creations will come before AI. But that's baseless assumption on my part.

Thoughts, 'personally leaning Con, judging though, leaning Pro.
There 'are humans we say are people, unable to care for themselves.
Though I'd like to understand better by both, 'what a person is.
. . . Course on another hand, I don't have a very good definition myself, maybe.

Kohai Round 2
Huh, not how I thought I'd see coma patient used in this debate.
Not sure it's a strong argument by Pro,
"Deontology protects these rights better than utilitarianism because it rejects pain or intelligence as a determining factor in legal personhood. " KR2
What does it use as determining factors? Note to self to reread.

Eh, elephant argument not strong, as slavery might be past justified because recognizing slaves as free would mess with cotton industry.
'Are some animals not functionally equal to humans at certain developments or of retarted development?. . .
Course I avoid that by speciesism, but that's really a dodge, maybe.
. . . Bah this existence.

Guardianship has limitations to prevent abuse.
I still don't agree with giving legal personhood to inanimate objects.

Argues animal laws exists.
I don't 'think either side has argued too much on 'defining human, both been focused on ramifications.
Reminder Pro pain argument. Which Con argues against here, fish.

Environmental laws without personhood.
Hm, there 'are humans known as people, who are not protected or cared for well by the law.
Mere title of personhood does not protect, as Con argues here against environment laws.

Argues AI personhood needs be clearly defined.

Thoughts, leaning Con now.
Environment argument Con
Animal argument, Undecided,
AI argument Undecided.
But I could see Animal and/or AI going to Pro in final round, other two people voted Pro.

Hyper Round 3
Ah, I 'hate dropped argument claims.
deontology,
Pro claims some animals can suffer.
AI, eh, I suppose I 'might lean a bit Pro, but only because Con has not made arguments that AI cannot be intelligent, or that we can make laws later.
Con argument focuses on avoiding AI intelligence, which as Con argues might be difficult to achieve. Not all countries follow the same laws.
. . . Con 'has made arguments on avoiding complication, possible he can avoid this argument of Pros by arguing there is not reason to think intelligent AI are near in time.
Theoretically AI could be conceptualized by Ancient Greeks, does this mean they ought to have updated their laws of legal personhood?
Pro argues existence of previous pre emptive laws in history.

AH! I HATE CLAIMS OF DROPPED ARGUEMENTS!
People usually don't see it the same way as the claim makers.

"Con also undermines his case with his example of infants. If, as he says, granting personhood to infants allows stronger enforcement of child welfare laws, then what does granting personhood to animals do?" HR3
Fair point.

Eh, how important is animals suffering?
A bit maybe, but they don't need personhood to have their suffering prevented to a degree.
Per Con arguments.

Fundamental Rights 'can be dropped, 'especially if they're make pretending that an inanimate object is a person.

Thoughts
AI leaning Pro
Animals Undecided
Environment Con
But as Pro says, 'any extension of legal personhood is a win I think.

Kohai Round 3
Both debaters 'did approach this debate, more in consequences, than what 'is person.

"expand on and enforce our existing laws without adding any additional legal baggage that is incoherent or contradictory." KR3
This is a really good argument, that maybe could have been better put and used earlier in the debate.
Rather than a sudden leap of personhood, protections and rights for 'maybe humans, while personhood could be 'prepared for future encounters and if 'reasonable, enforced.
Personhood by steps. Though that's more an AI than current environment and animals.

"If you believe it is incoherent to give rights to something that doesn’t even exist yet then this warrants a con vote" KR3
My problem is that this is a bit late. Hm, but round 2. . .
"Next, I’ll state that granting personhood to a sentient AI we would need to determine exactly when it becomes sentient. My opponent admits we do not know this and that’s the problem: Pre-emptively granting personhood to something that is merely hypothetical and doesn’t even exist yet is 100% legally incoherent. " KR2

I thought that was a bit more talking about what 'degree is human, but Con meant what 'year will AI be people.
. . . . Pro 'does have pre emptive laws in history.

