Also, some points you were just repeating in your round. Like, the part about migrants taking away jobs could have been written much shorter. There is no need to repeat it 10 times. It's true that I could have made my points shorter too, but so far I didn't have issues with character limit. If I did, I would have taken some measures to min max character count.
In second round, you started with unnecessary introduction. Then later when you were responding to my points, you were copying a lot of unnecessary text. It's enough to just re-write point in a short way, or copy a very short part of point which you are responding to. There is no need to copy whole bunch of text from my round, because then your room for replies becomes much smaller.
You repeated "But don't worry, Pro has more" about 10 times in your round 1. And complaining about lack of characters in debate also reduces number of characters you have.
I don't usually try to min max character count. But you do add a lot of sentences which are just playing no role in debate.
So far I had no problem with character limit. I think you are adding too many unnecessary words and sentences.
A lot of this debate depends entirely on how "threat" is defined. Obviously, anyone can consider anything a threat. So the debate is more about what "threat" is than anything else. Because obviously a threat which destroys a nation for sure is gonna be taken as priority. The threat which poses a slight risk of someone getting harmed? A lot less so.
I think I got a way better side of the topic just because its the side I fully agree with. tho I too will eventually be forced to defend a side I completely disagree with if I keep doing these ultrarated debates.
I wont say anything, I just think position starts with positive for Pro by default, because you generally cant prefer safety over freedom.
this resolution is favoring Pro a bit.
Good luck to my opponent. this is my first ultrarated debate, so I hope we both do well.
Time for argument 3 days? Damn, I gonna have to rush this one.
I like how humanity wants to solve problems caused by humanity. Apparently, trying to solve problems you cause isn't exactly a perfect plan. It's like shooting yourself in the foot and then trying to heal. And doing it over and over. And of course, fixing problems you cause might seem logical at first, however it is merely treating the symptoms, which will appear again more and more because you keep causing more problems. And at some point, not even symptoms can be treated any more due to too many problems caused.
Sorry for stealing a bit of your elo, I needed to vote to earn a badge. I don't claim my vote to be perfect, and of course there can be disagreements on what to use to judge a debate by when voting. I don't usually base my vote on other votes, tho I do tend to read other votes just to see if I missed something which other voter didn't.
"I think that has more to do with your discussion of self-interests as an impact, since it doesn't factor into my framework"
It was your definition of democracy, at start of debate. Not just strongly implied in description.
So if one were to conclude "mandatory voting doesnt represent interests better", that then would mean:
Democracy definition = "represents interests of all people"
Mandatory voting = doesnt "represent interests of all people" better
Mandatory voting = Doesnt mean better democracy.
Your framework was likewise about representation of interests, so to me it seemed interests were a crucial point in debate to judge a debate by. If I merely judged a debate by "increased votes", that would be a landslide win for Pro and Con wouldnt stand a chance from start.
"I didn’t see an alternative framework that we could use to weigh individual interests"
Hence the "framework turned against itself vs no framework".
Your framework ran under premise:
Greater voter turnout = greater amount of interests satisfied (definition of democracy)
Con challenged that premise in round 1, more in round 3, but gave no of his own framework.
So if I am to reject round 3 entirely, I would vote Pro. If I am to accept round 3 entirely, I would vote Con. If I was to pick and choose what to accept and reject from round 3, based on previous arguments, I would have to debate whether to accept the argument of authoritarian countries having mandatory voting. But result would likely be somewhere in middle. So I simply chose tie.
I simply judge debates first by topic title and description definitions if provided. If debaters agree to a common main definition or standard, I can judge a debate by that, because thats point both agree on. If there is no any agreement, I can judge arguments based on definitions and standards provided by debaters who make them, and what logical consistency flows from that, and which arguments are logically deduced or with proved premises.
So when I judge a debate, I need a weighing system. Something which tells which arguments are good and which are bad, and that takes more than mere internal self-consistency of arguments.
So when I chose definition of democracy, where democracy is meant to represent interests of all people, to me that says
"democracy = representing interests of all people"
"better democracy = representing interests better".
"I also don’t really get how my framework is turned against itself."
