Thanks for voting!
"This is why I don't do devil's advocate debates"
If your goal is truth-seeking, then devil's advocate debates are probably a decent way to achieve that. If Bob beats Fred in a debate, we can infer that Bob's position is stronger or that Bob is a better debater or that voters are biased. If everybody switches sides all the time, and one side always wins, then we can infer either that position is stronger or the voters are biased. So we've controlled for 1/2 confounding variables.
Basically, your rhetorical skills will reflect on whatever side you represent, even if they have nothing to do with the validity of your side.
"Not accepting one side of a true dichotomy doesn't require one to accept the opposite. This is why we address propositions one at a time."
I see where you're coming from, but I guess I just prefer balance, or not giving one side an easier job. As in each side is making an affirmative case as if they were instigating opposing resolutions that say the opposite thing. I think the "messiness" would be in that both sides could fail, but then you just get a stalemate. You could also have cases where each side makes arguments that don't address each other, but both cases would have to clash/contradict each other because they are claiming contradictory things. Well, maybe not always in practice, but then that's where frameworks come in. If they really are two ships passing in the night, it's probably a tie again, but in my view, giving one side a higher burden makes the competition unbalanced. It'd be a bit like saying one side wins ties in chess. Especially when we start getting into tournaments and things with randomly assigned sides, whoever gets to argue for agnosticism has less work to do.
Like, to get the same effect as a balanced BoP, you'd need to have two separate debates where each respective side accepts the burden, and see "can this person demonstrate X"? And if not, then, "can the other person demonstrate (not X)." Whereas if they both have to prove their side in a single debate, you can kinda address both simultaneously, which is more efficient.
Forgot to tag
"That is true, but that addresses the actual fact, not the proper belief position on it. With regards to belief there are 3 options; affirmative belief, belief in the/an alternative, or neutral. Neutral is not a lack of thought, it's the result of recognizing that the currently available facts do not favor either possibility. So if a case is made and that case is negated, then neutrality at the very least is what rationally follows (without injecting a further case)."
I agree, I just don't think Con should be arguing the neutral position; I think they are arguing belief in the alternative.
"I will say that I hate shared BoP debates because they get messy and unclear. In your fear/love example; love is greater... Is one proposition. Fear is greater... Is a separate proposition. So asking each side to make a positive case means they're debating two different propositions simultaneously."
Well usually it's not a matter of one side lacking arguments, but about arguments outweighing each other. Having a fear is stronger than love debate, then a love is stronger than fear debate, will lead to a lot of redundant arguments. I think it's more space/time efficient to have one side be arguing X and the other side arguing (not X).
"The only thing one needs to accept the proposition that love is not stronger than fear, is a lack of reason to assert that love is stronger than fear. In this example you're trying to frame a negation of a claim as a positive claim, that's logically contradictory."
I think you need a reason to rule out love being stronger than fear. Because it very well might be, I can't just rule out love being stronger than fear without a good reason to do so. What if the resolution had been "fear is at least as strong as love"? Would Con have the BoP then?
"If you started this debate in the Con position, by the end you're still in that position."
I don't think Con = agnosticism. Both sides are making positive claims. Let's say the Pro side is "Love is stronger than fear" and Con is "Fear is stronger than love." If Con refutes all of Pro's arguments but doesn't make positive arguments, then you're left not knowing whether fear or love is stronger, and thus you aren't left agreeing with either side. Even if Con's claim was "Love is not stronger than fear," it's still a positive claim that I wouldn't accept as a voter without an argument for it. The claim Con is making is implied as the negation of the resolution. Cause you could flip who is Pro and Con without changing their positions, and that shouldn't effectively change BoP in my view.
I mean points are rarely refuted 100 percent. If a feather on the scales can win the argument for the affirmative, it's not much of a burden.
At the same time, if one side can win without having to make a positive case, that seems kind of unbalanced. If they think their side has a higher base probability or default likelihood, then I think they should have to argue that.
I typically see a debate as both sides saying their side is true, not the contender just saying Pro's arguments are bad.
Tbh, I always thought BoP should be split as a matter of principle. If one side is making a wildly unlikely claim, then it's on the other side to demonstrate that/point it out. Also, it's just simpler to start by assigning both sides 50% likelihood as a default, because voters shouldn't be coming in factoring in prior information. If one side has to prove the resolution beyond a reasonable doubt, how much is that? 90%? 60%? Or do we just start by assigning their side lower likelihood (i.e. 30%)? And if neither side makes a substantive argument, does one side just win by default due to the other one having a higher BoP?
"Pro must agree that there is objective morality, and that good means flourishing while bad refers to suffering."
So the topic is really "Is the universe flourishing or suffering?" I mean, the semantic argument is that God is flourishing and not suffering, thus God is good. But clearly I don't think that's what you're after.
<p>>Reported Vote: Martialarts // Mod action: Removed</p>
<p>>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy</p>
<p>>Voted for: pro</p>
<p>>Reason for Decision: vote-rigging</p>
<p>>Reason for Mod Action:</p>
<p>Suspected multiaccounting.</p>
<p>---Martialarts's former vote---</p>
<p>Voted for: pro</p>
<p>So, this debate was interesting, yet I do feel like I am a tad disappointed as well. I will give the strengths and weaknesses of both sides, but I do feel as though Pro’s win can be seen as tainted. I will get into that in a minute.
Pro won this debate for a few different reasons.
1. They presented a case that was never refuted. This was a three point case which went through underrepresentation, understanding the present, and public recognition. Con never contested these points directly so they count as uncontested points.
