SatanLucy

If I get assigned to vote on this debate any time in future, I need to know if threats to national security which would destroy a nation count as part of debate or not. Cuz it's kinda important issue, and I am not sure if it counts in the debate which chooses between freedom and security, not survival or death.

Thank you for voting! Love your vote, plenty of interesting points, and yeah, I did a bit high number of arguments, but its because I was left with plenty of character space in round 1 so I just kept adding stuff to fill character space.

Well, yeah, I agree. lgbtqp supports incest.

I just searched on google on a variety of areas regarding this topic. I didnt really have much knowledge before the debate on this topic.

Thanks for the vote. I didn't really think uncertainty principle would make much impact, and at some point I was even considering throwing it out due to possibility of Con using it against me.

Voting time of 2 hours basically guarantees this debate will have no votes.

I am for voluntary death penalty. In other words, person who did severe crime can choose between long prison time or death penalty, and he can ask for death penalty at any point during imprisonment.

Well played. This debate was nice.

Mal is correct about how relationships should work.

I have 1000 things to do.

I would accept, but I cant do 5 rounds. I dont think I will have enough time, cuz I might also need to put votes on ultrarated debates.

I will post my round tomorrow if I find time.

Schools already have time of inactivity. Usually pause between classes. But what do you mean by inactivity, just sit and do nothing like meditation?

Finally done with this debate. 3 day for response is very exhausting.

You are still doing great in this debate tho, even if you had to leave some stuff out.

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.