Its not entirely turned against itself. However, your framework, which deals with people's interests, defends a mandatory voting position (forcing people who dont have interest to vote).
Now, if I am a person who doesnt want to vote, mandatory voting merely harms my interest, if no other benefits to my interest are added.
So default starting position is in negative.
So the benefits to interests must outweigh that harm, for framework to work, or else it remains self-defeating.
So in simple terms, I am losing my interests by being forced to vote, so I must also get some interests in return for it to pay off.
"that my arguments weren’t weighted for what we lose"
If you are talking about my statement regarding lack of numbers, the specific numbers which lack is how many people achieve their interests by mandatory voting vs how many lose some of their interest. For example, forcing 50 million people who dont want to vote, to vote, is a harm to their interests which needs to be outweighed by showing what amount of interest they get in return.
"the point about how it’s possible to solve for issues with lack of voting in a voluntary system"
I mentioned in my vote that Con only came up with solution in round 3. So that point was mentioned in debate, even if mentioned too late. However, with shared burden of proof, I also expect from Pro to show that advantages of mandatory voting system are exclusive to mandatory voting system. If they are not, that disables preference of one over another. You said "voluntary could have same model", when you talked of removing obstructions to voting. So to me, that showed no possible preference of one side over another, when both can apply exactly same solution to removing obstructions to voting.
"it feels like you’re essentially calling the entire increase in voter number nonunique"
I accepted in my vote that mandatory voting increases voter turnout. So did Con. So that point was not contested. What was contested is interests of those people.
Why this is only potential?
Well, ideal case: voter turnout increases, politicians show care for interests of those people, and more people have their interests cared for.
Less ideal case (suggested by Con): Voter turnout increases, people's interest is harmed by forced voting, additionally, politicians take advantage of new increase in votes for their own political benefit, uninformed voters get manipulated, and population as a whole doesnt gain much of their interests, but their interest is still harmed by forced voting (they have interest and desire not to vote, but are forced to).
I dont claim myself to be a flawless voter. Which points exactly?
"The government of any democracy is, by definition, meant to represent the interests of the entire population"
this was something both debaters seemed to agree on, so I evaluated arguments by what interests points in them satisfy and of whom among entire population.
So I worked with:
Satisfying interests = good
the main question which was bothering me is: Should I punish Con's accidental forfeit (and reject his round 3 innovation), or reward his last round innovation?
In the end, I chose to do neither and just leave it as a tie.
If it was intentional forfeit, I would vote Pro. But due to short time for arguments (3 days), I am somewhat convinced forfeit was an accident.
I might vote on this, but from what I see so far, my vote is likely going to be a tie, so I am not sure if there is a point in casting it other than stealing one of 3 valuable vote slots.
"If every definition falls into my point there's no point giving any"
No definition = No definition falls into your point
"I didn't need to provide a proper definition"
No definition = No deductive logic possible.
If you want to know why your argument fails, it's this:
My structure was:
Best friend = X
Cigarette = X
Best friend = cigarette.
Your structure, at the very minimum, should have been:
Best friend = Y
Cigarette =\= Y
Best friend =\= cigarette.
But with no definition of best friend provided anywhere in your one round, thus no "Best friend = Y", the deductive structure in your argument is non-existent.
So yeah, if you plan to convince me, you at very least need to provide definition of "best friend", which you didn't do.
"It doesn't matter if you are convinced or not. It is factual to say cigarettes are not your best friend, regardless on how you see things."
Incorrect again.
thats okay, I read your argument. I am not convinced.
Mal accepted this because he sees a flaw in topic. But I really wonder if we see the same flaw or maybe he spotted a different one.
I dont need to defend anything. I merely need to state my position and ignore all counter arguments.
Trump is best example of failed democracy. Because masses of people are not smart enough to even detect most obvious lies, such as "I will end all wars in 24 hours". They only detect them after the said politician already won, and at that point, it's too late.
Democracy is the best system of government, when we exclude all others.
What is "Jihadist violence"?
If it merely means fighting in war, then this debate is essentially "Muslims are allowed to fight in wars".