I still lean Con on animal rights being sufficient.
Question of suffering and personhood, not explored enough in depth.
'Personally I don't think we need to extend rights to AI, and in a way 'can't because they don't exist yet.
But we 'can because the laws would exist for it.
I'm still doubtful person AI are near.
. . . Still leaning Pro, though the semantics of whether something nonexistent yet can have rights extended over it, is a bit confusing.

Arguments against AI because it is too dangerous to be left alive is not 'personally convincing to me. Persons get rights. . . well. . . deserve? Maybe. Have?
. . . . . . Hm, well doesn't matter, as Pro argues, difficulty of 'enforcing such laws.
And possible dangers of such.

"It is 100% legally incoherent to give rights to something that does not exist!" KR3

"3) He says that preemptively granting rights is legally incoherent. That's false: preemptive laws are widespread. Space laws existed before we went to the moon, gene engineering laws existed before CRISPR, and autonomous vehicle laws existed before they were street-legal (UN, Synthego, NCSL). Uncertainty calls for precaution, not inaction. We should be ready for the future." HR3
I lean Pro

"In addition PRO never explains how we will know once AI becomes sentient." KR3
I lean Tie.
But then Pro 'did have sources for consciousness and AI.

Animal enforcement difficulty.
Hm, Pro 'might have done better focusing more on intelligent animals and implementation of laws.
But Con could have better addressed various disabled humans argument. What 'is person?

Thoughts,
If debate was environments and animals, I 'think I'd vote Con, but as argued, just need one.
Pro focused a lot on consequences, rather than 'deserves, not that they 'never made deserve arguments.
So now, going to check AI sources I think.
Ah wait, I should consider the Consequence vs Deontology. Bah, sidebar.

AI sources,
Singularity vague, 'chance vague, "Why do some experts believe that we will not reach AGI?"
AI getting better, but no mentions of personhood.
Hrm,
I'm not sure AI sources are that definitive, but Con also didn't 'engage with the AI sources.
But really 'both sides, walked past each other's sources mostly in debate I think.
. . .

Who is the burden of proof on for AI being potentially existent?
Pro, but Con didn't quite engage that, Con argued difficulty in knowing 'when AI would be persons.
Con doesn't argue that AI are not likely to achieve it at some point if we keep working.
Though. . . 'Personally I'm not convinced they'd ever be 'people, 'imitation, is not reality.
. . . . Hm, vote is really either Tie or Pro.

I suppose Pro.
Perhaps more Con focus against 'possibility of AI would have managed a tie.

RFV Short
Debate title and what is being contended is unclear.
Debate gives impression that Pro is arguing that Pantheism is the most likely true faith, and that it is Atheistic.
Whether is Atheistic is not touched by Con in debate.
Con 'does engage with whether Pantheism is true.

Con raises questions of morality, assumes objective morality is necessary,
Hm, but if Pantheism 'does assume morality, and some 'type of objective value for it, then Con 'is raising fair arguments against the specific version of Pantheism argued by Pro.
Con argues limits of science, Pro does not do as much as they 'might to prove all science.

Pro 'does raise arguments for a 'type of objective morality I think.
Possible slight language barrier.
Makes arguments on validity of science and proof in what makes a belief reasonable.

I 'think both sides miss addressing each other's arguments in some bits.
Pro definition of "purpose" might be more along the lines of what is expected to occur?
When flint hits steel, purpose of flint and steel is to spark?

. . . I lean Pro, but I think there was ambiguity in debate, lack of clarified win lose conditions,
Lack of ease maybe in seeing points raised and discussed in debate.
Pro offered many arguments,
Con offered many objections.

RFV Long
pierreeR 1 Previous debate
"Briefly, the Christian's assumption of the incarnation of God in a human being, logically means that exists only one real Christian, the so called "child of God"- Jesus." Pro R1

Christians are 'followers 'of Christ.
Same way for Zenoists following Zeno, or Confucianists following Confucius.

