Alright, just do your best and I will too, and we will see where it goes.
Admittedly, not the topic I share any big interest in, and not the side I would choose to defend even if I did, but still good luck and I guess I gotta make some effort here now I am expected.
Given that I must prove intent, Pro is basically required to be a mind reader here, not that statements and actions of Israeli don't strongly imply that intent.
I don't know how else to call bombing every house, hospital and school in Gaza, but sure, you can think otherwise.
Mal wins this easily
Define evil
It means doing as you are told
You should put that description in all debates lmao
No challengers?
Yes, God yes!
Property ownership is actually pro immigration because migrants arent really stealing land, they are buying it from locals who are willingly selling and owning it.
Its politically popular, sure.
tho the position unfortunately suffers from so many issues, such as issue of justifying why someone born in place A is more important than someone born in place B. Position basically descends into racism and discrimination no matter what. And all the benefits of migrants to a country are just a cherry on cake. Literally how does one argue Con here without doing arbitrary discrimination?
If I was Con here, I wouldnt know what the fuck to do.
Also, I got terribly lucky on this topic. A lot of these topics arent really balanced lol
Science invented the abortion. Nothing good comes from science.
thank you for the vote, and yeah, its funny that this debate lets me argue that only 1 extra migrant should be allowed in. I didnt take as much advantage of that as I could, because I thought it would be absurd.
Always write votes in txt file or doc file, then copy paste. Its risky to write them directly here. Same with debate rounds. No offense, but I dont put much trust in this site's ability to save debate round, cuz it randomly logs you out and then even if you click "save draft" its gonna just say you are logged out.
Debate art never logged me out. Literally never. I dont now why this site does, and it does so often. Its an annoying function, cuz I dont usually need to log in to anything on other sites, I am always logged in.
thank you, I dont care much for outcome of this debate as much as I care for it just being finished already so I finally appear on ultrarated leaderboard lol
Voting time will expire either today or tomorrow. As far as I know, it's 3 days to vote and 2 have already passed.
If you wanna do it, do it. I don't know who is assigned to vote on this debate, but if they don't vote, their vote time will expire and then you can probably vote on it anyway.
Vote is huge because I did point by point voting, and this debate has plenty of individual points, forcing me to either throw out points from consideration at all or make vote bigger, and I chose the latter. Tho summary of vote is at the bottom of the vote in "conclusion" section.
Shitting out this vote was a pain in the ass. If you have any objections to any parts of vote, say so and I will update my vote if necessary. this vote gave me a headache, and its probably one of most difficult votes I ever did on this site.
I will have my vote up today or tomorrow. this is the only debate left to vote on, so I am forced to vote on it to gain those vote badges, or wait until someone else fills remaining 2 votes, which could take too long so I am just gonna vote.
"Con has more leeway to argue how and when geoengineering could be used"
This to me seems like a lot of possibilities for Con. To be able to argue "when" it should be used, it means person can basically argue for it to be used just for one day, even if it's large scale, the large scale remains largely undefined, so a lot of things can be large scale.
Con had ways to win this, if he just focused on very small scale low cost geoengineering. Cuz debate description gave him full freedom on "how". then the debate would just be on if that small cost is better used elsewhere.
I hope no issues arise because my vote doesnt have 1000 words. this debate was extremely short and writing more words would just be unnecessary and its a foregone conclusion anyway.
Nevermind, I got assigned another debate. Could return to this later.
Yeah uh if win conditions themselves are part of debate, that requires even more win conditions for that part of debate. So I am gonna just go with self-contradiction or self-defeat or case proving opposite case, if I vote on this one. I don't really see other way right now to judge this debate by, so I will just apply what is standard in coherence generally.
This debate didn't really set up clear win conditions in description, other than having both security and liberty is ideal. So I gonna need some time to think of victory conditions, and also first what both debaters agree on. I think every debate should have pre-determined win conditions before voting.
Tho I don't think I gonna vote on this one, this is just in case cuz voting is random and I want to ask in advance. If I do get assigned to this one, it's a tough vote, and I gonna need to first clarify with both debaters on what they both agree on to judge this debate by, so no issues related to judging standard occur.
