SatanLucy

Con made a good valid argument about future tense of topic which cannot be true in present anymore, however forfeiting 1 round and basically forfeiting another as well and then also another, makes me unable to figure out how to vote on this debate, given that its also a troll debate.

topic:

United Nations peacekeepers should have the power to engage in offensive operations


As a voter, for proving this topic, I propose the following deductive logic:


P1. United Nations peacekeepers should = X
P2. X = have the power to engage in offensive operations
C. United Nations peacekeepers should have the power to engage in offensive operations


In other words, Pro needs these two premises in some form to prove topic with certainty.

However, because topic in description is about what is preferable,
full certainty isnt required.

It is enough for Pro to prove two premises and conclusion as true in majority of cases.

As for Con, he merely needs to prove presented premises as not true, or not true in
majority of cases. However, since Pro carries most of burden of proof, it also means
a tie between arguments favors Con.


Moving on to arguments


Framework:

Pro's framework is:

United Nations peacekeepers should = protect human rights

He defends this claim with UN's own declarations and agreements to protect human rights.
In simple words, UN already signed an agreement to protect human rights.

Plan

Pro's plan is basically to allow peacekeepers to engage in offensive operations to prevent
obvious incoming mass atrocities. this is a lot easier to defend than engaging in offensive
operations unconditionally.


Pro opens up with argument in following form:

1. United Nations peacekeepers should = protect civilians

2. to protect civilians, one must be able to engage in offensive operations.

Pro supports claim 1 by saying UN actually already signed obligation to protect civilians.

Second claim is supported by examples where UN couldnt engage in offensive operations,
resulting in civilian casualties, as well as utter failure of purely self-defense based
UN forces who act only when they themselves are under attack.

Also, a statistical argument that shows how UN engaging in offensive operations tends to
significantly reduce civilian casualties, and better keeps peace and human rights, and even
forces negotiations onto violent groups.


Second argument is similar, yet more connected to framework:

1. United Nations should = protect human rights
2. to protect human rights, use of force is necessary

Claim two is supported by UN's own declarations. Claim 2 is more of common sense.
You cant really protect human rights without force. But Pro also supports it with
many examples of force vs. no force, and results of each.


Con forfeits round 1. Because of this, in case of a tie between arguments, victory wont
go to Con because of this forfeit which reduces Pro's response window in debate.


Pro extends all arguments.


Now we move on to Con's arguments.

For Con, deductive logic is:

P1. It is not true that United Nations peacekeepers should = X
P2. X = have the power to engage in offensive operations
C. It is not true that United Nations peacekeepers should have the power to engage in offensive operations

Con opens up by agreeing human rights should be framework of this debate.

So Con is not arguing that UN shouldnt protect human rights. Rather, Con argues
that offensive operations wont protect human rights better, but worse.

Con says:

Once that transformation occurs, many governments will refuse peacekeeping deployments altogether.
Armed groups will increasingly target UN personnel.
Humanitarian organizations will lose the neutrality that currently enables them to operate alongside UN missions.

However, Con showed no sources for these claims, or weighing system which shows that,
even if these claims are true, are human rights made worse?


Con's other argument is based on neutrality.

Basically:

Neutrality = Allows better protection of human rights

Offensive operations = Less neutrality

Offensive operations = Makes worse protection of human rights



"Neutrality means preserving enough legitimacy so that all parties continue allowing UN personnel to remain on the ground."



"No neutrality equals:

Peacekeepers (PK) lose access to civilian population
humanitarian aid cannot reach tthose affected communities
ceasefires negotiations become more diffficult
monitoring HR violations become much harder.


Thus, neutrality is instrumental; not because neutrality itself is morally valuable, but because it is the mechanism through which millions of civilians continue receiving protection."


Capstone doctrine

According to this, UN already agreed to first ask consent of parties, maintain impartiality,
and only use force for self-defense and defense of mandate.


Peacekeepers becoming army instead of keeping peace

If peacekeepers were to engage in offensive operations, they would be a participant in
conflict instead of doing their mission to enable easier peace.


Deontological argument vs consequences

Con says that long term consequences of UN peacekeepers engaging in offensive operations,
actually harms human rights more long term, even if short term it saves them.

What if governments start refusing UN peacekeepers? Obviously, if UN peacekeepers will
fight a war against some party, that party is way more likely to refuse them.

What if humanitarian organizations as result lose protection of UN peacekeepers?

Con does not show how often will this happen, but I guess possibility is there.



Pro's final round

Pro responds by saying how long term weighing itself in Con's case is impossible with certainty,
and long term is basically hypothetical evaluation.

Also, says that UN doesnt operate on "maximizing power" over some long term predictions.

Brings example of doctor who accepts bribe to let one patient die, so that he could save
more patients possibly later. Under consequentialism, this would be moral. Under deontology,
not so much.

Pro says UN already agreed on universal human rights, so picking and choosing when to protect
human rights and when not, is contrary to agreement.


Pro says that Con commits is-ought fallacy case misrepresentation. Pro is not arguing that
UN should operate as it does now.


Pro counters Con's claims regarding humanitarian aid, showing actually opposite is true, offensive
operations enable better delivery of humanitarian aid.


Same for UN peacekeepers becoming targets. Sources given.

Same for offensive operations improving cooperation. Sources given again.


Pro makes final argument on last round arguments and counter arguments.

Normally, I would reject last round new arguments, but accept last round counters.

However, because Con forfeited a round and reduced Pro's response window to only 1 round,
I have to give less points to Con's last round counters.


Cons final round

Con opens up by repeating how UN operates, but this doesnt respond to is should misrepresentation.
Obviously, Pro isnt arguing for UN to keep operating as it does.

Does Con call Pro "government"?

Con says that permission to engage in offensive operations cannot make up for
Security council politics. But this is an entirely new argument given in last round, and I
dont see how it affects the topic, because Con showed examples where lack of permission
was in fact crucial.

Repeats argument of institution's credibility, but doesnt respond to Pro's claims of
credibility of peacekeepers being lost precisely because of their defensive peacekeeping.

Says that robust missions usually receive more troops, but this does not argue against Pro's case,
because Pro is literally never claiming for UN to keep operating exactly as it does now.

Con says that all those genocides are exceptions, but exceptions to what?