Though I suppose in a sense, all these Way Founders might be the most (Themself)ists, in a sense.
. . .

Defining God is often difficult in debate,
I'm not sure something needs to be transcendent to be considered God,
Nor that some things we partially experience, to not be considered God.
Lot of definitions and views on God.

"Pantheism is the most unique faith which demonstrates atheism" Title

Might have been better as,
Pantheism demonstrates atheism.

But maybe you also should have defined Pantheism, God, Atheism in the description.

Maybe also title would have been better if title was,
Pantheism (If true) demonstrates atheism.

SomeDebatePerson R1 Previous debate
Eh, for some people, certain existences don't need so much explanation, they just 'are.
Pro 'does argue for science explaining various features of existence.

pierree R1 This debate
Offers an explanation of evil,

"Theism adoperates" (adopts?)
"metaphysical phallacy" (fallacy?)

Pro I think argues good and evil are poorly defined by religion.

I find the idea of communicating with people of other languages fascinating, and at times impressive. I can only speak one language.

Still, I think both sides are making more claims then they are managing well to 'prove.

"disembiguites" (disambiguates?)
Remove uncertainty of meaning from (an ambiguous sentence, phrase, or other linguistic unit).

"every human being is moral because we have no more the need to alienate ourselves in something eternal, which prevent us to live." - Pro

Possibly Pro is arguing morality exists, and exists all the more when it is something 'real we interact with,
Pro arguing God religions less moral, due to focus on God, which Pro argues does not exist, thus the morality of God religions 'is not morality, because it does not deal with what is real.
. . . Interesting argument, if such is their argument, though I'd argue God religions 'still deal with humans and their actions on Earth.

I think Pro argues that Pantheism may contain an amount of circular reasoning, but so does God Theism,
But Pro argues Pantheism is more rational, as it's circularity deals with science and what is more at hand, provable and evidenced.
(Though some God theists may disagree that God theism is not provable or evidenced, nor that God theism is divorced from science.

SomeDebatePerson R1
Eh, I'm not sure I'd say the problem of evil is 'solved in theism, though theism 'does offer various answers, such as one Con gives here.

Arguably some versions of Atheism 'also offer answers for good and evil, it's lack of objectivity for one, which 'can be taken as morality not existing.
This 'is 'an answer, it's main problem I 'think is the absurdity and painfulness of it.
But truth and reality 'can be absurd at times.

I don't 'think it's circular reasoning to say that sin is okay because God does not exist.
Arguably Ethics can be based on the nonexistence of God, same way people agree to a game of chess, and the same way a cow chews grass and an eagle eats a rabbit.
Just happens to be the way of humans to latch on to various ideas of morals and ethics.
(Note to self, these are my arguments, not Pros)

I don't 'think Pro has said that humans are equal and need to be treated right.

Eh, not everyone is happy with how all theists define or prove God.
Arguably Pantheism might argued and proved by simply being, as Pro has argued earlier, reliance on provable data and science.

pierree R2
Eh, I'll stick to my Nihilism, but I understand how others might accept or take meaning from Pantheism.

Eh, how did the universe come to be?
If it explodes and implodes 'forever, is this not eternal?
How could existence 'not exist in some form?
Something come from nothing?

I don't really think God Theism quite solves this problem for me either.
But God Theists 'do have arguments for such.

conatus?
A Latin term meaning "effort" or "striving"
Pro argues a 'greater why does not matter,
What is, is,
And is for explainable science reasons.

SomeDebatePerson R2
Con calls out poetic language by Pro, and the implied sacred objective values.
Which I don't think Pro 'needs prove, one can just accept humans pretend as though morality matters. And 'do pretend because it is their nature. As a frog catches flies and a scorpion stings.
But of course many Atheists have a happier view of existence than me.

There 'is order in math and science.
Patterns.

Some people 'do take the view that there is only beauty in something that can be lost or chosen.

I'm not sure Pro needs to prove that morality is not relative.