2. Con tried to play definitional games which didn’t work. Pro did a good job neutralizing it, which con never addressed on many issues.
3. Con basically didn’t type a response hardly on one of the rounds (I think round 3). While pro remained consistent throughout the debate.
4. Pro used a lot of scholarship, research, and philosophy to either make points, or rebut Con’s points. Many of them went unaddressed such as the pushback on best action.
Con critique
I think con did a pretty good job creating a framework and trying to use it against pro, but it remained weak due to no offense being used. Con could have made this debate interesting if he used best action with a follow up hit by saying “integrating black history year round could be considered the best possible action”. This would have side stepped a lot of his arguments such as argument 2 and 3 in his opening. This would have created a framework fight to contend with point 1. I think that would have made this debate a lot closer. Overall Pro won by a significant margin.
Pro’s problems
Pro used AI, and while he is correct in that his work could be original, and it is used in academic institutions more readily now (While I was still in school it started to become more acceptable as long are you own thoughts were there), it doesn’t present the best look. I suggest he mentions it in the description of each debate he is in from now on. If it was a close debate, I would have probably left this vote alone. But due to con not answering points this is a given.
Con Issues
I feel like the last minute AI comment was a way for Con to muddy the waters. Pro did better in each round. Round 1 and 2 were close even though pro did better in these rounds, but round 3-5 Pro started to take over significantly. I feel that due to pro being able to answer everything, con could have knew about the AI thing earlier, but waited to bring it up to bring the debate in question. It’s an equivalent to bringing a new argument up in a closing statement. I am unsure how this works in written debates, but if you watch live debate channels on YouTube it is often considered poor conduct in a way. Overall this was an interesting debate from both sides, but ended in a crappy way. I would honestly like to see them debate again with more in the description. </p>
Both of your accounts are on the same IP network. Do you know each other irl?
Also the fact that Martialarts made an account just to vote on this debate is a bit suspicious.
<p>>Reported Vote: Savant // Mod action: Removed</p>
<p>>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy</p>
<p>>Voted for: pro</p>
<p>>Reason for Decision: too-vague</p>
<p>>Reason for Mod Action:</p>
<p></p>
<p>---Savant's former vote---</p>
<p>Voted for: pro</p>
<p>Con concedes the premise: "I agree. Some people will be single. That’s true in any system."
The rest of their argument isn't addressing the resolution.</p>
My rule of thumb is that people are allowed to present unfair frameworks, just as they are allowed to make bad arguments and twist facts. It's their opponent's job to refute those things, and if they don't, I treat those arguments/frameworks as conceded. The metric is who argued their case better, not who is right.
It was not.
https://www.zerogpt.com/
And even if it were, the same rules for debates do not apply to comments.
Your entire argument in R3 and R4 was AI generated. Not just "polished." You can polish a sentence or two or use AI for research, but generating a whole argument with it is over the line.
Now I'm curious about what context made you defend nuclear war.
That's true. But if your opponent's argument relies on nuclear war being good, then it typically makes it easy to argue against them.
Example of me arguing along those lines here:
https://www.debatecraft.com/debates/d/3t/resolved-that-the-president-of-the-united-states-should-be-elected-by-the-direct-vote-of-the-people
Not a framework I would typically use, but since Pro failed to provide one, I tried to design one as favorable to my side as possible.
Much of the time it does beg that question. But if your example is something widely agreed upon like "lend-lease was good," or "the Vietnam War being a poor decision," the other side likely won't contest it.
That would be more in cases of like rule utilitarianism, where you say "pursuing this strategy historically led to x, y, and z, so as a general rule, we should avoid doing things along those lines." If you wanted to argue for pacifism, for instance, a few examples of violence leading to more violence might help. Or as a thought experiment with real world grounding, like "FDR's decision to do x is widely seen as good, so we should similarly do x."
Yeah, I think a philosophical justification would have helped. Or just analogies to other historical events or thought experiments.
Your framework was fine, but as you say, I don't think you did a ton to defend it, and if Pro had had a stronger case then they could have attacked it harder. I guess your line by line could have been more organized and benefited from that, but in this case, Pro wasn't giving you too much to respond to, so there was really only so much clash possible. When the other side isn't providing a framework, isn't responding to most of your points, etc. then all you really have to do is point that out.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1EfBpG541aFZRG1S158AfjrB4LwNEv9P0YU1gAwYhJCA/edit?gid=1713017994#gid=1713017994
https://www.debatecraft.com/forum/c/debatecraft/posts/8f/please-read---site-intro-thread
https://www.debatecraft.com/forum/c/debatecraft/posts/7z/code-of-conduct
https://debate.miraheze.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct
<p>>Reported Vote: Savant // Mod action: Removed</p>
<p>>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy</p>
<p>>Voted for: con</p>
<p>>Reason for Decision: other</p>
<p>>Reason for Mod Action:</p>
<p>Did not mention why Pro's R4 was not taken into account.</p>
<p>---Savant's former vote---</p>
<p>Voted for: con</p>
<p>Pro's R3 was entirely AI-generated, so I'm not counting it per site rules. This comes down to a framework debate, where Pro insists all that matters is whether Iranians were celebrating. Con provides much more elaboration with her framework, using Trump's words to justify that promoting stability was the intent of the killing. With Con citing credible sources and that many Iranians were even mourning Khameini's death, her argument just seems a lot more supported and hence I grant it more weight.</p>
Thanks for the vote!
Here's the rubric, prob should be more prominent on the site:
https://www.debatecraft.com/debates/vote-rubric