Also, Pro's plan is literally to engage in offensive operations to stop genocides, so labeling
them as exceptions is irrelevant.



My weighing of this debate:

Even if I were to leave arguments and sources as tie, I would still have to give win to Pro
based on Con's forfeit.

However, sources are far from being a tie. Pro provided way more sources, examples, and
statistics than Con did, for many more claims.

As for arguments, Con agreed that humans rights are important, and Pro showed many
examples of UN better protecting human rights when being allowed to act more offensively.

Also, Pro showed that rights can actually only be protected by power. Rights without any
power to enforce them are non-existent, and lack of offensive abilities means any time
rights demand offensive abilities, rights will be diminished.

Con did try and counter Pro by saying more countries would deny UN, but he didnt really
show any example of UN being denied, or why would Pro have to defend that specific UN standard
for consent of party who does genocide.

Pro pretty much defeated Con's claims about UN peacekeepers becoming targets, or humanitarian
aid being denied. Opposite was shown true by sources.

So even if arguments were somehow a tie here, which I dont think they are, arguments
supported by sources still give Pro win.

Pro's plan is for UN peacekeepers to engage in offensive operations only to stop
mass atrocities.

So I dont really see how allowing mass atrocities would protect human rights better or
increase credibility of peacekeepers.

For this reason, Con's case doesnt really stand against Pro's plan.

P1. United Nations peacekeepers should = protect human rights
P2. to protect human rights requires to = have the power to engage in offensive operations
C. United Nations peacekeepers should have the power to engage in offensive operations

Pro and Con pretty much agreed to P1, and Pro gave a lot more sources to support P2, than
Con did to deny it. And a lot of Con's arguments were turned against him.

For this reason, I give win to Pro.

Con ignored Pro's arguments, and made a bunch of arguments which I am not sure even how to judge. But good news is, I don't have to judge it because Con forfeited 2 rounds and that is win for Pro even if Con won round 1, which would be difficult to justify as Con didnt even make a framework, while Pro did.

So it's very difficult to even judge Con's case, because there are no connecting premises in it to topic.

As for argument on what topic is, I don't know what Con was even trying to do there.

I am opening up by voting for Con, because thats my position on this issue.

My position is maximal free speech, and RemyBrown didnt remove free speech from anyone else.

So framework would be:

P1. Behavior which removes free speech from others is a behavior which deserves ban
P2. RemyBrown didnt do any behavior which removes free speech from others
C. RemyBrown doesnt deserve ban

I defend P1 by extended tautology:

Free speech can be justified to be removed for arbitrary reasons = All free speech can be justified to be removed for arbitrary reasons.

So unless we want to lose all free speech, arbitrary reasons cannot be used to justify its removal.

Arbitrary reasons such as "I dont like what this user posts" are entirely subjective reasons, and banning people on that basis could ban anyone.

So if this whole case is "I dont like what Remy posts", then its obviously not going to be any objective justification for removing free speech.

Objective justification for removing free speech would be something like "this person removes free speech from others, so removing his free speech is justified by symmetry."

However, as far as I know, Remy doesnt remove free speech from anyone. He doesnt ban anyone from posting. So banning him from posting is asymmetry treatment. Asymmetry treatment cannot be justified by symmetry, and as such, it is objectively impossible to justify.

As for who won this debate.

Framework for this debate should be:

P1. Remy does behavior X
P2. Behavior X is permaban worthy
C. Remy is permaban worthy

Pro starts by using code of conduct to support P2, however code of conduct interpretation itself is up to debate.

Pro lists a very big list of premise 1, in other words, he lists a lot of Remy's behavior. Now, I dont disagree that Remy did that behavior. thats not even a question. Question is, does the behavior Remy did deserve a permanent ban?

Now, Pro did nothing in round 1 to explain why specifically permaban. He never quoted where code of conduct mentions permaban. Now, this is crucial because he used code of conduct as an attempt to establish premise 2. However, if code of conduct doesnt mention permaban for Remy's specific behavior, premise 2 is not established.

Con opens by saying there are other ways of management, such as non-perma bans, marking posts as offensive. I disagree with Con here, I dont think Remy deserves short term or long term bans, because he has already improved his behavior compared to the past, and he is not really harming anyone. I understand that Con took the more defensible position in a debate here, however I disagree with such position.

Con also adds that Remy actually does motivate user engagement with topics. this debate is probably best proof of it. I mean, over 200 comments where average debate gets like two comments.

Con also adds argument of free speech, just how far are we ready to go in defending free speech of people we disagree with.

Obviously, if people could deny others of free speech on basis of disagreement, anyone could deny anyone of free speech. So disagreement and disliking posts is a very poor justification for removing someone's free speech on a debate site designed to promote free speech.

Pro basically extends his case in round 2. He leans back on CoC, and he writes more about what Remy posted. He says Remy is 6th user with most engagement, but that alone is already good. However, Remy ranks 3rd by number of replies, so he does drive engagement more than one stats would show.

Con basically says there is more than one way to interpret Remy's posts, and Pro's interpretation of them is subjective.

Con also says Remy's behavior improved, serving as strong counter for Pro's claim that previous moderation actions didnt achieve desired effect.

And finally, probably most important Con's argument. It is not moderation's duty to remove bad arguments and fallacies, that pretty much concludes this debate. Just because some argument is considered bad, offensive or what not, its not moderation job to deal with such subjectivism.

And Pro never explained just why is RemyBrown a threat. Offensive post is about as much as a threat as a butterfly. I dont see how offensive posts hurt people, other than people choosing to be offended by them instead of just not reading them. there are a lot of offensive books in the world, offensive songs, offensive anything, the idea that we should ban anything offensive even when no real threat from it is proved, is just way out there.

Anyone can mark anything as offensive. trans people can mark disagreeing on their definition of woman as offensive, and they do. If we ban anything currently considered offensive, well, the offensive content could be correct and we would be harming truth with our emotions.

there are also people who like to talk with RemyBrown, and those who dont like to talk to him can just not talk to him. Its not like anyone on this site is forced to read RemyBrown's posts, and its not like his posts are causing harm.

Con forfeited 4 out of 5 rounds (thus forfeited 80% of debate), which is probably on its own far enough to give Pro win.

Con aborted.