I'm not sure something 'needs to be eternal for someone to call it God.
Though it might not match someone else's definition of God.

pierree R3
Pro argues similarity of moral habits in humans and beings.
Though I'd argue contrary evil moral habits exist as well.
Either way though, civilizations 'would often pop up I imagine, when conditions are right.

I find Pro arguments on eternity incomplete.

SomeDebatePerson R3
I'm not sure Atheism 'needs objective morality to be a valid theory.
Abiogenesis is still debated I suppose,
Though Atheists might argue it's just a matter of time.
Some might argue it's Theists always pushing back the goal post every discovery.
(But I've not thought deeply on it)

Hubble seems a bit tangent.

pierree R4
Eh, lot of Theist scientists in history.

Argues value of scientific proofs.

SomeDebatePerson R4
Eh, I'm 'pretty sure natural selection and fossils of some extinct species exists.
And are the common held view now.

It 'does seem strange at times, that existence 'is, is 'anything, is so complex and intertwined at times.
'Seems a bit begging the question though.
Questioning what is not yet known, and ignoring what is.

Darwins religious views might be complicated.

I'm not sure it is proven that Pantheism is unordered, many of Pros arguments seem to argue it 'is ordered in certain ways and degrees.

I consider the sun bit, a bit of a tangent.

"Pro was unable to show how pantheism was unique in any way." - Con
I 'really think you should have made more of a point clarifying earlier in the debate, rather than engaging with their arguments al those other rounds.

Title and Description,
Well, there's the difficulty of defining rights.
Natural born or law of the land?
Which land?

SomeDebatePerson Round 1
Makes naturalist argument.
Though,
Outlier human anomalies exist to the rule of thumb.
Humans also use lot of science to change natural states of humans.
Born 'of, also not quite the same as born 'to, maybe.

Mal Round 1
Eh, Legal 'is another side of what 'Rights are, I think.
Well, it's not so much that it's not 'up to minors, as adults are generally stronger and more intelligent, thus able to enforce their ideals upon minors.
(Ideally for the minors safety, is the thinking)
Pre existing legal system is also set up for adults.

Theoretically, I suppose there 'could exist societies in which minors 'do have as much freedom and 'Rights as adults.

So far each has stated their stance, not yet engaged with other's arguments too much.

SomeDebatePerson Round 2
Appeals to historic American Founder and document, both still an influence on modern American thought of Rights.

Pro 'does miss a bit I think in insisting Con is avoiding the argument.
Description of a debate is valuable in clearly setting win lose parameters and subject of debate.
Description did not limit debate to 'Natural Rights,
Legal Imposed Rights can have a dog in this fight as well.

What I think Pro 'should do, is give examples in history and law of Guardians 'Rights over their children being limited or removed.
. . . Though sometimes Federal government simply takes over from parents.
Other times though, there are limitations even on Federal Government, such as no beating your child.

Mal Round 2
Arguing social norms. 'Seems a bit circular as Con asserts it.
. . . In a slave owning society, slaves are slaves because the law says they are slaves, they have no legal right or sufficient power to change legal system.
Thus slaves have no rights to freedom.

Generally speaking, when there is no 'obvious Burden of Proof, I lay BOP on both debaters.

I think Con is right that description did not 'specify natural rights, however it did not specify legal rights either.

Both sides are a bit talking past each other I think,
Con not addressing Jefferson and American Government Documents for example as argument for Natural Rights.

SomeDebatePerson Round 3
Bit assuming of everyone agrees,
Pro should state, example, and argue unjust guardian violating a child's rights, and try to further build their argument on the 'existence of natural rights and people's recognition of natural rights.

Con is right that 'legally parents rights supersede child's rights to a large extent,
There 'are limitations and variations however based on time and history.

Mal Round 3
The definitions of 'Rights by both Pro and Con seem unclear to me.

Con continues circular argument of if parents didn't have authority they could not control children as they do, thus children's rights do not supersede parents power.
Though it is 'possible I am misunderstanding Con.

