Reducing immigration is pretty politically popular though. Or at least the group wanting fewer immigrants tends to be the loudest online.
OranjeDisco is assigned to it right now, I think he'll probably get it up on time, but if he doesn't then as Lucy said the voting window will expire soon.
Thanks for voting!
Thanks but I think you meant to tag SatanLucy
Thanks for the vote! Not gonna request you go back and update it lol, this debate is a super long read already.
The win conditions themselves were part of the debate, so you might have to judge the meta-debate before you can judge the contentions themselves. Don't want to say too much more about win conditions in the comments since it would effectively be a continuation of the debate.
If population goes up but same number of crimes are committed, the crime rate would go down. You divide by population to get the rate.
I think you captured the main flow/clash of the debate effectively. I agree a lot of it came down to how the resolution was interpreted and our disagreements over that. Obviously I'm biased due to being a participant though, and since voting's still open I'll leave my thoughts at that.
Thank you for voting!
Yeah it's a new change as of like a week ago I really should have been more clear on. I know people were kind of using the feature to just get to the debate they wanted to vote on, but that also kinda defeats the point of it which was to prevent vote bombing by not letting ppl choose the debate they vote on. I trust Lancelot obv and I could go in and revert it for now if needed, but at some point if not now it's gonna need to be like this to prevent vote-bombing/targeting controversies.
Depends though cause he could be assigned to this one or intend to vote on all the debates anyway. But that's why I would tell new voters "make sure you will be able to dedicate enough time for reading and voting in the next 3 days before you click assign debate." Cause in theory in the future when there's like 100 in the voting stage, you'll have no idea what you're gonna vote on.
At this point I think it might not assign you a second debate if you're already assigned to one. The whole "randomly assigned debate" thing is to avoid alt accounts vote bombing on a specific debate, though it could probably be more clear.
That said, if it assigns you a different debate and you vote on that one, then you it can assign you another one.
1. Con appealed to proportionality and commonly shared moral intuitions. Butler uses some of that as well, so I was willing to say both frameworks passed Magsino's requirements, since he's seems to be arguing against appealing to power, not arguing against appealing to moral principles.
2. It was mitigation mainly (when people eventually do die, they can't escape), and an appeal to your framework again. So I still thought Con won some impact specifically on his framework even though your framework ended up being used and his impacts were mitigated.
3. Con failing many of the goals of justice was again mitigation, since you weren't trying to meet any of them.
Honestly, there may have been additional parts of your case I maybe could have given more credit to, but given that I voted you anyway, I was mostly focused on making sure I wasn't missing significant rebuttals from Con. At that point, it wouldn't matter how many arguments you made that I didn't mention since the result wouldn't change.
I'm realizing the top result for most of my google searches is the AI summary and I'm looking at a fair amount of the sources it gives me, so at this point I'm just gonna blanket disclose AI assistance for research/review per the CoC* to cover all my bases and keep everything above board.
*https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1EfBpG541aFZRG1S158AfjrB4LwNEv9P0YU1gAwYhJCA/edit?gid=1713017994#gid=1713017994
Tied votes are still valuable information, as margin of victory matters for elo. What matters is the quality/depth of the vote.
I think SatanLucy's definition was along the lines of "Epstein might be Bob's best friend, but it doesn't mean he is good for Bob."
"i thought that when someone says something is their best friend, it means that it's good for them"
I would have accepted a definition along those lines if you had said/defended something and attacked Pro's definition more directly. But as it stands, if one side tells me how to interpret the resolution and the other side doesn't, I have to go with the interpretation provided.
On a normal debate your vote might be sufficient, but because this is UltraRated the mods are requesting that you add a bit more detail to your vote in the comments. If you could specify/justify how the args and framework weren't disputed in the debate, that would help.
Thanks for voting on this one, btw!
Lemming just writes all his comments that way. Pretty sure it's intentional.
I mean I think it's free verse poetry. Not supposed to follow standard grammar conventions.
Is transracism when someone who wasn't assigned racist at birth identifies as a racist?
Okay, so ethnicity isn't tied to biology...but that means someone can become any ethnicity regardless of what they were born as, right? Maybe it's what you grew up in, but if a black person raised around white people joining black culture is fine, then a white person raised around white people joining black culture should also be fine, no? If I'm understanding your point about ethnicity not being biological. Or at least your view that bringing up biological differences is sus.
"would that count as cultural appropriation"
Wait how can cultural appropriation exist if someone's race is based on their own preferences? Like if someone with low melanin levels wants to partake in black culture, I thought you were saying their melanin levels were just irrelevant? Or maybe it's something else?
Maybe I just don't understand your position. If you're saying we can't categorize people as white/black/Asian etc. based on biology and call those groups races, then I disagree. If you're saying people should be treated equally regardless of race, then I agree. I'm just saying this because when I asked in comment #7, you said you were objecting to the idea that race could be defined biologically. Even if there's just the human race, the human species is a biological group.
The human race and racial categories within the human race aren't defined the same way. Being black or white or Asian is based on appearance/ancestry. Being a human is based on DNA (well, also ancestry I guess). If a dude living in China with the physical characteristics of an average Chinese dude with 100% Chinese ancestry on 23&me says he's a black guy, is he correct? Like clearly physical characteristics have something to do with it.
Appearance is largely based off genetics. Although it's really appearance plus ancestry.
Race is a group based on shared physical traits like skin color. If it's impossible to categorize, I'm curious how you think racist laws were enforced at all for long periods of time. What prevented black people from just saying they were white people?
I'm confused. Are you objecting to the idea that race can be defined biologically, or to the idea that ethnicity can be defined based on self perception?
Yeah but "white culture" and "black culture" are commonly used terms and people choose one to identify with all the time. Biracial people especially. I'd say self perception has something to do with it.
Isn't this already how ethnicity works? For the most part, people can choose their own ethnicity.
This debate will probably come down to what approval/support means, but for what it's worth, I mostly agree with the resolution. If we wanted to, we could define race in terms of what group people want to be associated with. And I don't see why that would be more demanding necessarily than defining pronouns based on who people want to be associated with. If anything, pronouns and gender conventions are baked into more of our language and so changing them requires more work. Race can be treated as irrelevant most of the time.