I was hoping not to have to vote on this debate, but there are no other debates to vote on.


Victory conditions were not set up in description, and some definitions are lacking too,
thus I will set victory conditions myself based on debate title.


Victory condition 1

Pro needs to prove that at least in above 50% of cases, liberties are supposed to be chosen
over national security.

Con needs to prove that at least in above 50% of cases, national security is to be chosen
over liberties.

Both debaters agree that liberties and security are both good, so neither is arguing
for choosing one over another in 100% of cases. thus, what remains is, when the two are
in contradiction, which gets chosen more, because topic is on balance.

I dont think there is much to disagree with with this victory condition.

Another additional factor is significance of individual cases, but for that,
debaters will need a measuring system to establish significance, or else I default
to mere number of cases and probabilities.


Victory condition 2

Logical deduction by definition/observation

Because debate is about democracies, I will obviously be accepting all unchallenged
deductive arguments which show that democracy leads to specific conclusion regarding
resolution or survives better when prefering liberties over
national security, or national security over liberties, as long as first premise
of those deductive arguments is observation, unchallenged definition, or just logical law.

I will also be accepting any unchallenged deductive arguments which show logical necessity
for preference of liberties over national security, or national security over liberties,
using definitions, observations or just logical laws as foundation premises.




these victory conditions are just necessary for me to judge arguments by, because arguments
need to be weighed, and that requires a standard (victory conditions) which separates
winning argument from losing argument.


Conditions for rejecting arguments

If argument is not a relevant observation, deductive logic, or following of logical law,
as a voter I reserve right to reject that argument on the basis of irrelevance, even
if same wasnt challenged in a debate.

Also, when choosing between observations supported by sources vs observations lacking sources,
I will always choose observations supported by sources.

When it comes to arguments in last round, they must be built upon foundation premises from
previous debate rounds. Coming up with new frameworks, new foundations in last round where
opponent can no longer respond to them is also considered basis for rejecting those new
arguments. this is merely to prevent last round cheating.


Unchallenged arguments

All relevant unchallenged arguments, deductions, definitions and observations will
be treated as true. Delaying counters to round where opponent can no longer respond to them
will weaken strength of those counters.



Moving to arguments now. I will break arguments into two sides Pro and Con, their goal segments, just to enable
easier following of arguments.


Pro's arguments list


Definition of democracy

Pro opens the debate by pretty much defining democracy in a way so that democracy
prefers more civil liberties, autonomy...ect.

this definition tells me that democracy is obviously supposed to prefer to have as much
civil liberties as possible to exist long term in a democracy.

this definition is not challenged by Con, thus it is considered true.


Pro's framework

Pro's framework is basically that:

Democracies by definition include liberties, because democracies require
voting and will of majority, and these depend upon liberties such as
expression of belief, individual autonomy, associational rights, because
will of majority also depends on disinformation being effectively combated.



Death of democracy

I appreciate the star wars quote. I think its actually quite on point.


AI and mission creep

the argument here is about AI. AI enabled massive monitoring, which I assume
is argument regarding violation of privacy, privacy being one of liberties.
Mainly, the argument talks about possibility of establishing surveillance state
resulting from prefering national security over liberties.

One example is that US government used excuse of stopping migrations to reduce
civil liberties, even bypassing warrant requirement. Another example is politically-targeted
surveillance, which actually harms democracy.


Con counters this by saying debate is about when civil liberties and national security
are actually in conflict, not when politicians say they are in conflict,
and that Pro's examples werent examples of actual national security threat.

Con seems to concede that national security can be used and abused, but says same
applies to civil liberties, such as example of slave owning being declared a civil liberty,
as well as abusive cops being shielded by civil liberty.

Con says that Pro's own source says surveillance without warrant in that case was not
a national security threat, not legitimate one at least.

"in cases when spying sacrifices civil liberties and has no national security benefit, defer to civil liberties. But if the two are actually in conflict, choose national security."

Pro responds by saying consequences of choosing national security do not magically erase
choosing national security.

Pro says all things he listed were done for specific justification of national
security, and that problem of inefficiency of choosing national security
is problem of Con's case. Con must weight these obvious harms which result from
choosing national security, and cannot ignore them.

Says that Con's example of slave owning is just one example with no relevance
because its civil liberties vs civil liberties, not civil liberties vs national security.

Says that Con's example of police immunity is actually example of prefering security,
and that its not a case of liberties vs national security, but civil liberties vs
civil liberties.

Con responds by saying Pro is ignoring responses about mission creep being nonunique,

that same applies to people abusing civil liberties, and that Pro has
conceded a need for security.

Con says that Pro's own source says those cases (of FBI, DOJ...) werent
legitimate national security threats, and were done for political reasons.

Says that its not a failure of national security any more than DPRK is a failure
of democracy, since it has no connection to national security in same way
DPRK has no connection to democracy.

Legitimate security measures didnt cause the problem, according to Con.

Says that if Pro doesnt have to defend slave owning just because it was
labeled as civil liberty, he doesnt have to defend fake national
security threat excuses.

Pro says Con effectively conceded link between AI and NS on creating surveillance state,
and this resulted in harms to freedom assembly, free speech, and other foundations
of democracy.

Says his sources clearly mention national security threats.



National security definition

By Pro, national security covers both internal and external threats.


US losing its democracy value

Pro lists number of sources of agencies which have moved US lower on democratic
scale due to US removing civil liberties to enforce national security.

Con responds by saying Pro's case is assertion, not actual cause and efect,
and that Pro's own source says democracy and national security are mutually dependent.
Also that Pro's own source says increasing democracy value would require
restricting economic freedom and free trade.

Pro responds by saying trade standards ensure both security and liberty.

Con also says Jan 6 attacks were threat to democracy, which means there is actually
too little national security, and pardoning rioters on basis of civil liberty
led to more violence.

Pro says Jan 6 is likewise civil liberties vs civil liberties, and that courts found those
people guilty. Not a case of civil liberties vs national security.

Pro responds by saying that his own sources say how a loss of points in democracy measuring
was caused by limiting free expression and undermining anti-corruption, as well as
targeting civil liberties under excuse of national security threat, and how
targeting civil liberties helps autocratizers consolidate their power.

Con responds by saying Pro's sources are misrepresented by Pro, and that
his sources dont claim democracy is being lost due to choosing national
security over civil liberties.