SomeDebatePerson Round 4
I don't think Pro's source 'quite says what Pro thinks.
Though admittedly source below is not Pro's source, but 'was link to part in Pro's source talking about children.

"In all jurisdictions implementing the convention requires compliance with child custody and guardianship laws as every child has basic rights, including the right to life, to their own name and identity, to be raised by their parents within a family or cultural grouping, and to have a relationship with both parents, even if they are separated.
The convention obliges states to allow parents to exercise their parental responsibilities. The convention also acknowledges that children have the right to express their opinions and to have those opinions heard and acted upon when appropriate, to be protected from abuse or exploitation, and to have their privacy protected. It requires that their lives not be subject to excessive interference."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child

Appeal to nature.
But problems are as I stated earlier.

Pro has not 'quite made sufficient argument or evidence of superior outcome of male and female over male male or female female parents.

Mal Round 4
Interesting argument, that rights can be taken away by death.
. . Not 'sure I agree. . . But I'd have to think on it, last round though, so no opportunity for Pro to respond.

“They may kill me, but they cannot hurt me."
—Socrates”
Also many rights or 'legal expectations continue after death.
Right to burial, right to property being respected according to one's will.
But of course 'rights vary.

Final thoughts,
Overall, debate was vaguely defined by both sides, and was mainly 'both participants talking past each other and not addressing one another's arguments.
Circular reasoning by both.
Con arguments came off a bit nihilistic, but included interesting arguments disputing some of Pro's claims on the value/strength/enduring of rights.
Pro arguments while including documents and sources, but lacking in proofs and extensive explanation.

Kohai Round 1
Kohai makes the metric system sound awfully handy with all the easy conversions and economic with all the mistakes.

Fruit_Inspector Round 1
Eh, maybe US government couldn't 'force civilians to switch, but it 'could shift what the government uses?
Maybe civilians end up of their own free will following along.

'Could be costly to convert to the metric system, but maybe we could do it piecemeal as various signs wear out, or new factories are made.
But these are my arguments, not Pro.

Kohai Round 2
" the metric system is actually mandated by the US federal government for contracts and regulatory"
Then why are inches and miles everywhere in America?
Helps argument a bit maybe in government authority, but maybe hurts a bit if government has already been trying to push the metric system for a while, yet America still hasn't switched to it.

The government 'can pass unpopular or untraditional legislation, still unpopular and untraditional forced legislation is more a point for Con.
Government ability is more partial mitigation by Pro.

Pro makes decent arguments on long term benefit and example of Australia switching.
Though, maybe Australia would have an easier time than America.

Fruit_Inspector Round 2
Questions and points out flaws in Pro sources.

While exact number is a bit guessing, what is saved by Australia isn't necessarily saved by us.
It seems a reasonable argument by Pro that 'something would be saved. Perhaps substantial.

Money might not be 'saved in school, but it might be better spent.
Which in a 'way is saving money.
But this is my argument.

Pro mitigates medication argument partially.

Questions 'consistency of metric system.

Mitigates medication argument again.

Kohai Round 3
I suppose we only know what an inch is, because we have an inch to compare to.
While a constant is objective and away.
. . . Maybe a constant inch can be found in existence somewhere?
Still, helps Pro's argument.

"The problem with my opponent's paper is that it never breaks down the root cause of medical mis dosage"
I'm not quite sure what this means, nor when Con talks of it down lower.

Pro 'does have other sources though.

Fruit_Inspector Round 3
Ah, there is the constant.

"In contrast, the legal definitions of the imperial system is pegged to the metric system. In other words, you can get rid of the imperial system but you cannot get rid of the metric system without having to redefine what an inch, pound, etc. is." - Pro Round 1

Or 'is Con Round 3 an example of a constant?
Bit late to dispute it. . . Really 'anything can be measured by anything, but I take it the Metric system is more exact about it?

Australia isn't America,
But it seems common sense certain changes.
Industrializing some countries may have been easier for some than others in history, but long term, it 'eventually ends up a benefit.

