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.
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.