Says that undermining anti corruption is not protecting national security, but
destroying it. Also says very same excuse of "national security" could be replaced
with "civil liberties" excuse when pardoning Jan 6, so excuse of "national security"
is not essential to corruption or its cause.

Also says that Pro's source actually does not mention national security.

Con extends his point on slave owners by saying if Pro doesnt need to defend abuse of term
civil liberties, Con does not need to defend abuse of term "national security".

Pro extends his case of US losing democratic value due to prefering NS, and
says his sources actually do mention national security threats.

Extends his sources by linking what they say about national security of FISA, DOJ, FBI...ect.




Rise of authoritarianism

Pro lists examples of countries which have stopped being democracies after choosing
to use national security as excuse for removing civil liberties.
Examples are Russia and China using terrorism claim (significant threat to national security)
but misrepresenting it in an absurd way to the point where it ruined their democracy.


Con responds by saying Russia and China were never even democracies to begin with, so
they fall outside scope of this debate.

Pro responds by saying Putin, Viktor, and Erdogan all used national security to remove
individual liberties, and thus eliminate opposition, and consolidate their power.

Pro says that all falling democracies have followed path of reducing civil liberties.


"We cannot possibly save democracy by trading away the liberties that define it"

the argument here is that democracy by definition becomes less and less democracy the more
civil liberties are removed.

Con responds that these cases (Putin and others) dont actually secure the nation,
make the nation less safe actually, so its actually opposite of achieving national
security.

Pro extends his case here that country losing standing as democracy is more often
choosing NS over CL.

Pro says he demonstrated that authoritarian figures were all prefering NS over CL,
and all were empowered by it.




Con argument list

Actual national security

Con starts by saying that topic is not about what politicians say national security is,
thus he has no obligation to defend the misrepresentations of national security.

Likewise later extends that topicality is only about actual cases of national security
threat, not misrepresentations of it.


Majority of instances

Con raises argument that number of instances isnt the only factor, but also
importance of those instances.

Pro counters by saying significance is actually also a sum of parts, thus is expressed
in numbers (or not logically expressed at all).


National security threat definition

Con defines national security threat as something which threatens democracy and population
sufficiently enough, such as invading army, massive cyber offense, large scale insurgency,
or terrorist attack capable of causing harm which disrupts the state, democracy, and
even individual liberties.

So if something does not threaten country's survival, democracy's survival, or very
liberties and rights of citizens, it does not qualify as national security threat.


Pro counters by saying definition is already provided in debate description, and is not
up for debate, also provides definition link of Con's own link which defeats Con's definition.

Pro also counters by saying Con didnt provide a standard for his topicality, so he provides
two, reasonability which contradicts Con's definition,
and coherence, which says that tiebreaker must logically result in loss of either civil
liberty or national security when choosing between two, and the extreme cases
dont apply because they dont have that.

Con counters this by repeating that its inaccurate to classify meassure
as national security if it was never meant to secure the nation (population
and democracy), and that policies need to have a clear path
towards national security and addressing national security threats.

Con further says that its incoherent to go by just branding of a policy, and that
small threats dont logically equal to threats to nation as a whole.

Con says that national security originally referred to military attacks, so it is not
unreasonable to discuss existential threats.

Pro says Con never returned to his R1 redefining term, but that they agree what national
security is, a broad term.

Pro continues on tiebreaker argument.

Pro extends his case by saying Section 702 was used to prevent actual security
threats, DOJ likewise, and thus it is example of actual tiebreaker.

Repeats that actions done for purpose of national security dont erase that
purpose magically, and above examples were actual examples of
tiebreaker, thus resulting harms from NS are still harms from NS.

He also says police immunity is actually example of reducing civil liberties.



Pro's framework

Con accepts democratic integrity, while arguing that sacrificing liberties when
necessary to uphold democracy itself, is mandatory for democracy to exist at all,
and thus, for more liberties to exist long term because people in non-democratic nations
arent free.

Pro argues that some losses of liberty can also be existential threat, and
not all national security threats are existential threat.

Guarding from existential threats

Con makes examples of Russia, China attempting to destroy democracies, and thus
a response against them is to prefer national security over civil liberties.

He also shows example of South Korea mandating 18 months of military service, a reduction
in liberties, in order to survive a threat from North Korea, and thus ensure more civil
liberties long term.

Same for taiwan.

Also example of Ukraine suspending voting, and forcing conscription to counter
an authoritarian state, saying same could be neccessary in rest of Europe as well.

Makes same example of UK during WW2, as necessary measures of suspending civil liberties
temporarily to enable the very survival of democracy.


Pro responds by saying existential threat requiring removal of some civil liberties is
justified, as well as that existential threat caused by removal of civil liberties
means upholding civil liberties there is justified. No contest, true.

Shows examples of Poland and Venezuela using national security as excuse to suspend civil
liberbies, and as result, worsening democratic value.

Pro says that tie breaker only applies when there is tie to break, not when
choice is between death or national security, or death or civil liberties,
because neither of those are choices between national security and civil liberties,
as for example, not choosing national security in a do or die scenario doesnt
actually result in civil liberties.


Con responds by saying most of Pro's impacts are limited to US, questions if
US efforts are genuine national security efforts.

Repeats claim about many wars globally, and that autocracies have become
more repressive at home and more aggressive abroad, actively attempting to
destroy democracies, thus are existential threat.

Says that existential threats are not outside scope of this debate, even if neither
debater is arguing for absolutes.

Con says that Pro conceded that individuals can be stripped of all liberty
and sent to die in a war they might not even support, and that this is a huge concession.

Con also says conceding that nations should prefer suspending civil liberties
when faced with national security threat is essentially a concession in debate,
and that judges cannot reasonably decide what counts as big enough threat to be
excluded from debate scope.

Says Pro's policies are actually marketed as protections against
existential threats.

Says if autocratic takeovers count as exception, all points Pro made about
Putin, Viktor, Erdogan, trump are then likewise discarded,
also says Pro's examples are powergrabs that didnt secure the nation, thus
not examples of national security.

Pro extends his case of countries ceasing to be democracies by crackdown on civil liberties,
under excuse of national security, implying that its more often the case that national
security is misused, which shows practical issues when prefering it over civil
liberties.