Thoughts,
Hm, going to look for BOP
Don't see it mentioned, and my usual take on debates is the BOP is to be shared unless stated otherwise.
Debate comes off a bit as a 'maybe America should switch, Pro giving various arguments of benefits, legality, economy, mishaps.

While Con mitigates much of Pro's argument, throws a lot of it into doubt.
Con 'does argue Metric system not better, but takes care to argue debate is not about such.
Trying to shift debate more into feasibility, maybe easier argument.

Argument not used by Pro is world unity, though did use trade unity argument.

Lot of Cons argument is Pro needs to fully prove claims of feasibility or errors in conversions such as medication.
I think Pro argued the benefits well,
But Con mitigated them to a large degree.
. . . Is that a Con win then?
. . . What 'would be a Con win?
'Clear winning arguments that America should not switch.
Debate conclusion for me seems more a 'maybe America should switch, debate becomes a bit 'how can/should we switch, or are we 'able to switch.
Though personally I'm fond of what we already have.

My vote is for-
Hm, Con also win maybe by arguing it is not cost benifitive currently.
. . . But that also requires maybe more exact numbers.

Voting Tie.

Summery, due to Ah! 5 minutes left!
I'm conflicted on the issue, I lean towards Pro arguing better, but I've not finished rereading and reading sources.
I think Con could have done a better job with harm theory, not that it was a 'bad job, but Pro 'did have arguments for it, even if some maybe were indirect.
Pro also mitigated some of Cons arguments by arguing they were not too applicable such as the AH 1 minute!
Sorry, voting tie, though maybe would have voted Pro

Con Round 1 Kohai
Waived.

Pro Round 1 fauxlaw
Economy is the only argument I find 'personally convincing.

More culture, more sex,
Bah, I like current culture well enough,
Bah Hedonism appeal. (Though I 'am a hedonist)

Con Round 2 Kohai
Argues and sources harm,
Claims regulation does not provide needed amount of transparency.
Argues legalization makes the practice more common.

Pro Round 2 fauxlaw
I really don't see why other countries can't be compared.
In a time before fire, and some other country makes fire, and see's benefits,
Why shouldn't they be held as an example?

Pro makes argument that there is distinction between sex trafficking and prostitution.
"Only 10% of prostitution in Nevada is legal"
Huh, I'd think there'd be more, is there more illegal prostitution in Nevada than other American states as a result of legalized prostitution?
Not rhetorical, I don't know.

Pro makes decent argument on subjective morality, Buuuut I'd still rather blanket cover some subjective morality.
Still, Con does need to make a case for it maybe.
. . . Con 'is trying with harm argument, arguing it makes the act more common, theory being more normalized, more messed up situations as well, more illegal activities.
Maybe it's more common for parents to sell their kids, when people can sell themselves. Even if the selling of kids is illegal.
Also problem of gray area consent, coercion.

Con Round 3 Kohai
Questions the economic benefit due to regulation costs and such.
Con didn't make many arguments about morality and sex, also not many arguments about harm. Didn't 'seem a strong round.
Then again, probably has to do with debate structure in description.
Debate structure
Round 1. Con waives and pro presents opening statements
Round 2-4: Rebuttals
Round 5: Con's closing statement pro waives this round.

Pro Round 3 fauxlaw
Pro is right that Con needs 'prove illegal activity is increased with legalization.
Common history lot of people think of is alcohol. Hm, is illegal alcohol more and/or worse with it's legalization?
Eh, maybe more, but maybe not worse.
. . . Well. . . Worse illegally is gangsters guns and bombs, worse socially maybe is number of deaths, disease, dysfunctional families by legalization.

Pro argues economic profit is still economic profit.

Claims health benefits of sex.

Argues as he did earlier the value of STD testing in legal prostitution, which is somewhat lacking in illegal prostitution.

Con Round 4 Kohai
Makes arguments of validity of different country comparisons.
Argues illegal can follow legal.

"The state has a moral obligation to protect its citizens from harm and to prevent violence against women."
Yeah, but we're also country of the free, if people want to commit evil (To a degree) upon themselves, bit their choice and subjective maybe.
Course where are the limits?

Pro Round 4 fauxlaw
I disagree with Pro's argument that there can be 'no comparing other countries. At 'most one can argue comparison has limitations.

2.7 % doesn't sound that big a number, Con 'does need to put the number into 'perspective.
Compare it with some other job of equal population perhaps.

I think Pro is 'missing Cons point on illegal following legal.
But Con 'does make fair points on the legal being safe, though it's a bit flawed by not addressing Con's argument I think.

Con Round 5 Kohai
I think Pro kind of indirectly answered the harm argument.
By arguing Pros of legalizing prostitution and arguing against some harms Con argued would come about from legalized prostitution.

Pro Round 5 fauxlaw
Waived.

Sources
Con R1 Waived.
Pro R1, been nonsensical, or theatrical one might argue.
Con R2 Some good some flawed, as Pro argues illegal trafficking is different than prostitution. Con might have dug in more on proving illegal following legal as well as factualizing people being trapped or coerced into 'legal prostitution.
Hm, source 5 in round 2, Pro argues against due to 'causes of entry into prostitution, eh, I'm too convinced by Pro here.

Need compare maybe with other jobs.
. . . Hm, is there any horrible job people are trapped in, that we outlaw because it is horrible?
Coal mining or something? Well, maybe older coal mining was really bad, deadly, I don't know about modern coal mining. But it's not illegal.
Hm, kids having jobs, certain jobs, bit illegal.
AH! 5 minutes left!

Who is the funniest South Park character?
Hm, Cartman or maybe Kenny.

Debate
Pro makes case for Butters having more range and depth, while Jesus might be limited in roles.
Con focuses on show purpose and who fulfills role best.
. . . There 'are different kinds of funny. Does an act separate from the comedian?
A bit, not all comedians are funny, some are able to do roles better than others.
Some comedians and their bit are really funny, the comedian 'is the bit in a sense.

How does one 'measure funniest?
Some food is tasty, even though I would not want to eat it too often,
Just because there is tasty food I can eat more often, doesn't mean it's tastier.

Ought humor be objective?
Should it be measured by the audience, but different audience, different measurement.

While I think Con does a good job of showing funny Jesus moments, absurdity, and mitigation Pros points such as range of funny.
It doesn't really get me to vote for Con more than Pro.

Pro does a fine job of pointing out Butters qualities, moments, absurdity.
Questions messages being crammed down throats,

But the whole debate is a bit of a back and forth,
And a difficulty for me is definitions and how to measure funny.

I'd say I lean Pro, but I have difficulty saying they 'won the debate.

I found position of Con in description bit unclear,
In debate it is clear Pro and Con agree on many instances where modding is appropriate,
Less clear is what Pro would let slide, and where Con found situation too much.

Both sides sources influenced debate, 'maybe Cons a bit better, but I'd want Con to be more precise what in source is 'proof.
Also problem of correlation and causation.
Sources Con 'better, but not enough I'd give point.

Advertising, Debates, and Forum
Both sides argued with DDO as example of Moderation effects. Con good arguments on active owners, features, debates allure, clean quality vs hot topic controversy appeal.
Went back and forth fair bit.

Con argued well on site features such as controversial content block,
Pro arguing decently against mob justice, need of 'some rule enforcement not just the 'extreme crossed line enforcement.
. . .

I think I lean voting Con, they had many answers for controversial content, involving owner and programmer workaround. Filters, front page control.

While Pro 'did address Forum, and gave examples of banned users, I'm not sure where that falls in strict vs laissez faire.

If debate was Con 'Partial win, I'd vote that.
But I'm voting tie, as it'd take me more effort to vote and explain complete Con win.
Additional thoughts comment #21

Con followed through in their arguments with many different definitions of the word draw,
Pro never defined draw, and simply kept offering it,

I found Cons argument and meaning easier to understand, and they 'gave arguments, while Pro more 'offered.