Important argument: tiebreaker

Pro extends his tiebreaker argument by saying there has to be a tie in the first place
for there to be a tiebreaker. Existential threats are not a tiebreaker.

Claims that addressing existential threat by temporarily reducing civil liberties
is necessary to save democracy, and by extent, civil liberties which Pro claimed
can only exist in democracy. So existential threats addressing can also be argued
from a point of prioritizing civil liberties.

Extends that existential threats actually result in complete loss of democratic integrity,
thus they effectively suspend both NS and CL of democracy.

Con responds to this by saying that the only metric for determining if the threat is large
enough, which for national security must be, is his metric of existential threat.

Con argues that the only metric to identify a trade-off is his, a clear path to address
and identify a national securty threat.

However, Con never addresses the actual tiebreaker argument and CL side of
existential threat, in a sense that suspending CL in
existence vs. non-existence scenario is not a choice between CL and NS in democracies,
it results in neither for a democracy, it suspends democracy,
and CL can likewise be used to argue for existential threats
as NS can, because not eliminating existential threats reduce CL.

So Existence vs. non-existence (existential threat scenario)
is actually not a choice between CL and NS, even if I was to accept
Con's argument that only he provided way to measure national security threat.

Even if I were to accept Con's argument that national security threat is
only an existential threat, it would merely make topic incoherent
because choosing between dying and NS is not a choice between NS and CL.

As Pro says, CL can likewise be used to argue for addressing existential
threats.

Con doesnt offer enough push back against this, and description does say
"prioritize civil liberties when two are in conflict".

So Pro's position matches description better, because even description
says its a choice between CL and NS, not NS and end of democracy (and by extent,
end of civil liberties). So existential threats are basically
NS vs. No NS and No CL, or from CL point of view, long term CL vs. No CL and no NS.

If I were to accept Con's view on this issue, topic would effectively become incoherent
truism of Con's side, and thus a tie due to incoherence.

But description doesnt define national security threats as existential threats, and defining
it that way doesnt prove Con's case, but merely collapses the topic and forces a tie.

If I were to accept Pro's case, then by observations, authoritarians prefer NS in more cases,
by deductive reasoning reducing CL reduces democracy which is defined by CL, so my
conclusion from Pro's case is that democracy by definition must maximize CL.

"That is, when one choice is winning on NS and one choice is winning on CL (the “tie”), which value wins?"

the problem in this claim, made by Con, was already previously addressed by Pro.

In case of not addressing existential threat, no one wins.

Addressing existential threats doesnt actually require prioritizing NS over CL.

Con does a bit of final point in round 3, that existential threat is a probability.

But the same issue applies to probability too. It doesnt actually force prioritizing
NS over CL, if probability is high enough, one can perfectly well use CL priority to argue for
addressing existential threats too, as Pro implies in previous round,
and removing CL still removes democracy as well, so it suspends both CL and NS of democracy.

Neither Con nor Pro said what probability is enough to suspend CL temporarialy,
and suspending them permanenty obviously suspends democracy by definition.

But Pro did say CL can be suspended for temporary period, if it means restoring them later,
because end result is survival of democracy, and with it, CL.

So NS isnt the only side one can use to argue for addressing NS existential threats.

"even if we prioritized civil liberties over national security when the two were in conflict,
we would still be taking these initial national security measures"

this statement by Con applies to existential threats, so I am not
sure how someone can even prioritize CL without addressing existential threats.

to me, this confirms obvious existential threats are outside this debate
topic, because both sides can address them irrelevant if they prefer CL or NS, and Con
in the end seems to agree with statement that prefering CL can also address existential
threats and be taking national security measures.



Weighing impacts

Despite Con's claims of only him having weighed impacts, I dont see any weighing system
established by any debater, at least not expressed in numbers of CL vs NS.

Con did make a case of 59 countries involved in conflicts, even more beyond their border,
and that those countries must sacrifice some CL to address existential threats, but
the issue rises in amount of non-existential threats vs CL.

Neither debater showed any numbers of how many CL were suspended vs how many CL werent
when choosing between CL and NS, and Con's case largely depends on existential threats
which at this point I cant accept as part of topic.

Con does make a case that Pro didnt actually prove that legitimate NS threat resulted
in abuse of power, and claims that illegitimate NS abuse of term is actually conflict
with NS itself.


Says Section 702 of collecting American citizens data was a separate issue from
targeting foreign adversaries.

Same for AI, separate issue.

Con seems to concede that identifying apartment bombers by Putin was a national
security measure, while separate measure by Putin was not.

Same for Erdogan, separate measures of NS and endangering NS, same for Venezuela.



Conclusion:

this debate was a logical mess, and for most of the time, debaters were arguing
about what even is topic of debate.

As mentioned in win conditions, any unaddressed definitions are effectively conceded
and considered true.

Con didnt address definition of democracy, so it remains true that democracy is defined
by civil liberties, and having more of those actually means more democracy, as Pro later
said.

thus, to get more democracy, one should seek to maximize CL, so even in cases of suspending
some CL to ensure NS, it can be done for aim of maximizing CL long term.

Con seems to agree that examples of authoritarian regimes which Pro mentioned
did also use both legitimate and illegitimate NS threats, as means to empowerment.

What I get from these examples is that NS threats, even if legitimate partially,
are weaponized by authoritarians, which shows a practical issue in application
of NS preference properly.

Same does not exist against Pro's case. No example by Con given of an authoritarian country
weaponizing civil liberties to secure dictatorship on any large scale.

the only two examples were Jan 6 and police immunity, which is a much smaller scale compared
to fact that trump weaponized NS in more examples given by Pro.

So from this I conclude, if you seek to establish an authoritarian regime, its probably much
better to focus on NS excuses, and abuse of NS excuses is terribly easy,
while democracy by definition focuses on civil liberties, so maximizing them is preferable in
democracy.

Con simply didnt do enough to address actual abuse of term NS in practice, and how this abuse
is actually effectively separable from legitimate NS in practice.

If certain idea carries a much higher chance of being misrepresented and abused, it
does show a flaw of idea in a practical application.

tiebreaker argument successfully shows that existential threats both
arent a choice between CL and NS, and at same time both CL and NS can be used
to argue for addressing existential threats.

So on observation probabilities and deductive logic of democracy definition,
and tiebreaker, I will give points to Pro, and thus a win in debate.

Con does successfully show many examples where CL need to be reduced to address existential
threats, but this isnt enough to win a debate when those very existential threats are
questioned to even be part of debate, as debate description didnt say existential threats,
and as mentioned by tiebreaker argument, existential threats arent a choice
between CL and NS.

Before voting, I will set victory conditions for both debaters.

Victory conditions for Pro are:

Geoengineering is more harmful than beneficial (thus inaction is preferable).

Costs required for geoengineering could be better used elsewhere (thus some other action
is preferable).

Should either of these be true, Pro wins.

If first is false, but second true, its still a win for Pro.

Victory conditions for Con are:

Geoengineering is more beneficial than harmful (so it is action which is positive).

Costs required for geoengineering could not be better used elsewhere (so no better use of
resources exist, thus its a correct choice).

Both of these must be true for Con to win, because Con argues for
geoengineering. So if first is true, but second isnt, case still isnt justified because
better action exists.


SRM

Pro opens by saying resources should be used on solving the problem and not postponing it.
Says SRM is pollutive.


CDR

Argues that CDR is expensive, and irrepairable damage to oceans.



Gives example of London as example of reducing pollution by other means.


Says that problem of pollution will solve itself if not solved by humans.


Wars and conflicts between countries make planning difficult.

Geoengineering is of limited effectiveness compared to lowering pollution emissions,
and a temporary not permanent solution which costs a lot.





Con says geoengineering produces valuable lessons.

Says "what will you do with all Co2 already in atmosphere.


Pro questions safety of unknown effects of geoengineering on large scale.

Pro makes case that consequences of geoengineering if applied just locally could be
devastating to some areas.

Pro says CO2 naturally reduces if emissions reduce.


Con says that not doing geoengineering is a risk of its own, and that zero emissions are
unachiavable (true, cuz humans produce emissions by merely existing).


Pro gives source that zero emissions are possible. I dont believe it, but Con doesnt
respond and forfeits final round.


Conclusion:

Con didnt respond to Pro's argument of resources better used elsewhere, so it is dropped.

Con likewise didnt respond to reducing emissions and reducing CO2 in that way, and thus
solving problem instead of symptoms.

Con likewise didnt challenge that geoengineering has a chance to produce risk, because
its stepping into the very unknown territory.

Con didnt respond that geoengineering isnt the only way or best way to solve current CO2.


With these points dropped, second victory condition for Pro is effectively met,
and first victory condition is met too to a large degree.

My vote is shorter than usual, because this debate is shorter than usual, so I hope no issues arise because my vote doesnt have enough words in it.

Mal was the only one to present an argument.

I am leaving my vote as a tie for following reasons:

1. Framework turned against itself vs. no framework
2. Forfeited round, denying Pro of opportunity to respond to points by moving round 2 to round 3
3. No concrete example by any debater supporting their side
4. New arguments in round 3, which are good but too late

So Pro proposes a rather straightforward deduction:

P1. Mandatory voting = increases voter turnout
P2. Increased voter turnout = better representation
P3. better representation = better democracy
C. Mandatory voting = better democracy

Con attacks P2 specifically, in two ways:
P1. When candidates are Hitler and Stalin (or similar), it isnt true
P2. Mandatory voting doesnt increase, but decrease representation of interests of people who dont want to vote.

Pro presents a model, but that is a bit off topic, in my view, because topic doesnt include specific models which are going to be implemented should voting be mandatory, and there is no Pro's case of impossibility of implementing similar model for voluntary voting, and Pro says same could be implemented for voluntary voting. Presenting a model on what should ideally come with mandatory voting, has nothing to do with if there should be mandatory voting at all. So model argument itself doesnt prove topic one bit.


Pro defines democracy as representing interests of all people. (Hence, interests of people who have interest to not vote).

Pro makes argument that poor people have lower turnout, but no numbers how many of those people just dont want to vote.

Pro makes argument that politicians will have to represent more interests of more people if more people turn out to vote.

Finally, Pro makes argument that countries which saw big decline in voter turnout, many became authoritarian.

Con responds by questioning the quality of votes gained from mandatory voting, apparently, people doing no research before voting.

Responds that voting turnouts have been decreasing world wide anyway.

Questions what about people who dont want to vote.

Makes argument that increased voter turnout benefits the very old dominant parties responsible for its decline, and that solution is new parties, or old ones improving. However, Con's solution wasnt really explained in detail.

Pro makes a statistic that 14% of US voters report conflicting schedule, saying mandatory voting would add another 50 million votes. But this doesnt tell me how many of those people want to vote, but cant (and why this cant be solved in voluntary voting), how many dont want to vote, and how many are making excuses not to vote.

the disagreement on what objectively wrong or uninformed vote is, seems to be there, but no clear response to how uninformed voters benefit democracy or how much uninformed voters there will be.

Pro makes argument that some freedoms ought to be lost for democracy to function.

Points out value of protest votes, but not exactly any numbers.

Makes argument that dominant parties would actually face more competition in mandatory voting.

Says Con's model explains no how. (to this, I agree because Con didnt expand on it).


Con then forfeits a round, turning what was supposed to be 3 rounds into 2 rounds.

this diminishes value of arguments made in last round, because its denying Pro of response.

Con argues that not voting is itself a choice and a vote of a kind.

Makes argument that mandatory voting is in fact mostly done by authoritarian countries, with Australia being the only real democracy to do it.

Says that people being more likely to vote for a candidate in mandatory voting undermines representation, making people make choices they would otherwise not at all.

Makes argument that people choosing to not vote are those who have chosen so out of inability to decide, or lack of knowledge, and forcing them to vote essentially casts votes out of ignorance.

Makes argument that voting turnout decreased specifically because politicians became worse, and making voting mandatory makes those politicians more likely to just take advantage of it.

A useless measure at best, when all politicians are bad.

Makes a counter resolution to ban all current politicians from politics. While this does seem like a fine solution, sadly, it came in last round.


Conclusion

Weighting these arguments for me is difficult, as if I weight Con's counter resolution in 3rd round as is, it would give huge advantage to Con (solution for voluntary systems).

Con is likewise correct to point out that making voting mandatory harms interests of those who dont want to vote, interests of all people being something Pro included in definition of democracy.

But what I would have liked to see is Pro's response to these arguments in 3rd round, but that was made impossible because round 2 moved to round 3.

So weighing only 2 rounds against each other, with new arguments made in last round by Con, means a vote for Pro or Con depends entirely on if I accept Con's last round new arguments or not.

So while I accept Con's arguments as valid, they came a bit too late to matter.

I am leaving it as a tie because while I think Con's arguments made a good point about interests of people who dont want to vote, and of uninformed forced voters, the forfeit in debate denied Pro opportunity to explore points further.

to further analyze arguments, just so my vote is complete.

this debate was shorter than intended, which is why my vote is shorter than it otherwise would be.

I think Pro built a decent case, a decent framework, of more turnout = politicians forced to appeal to more people. However, with given definition of democracy, obviously interests of people who dont want to vote are harmed by forced voting. And people casting votes out of ignorance merely due to feeling forced to, are more like blind voting. Pro didnt show concrete improvements when it comes to mandatory voting. Potential for improvement, sure. But a concrete comparison of "mandatory to voluntary" was never made. Nor by Con. I simply dont see any statistic anywhere which says "this great improvement followed after mandatory voting", or "this great problem followed after mandatory voting".

Both debaters seem to have dealt more with potential and some tiny improvements, rather than any groundbreaking improvement of democracy. Con's solution in round 3 should have been in round 1. Saving it for round 3 was a bad idea, because making new arguments in round 3 when opponent can no longer respond is not exactly in the debating spirit.

this is my first vote on an ultrarated debate, so sorry if I mess something up.

No weighting system was proposed by any debater, so I guess as a voter, I have to weight points myself.

So I will simply divide weighting in:
1. Economic
2. Ecological
3. Health
4. Everything is a GMO?
5. We have enough food
6. Damage to farmers

Lets start with easiest one.

"Everything is a GMO" (all plant food is genetically modified by humans) - As a voter on ultrarated debate where topics are supposed to be well balanced, I cannot accept this argument. If it wasnt for Con's response to this, if this argument were true, it would make topic overwhelmingly favoring Pro to the point that debate itself would lose meaning. Luckly, Con responds by clarifying that GMO is indeed "genetic material that has been modified through certain lab techniques and cannot be created through conventional breeding or found in nature.". Con's response aligns with description better than Pro's argument, because obviously countries which ban GMO arent banning all food.

Health

Both debaters agree that health counts as one of "benefits", and harm to health as one of "harms".

So Pro needs to show harm to health is lower or same as in regular foods, while Con needs to show its not.

Pro starts by mentioning 3000 studies, which is a lot more than Con can actually address if he were even addressing one by one, but it does show plenty of studies favoring Pro.

Pro also adds that GMO can also be used to improve health benefits of food.

Con responds by citing mass studies of comparisons between organic and conventional food, showing no significant difference in nutrition.

Pro responds to this by saying comparison not only defeats that organic are more nutritious, but doesnt actually compare GMO but conventional to organic.

Con mentions pesticides, which I assume is point that GMO have pesticides, while organic have less of harmful ones?

Mentions exposure to glyphosate being linked to harmful effects by studies.

Pro responds that Con's own source says "limited evidence of causing cancer in humans", adds another source which questions greatly the claims of glyphosate causing cancer in humans.


Con makes it clear that organic food contains less pesticides, so should pesticides be proved harmful, it would be a significant point for Con.

Con cites study that glyphosate causes cancer in animals. this also counts as harm. Attacks Pro's source as outdated.

Pro seems to concede that risk of cancer is increased in individuals with highest exposure to GBH, but argues that even there, the increase risk is by 41%, not 41% of all individuals.

Still, this seems to be saying to me that risk of cancer with GBH increases, and that exposure, if consistent enough as Con argues, does increase risk of cancer.

Con further argues damage to ground waters, and encouraging the use of more insecticides. Where organic food doesnt use same type of pesticides, herbicides...ect.

So Con's angle seems to be organic > GMO. And as Pro conceded the increased cancer risk in GBH exposed individuals, and with possible build up of it in rivers and ground waters, I have to give point when it comes to cancer to Con.

Pro's point which wasnt addressed by Con at all was GMO being used to fight VAD. Now, pro didnt mention how many lives were lost which could have been saved by GMO specifically.

the problem here is that I have to weight increase in cancer rate which is unknown against an unknown number of lives saved by GMO.

Any weighting here for me without severe bias is impossible, as no debater presented any numbers of "GMO kills this much, GMO saves this much".

So I will leave this point as a tie for now.


Economics

Pro says GMO greatly increase yield, and thus less land needed for farming, which in turn translates to less environment being harmed by farming practices. (this relates to a different point).

the point of greatly increased yield seems to be entirely conceded by Con, so as an economic impact of production efficiency for society as a whole, that is important point to be conceded.

What Con challenges is that increased yield results in economic benefit for farmers, because average farmer has no lab to make these genetic modifications, resulting in GMO being concentrated in hands of few. Pro doesnt challenge this point ever.

the remaining arguments here are about court cases, and even if I were to accept Con's argument here, the cases as Pro says are only in most obvious violations of copyright.

So point here is copyright and GMO concentration in few hands vs. increased yield from GMO.

Because copyright was in some cases where farmers did indeed try to steal the GMO seed which was copyrighted, which shows those farmers actually wanted to use GMO, it is a bit self defeating point. As for GMO concentrated in hands of few, that isnt on its own any big economic loss given that other farmers can still use non-GMO because I dont really see where Con argued that they cant.

So increased yield from GMO is an obvious economic benefit on a large scale, where copyrights and concentration of GMO in few hands arent really big economic losses. So on economic point, I will give point to Pro.

Ecological

Pro shows studies which say GMO can even have positive ecological effects. Reduced need for used land likewise is ecological benefit, as well reduced need for insecticide.

Mainly mentions 59 million less acres of land needed. that is a huge number.

As well as hugely reduced Co2 emmisions.

Con responds by saying insect-resistant plants also harm beneficial insects.

Damages to humans from over-spraying pesticides.

Mentions argument of gene escape.

GMO kills milkweed, and with it, monarch butterfly.

Pro responds by saying monarch butterfly was declining long before GMO.

Escape argument is not clear or what level of threat it poses.

Con asks "who wants to eat insecticide?" ( talking about plants which produce their own insecticide).

Con shows study saying each monarch butterfly dead which was studied had pesticide in it.

So here I am weighing a potentially much higher loss of monarch butterflies due to loss of milkweed and due to pesticides, against much less land needed for farming.

I am slightly favoring Pro here, because while organic farming does use less pesticides and less ecological damage per same amount of land, it uses much more land as a whole, causing in turn to have more land needed for farming and as result, less for nature, animals, insects...

However, I will leave this as tie just for potential harms of GMO to ecology, which are unexpected. I have no way to clearly weight the effects here, other than Con's own sources saying GMO is beneficial for environment (But environment isnt just Co2 emissions), and saying damage to insects seems to be quite obvious from GMO, but no way to say how much insects are saved by reduced land use.


Because Pro won on economy, even with other points tied, I have to give win to Pro, even tho I greatly disagree with his position.

America made a catastrophic mistake sending troops to Vietnam.

Was it a strategic miscalculation? Were there unwinnable objectives? Were there tactical blunders? Was the overall policy flawed?

Description frames debate as being about strategic miscalculation, unwinnable objectives, tactical blunders, and overall flawed policy.

Mistake in dictionary usually has a definition of "an act or judgement that is misguided or wrong", and this somewhat aligns with description, tho not entirely.

I will focus my vote on deduction definition vote structure.

In simple terms, in order for Pro to win, this following deductive logical structure must be true:

P1. X is a catastrophic mistake
P2. Sending troops to Vietnam was X
C. Sending troops to Vietnam was a catastrophic mistake
C2. America made a catastrophic mistake sending troops to Vietnam


this isnt me adding arguments. this is just basic necessary logical structure of debate for me to judge this debate in the first place. In simple terms, Pro must show that definition and framework of "mistake" include "Sending troops to Vietnam".


However, in whole debate, Pro never establishes crucial thing, definition of "mistake". Pro lists things such as failing to contain Communism, failing to support South Vietnam, failing to destroy VC, failing to win support, doing war crimes with agent orange and others, failing to preserve South...

However, the framework for "mistake, miscalculation, flawed policy, tactical blunder" is never set outside merely failing to achieve objectives.

Con, on the other hand, opens with an insult. At this point, I expected Con to lose, because he missed a round and did an insult, giving opportunity to Pro to expand his case, which Pro didnt do in next round.

In round 2, Con actually sets a framework for what counts as a mistake, mainly the EV expected value plays. Con explains that mistake isnt defined by unexpected results, or by specific results which came after, but by total expected value made by judging the likeliness and gains of outcomes before an action is made. this is crucial part:

"Expected value is essentially how much you can expect from the outcomes divided by how likely each outcome is."


Because Pro didnt make his own framework for general meaning of "mistake", as a voter, I am forced to accept Con's framework which frames debate in form of decision done before sending troops to Vietnam.

Pro didnt even object to Con's framework, so even more reason to accept Con's framework as unchallenged.


So now we replace "X" with negative EV decision in original structure, forming new debate structure:

P1. Negative EV decision is a mistake
P2. Sending troops to Vietnam was a negative EV decision
C. Sending troops to Vietnam was a mistake

this frames a debate much better, and now Pro and Con must argue based on this.

Con continues.

"If somebody offers to give you one million dollars if a dice lands on 1-3 and tells you it costs $1000 to play this dice game, it would not be a mistake if you lost. "

this logically shows how "losing" doesnt exactly produce negative EV by default, because likeliness and amount of gains still outweighs likeliness and amount of loses. Pro never challenges this.


Con continues:
"Cascading failure is the theory that a interconnected system with many connected parts could fail due to a small failure in any of many parts of the system. This is a concept that has been proven to be true in physics, architecture and engineering and there is no reason to believe it isn't also true in geopolitics."

Con's argument is basically that not sending troops to Vietnam could cause cascading failure, and Pro must prove that cascading failure certainly wouldnt happen, but using facts leaders had before sending troops to Vietnam, because thats the only way to measure EV at the time.

I accept Con's argument for two reasons: Pro never challenged it, and it is a logical continuation of EV decision framework. Indeed, Pro must show that it was a negative EV decision at the time decision was made using information they had, not long after when information appeared which they didnt have at a time decision was made.

Because Pro never showed that cascading failure was impossible using information they had at the time, and Con showing many examples of Cascading failure, this argument is conceded.

Further, because all Pro's arguments are essentially information which came only after decision, it cannot be included in EV calculation which happens when decision is made.

Con makes a second argument that irrelevant of win or loss, defending your allies is important because it produces costly losses for invaders and reduces invasions. Pro never challenges this.

Pro in round 3 seems to keep up using arguments based on information which only came after, essentially losing to framework of a debate. While Pro mentions nato, he does not address importance of defending your allies to reduce invasions, and that number of wars did reduce. While Pro mentions how Communism collapsed under own weight, he misses the point: He didnt prove leaders even knew that will happen before deciding to send troops to Vietnam.

And Con in round 3 just seals the deal. Shows Pro was using AI, which Pro admits. However, I am not going to punish Pro for using AI, because at this point, its unnecessary.

Con extends his cascading failure argument, supporting allies argument, and punishing invaders to reduce wars arguments. Con explains voters should default to his framework because Pro didnt challenge it.

In round 4, Pro keeps repeating the very same type of informations, which again only came long after decision and action was made.

Con just extends his arguments in round 4.

"This is because my proposed framework for evaluating whether a decision was a mistake doesn't determine the decision from the conclusion of actions, but rather from the available information at the time. The pro refused to push back on the framework I proposed, so judges should adopt it, and he also declined to argue using my proposed framework, which means he didn't meet his burden to prove the decision to enter the war was not just a mistake but a catastrophic one."

I am not going to base my decision on Con's insults or Pro's use of AI and stealing from AI, but on just pure arguments made.

Pro failed to show negative EV decision with information leaders had at the time, and also failed to respond to arguments of importance of defending allies and punishing invaders to reduce wars, and risk of cascading failure, which shows decision at the time actually had positive EV value, not negative.

Because of this, win to Con.

The dragon has won.

Testing my voting skills.