When you re-add yourself to the queue, it might assign you to a different debate. However, I believe right now the system allows you to assign yourself to multiple debates at once, so you could keep assigning yourself to debates until you get this one. Technically kind of a bug, but tbh I think the 3 day limit is a bit strict and I should probably extend it anyway.
Thanks for the effort!
A lot of abortions being illegal supports my point though? When you control for legality, which goes back and forth, the trend is decreasing. I'm not cherry picking, I'm controlling for legality, which has gone back and forth across the globe.
Infrastructure was being built for years after Roe v. Wade, so it was still difficult to get legal abortions. I buy that it increased abortions in the short term, but the overall trend following the 1980s is downward, and those factors will continue to lower the rate as they aren't affected by reporting bias.
https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-united-states
The spike in 1973 was right after Roe v. Wade and states were adjusting to that, I'm not sure legal abortions were an accurate measure of total abortions until around the 1980s when the legal abortion rate plateaud.
Legal abortions and total abortions are not the same thing. I agree that legality increases the total somewhat, but other factors have kept the total number decreasing overall.
Birth rates are going down for largely the same reasons abortions are decreasing. Fewer unintended pregnancies is a good thing.
Abortions are decreasing long term though.
Criteria for UltraRated are more strict and specific than on DART. You can't expect to just meet criteria based on experience, you have to pay attention to the rubric. For example, how frameworks are handled and how much you need to address each argument made.
The vote itself is gonna take way longer than the quiz. If you can't even do the quiz on your own why should you be trusted with a vote that should take hours if done right?
You have to go to profile then badges then do vote quiz to vote then click to earn a vote badge and it will assign you a debate to vote on
<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>Selected wrong bubble</p>
<p>---Savant's former vote---</p>
<p>Voted for: con</p>
<p>Forfeiture</p>
Both of you are on the same IP network with a similar browser fingerprint. Do you know each other irl? If you do, voting on each other's debates is probably a conflict of interest.
<p>>Reported Vote: Arvish // 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: fails-to-analyze</p>
<p>>Reason for Mod Action:</p>
<p>Votes must evaluate specific arguments from each side and weigh them against each other.</p>
<p>---Arvish's former vote---</p>
<p>Voted for: con</p>
<p>The con has presented the arguments very precisely, explaining each point, whereas the pro has been circling the same questions again and again.
ACCORDING TO ME, FOR THE FOLLOWING ROUND-
1st round- pro won
2nd round- con won
3rd round- con won
4th round-con won</p>
Pro's argument looks like AI
Once you vote on one debate you can request more credits. (Unless it already has 3 assigned voters, in which case you'll just get free credits.)
Vote button shows up once you are assigned to vote.
Hi Lancelot, thanks for the response and Merry Christmas to you as well.
I’m happy to clarify my reasoning on those points.
You argued that errors do not disprove intelligence (the chess master/programmer analogy). I agreed with this logic—it is possible for an intelligent being to make mistakes. Con argued that the nature of the observations (randomness, specific suffering like childhood disease, chaotic evolution) aligns more closely with unintelligence than with a clumsy intelligent designer. In a probability debate ("More likely true"), Con provided a positive argument for why the observable universe looks like the result of unintelligence. Your defense was that it doesn't rule out intelligence. I was left unclear on what you would consider to be an unintelligent being (is every being intelligent just because it can do some things?) Con was more specific about what specific features were "unintelligent." You argued that any being who created the universe must be more advanced than us, but this begs the question of more advanced in what way? Even if I buy some of what you're saying, I end up concluding that the creator is more likely to be unintelligent than intelligent even if they are powerful. I think you had more room to win this if you argued more about specific features of the universe implying intelligence, but Con was just providing more nuance by pointing to specifics—a creator being indirectly responsible for what humans do isn't making a direct case for them being intelligent and planning it out, at least not a direct as the case Con was making.
Seconded
Why I removed my vote: Con's argument was clearly intended as a poem, so nitpicking aside, it doesn't really "violate the spirit" of the debate. At this point I should probably just not vote since I'm not sure enough about what interpretation of the rules is most fair.
<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>Changed my mind on this upon rereading. Description says "not a rap battle" and so I think Con is violating the spirit/purpose of the debate. Since Pro followed the rules, Pro wins.</p>
Okay, you are matched up
I mean it's randomly assigned so I didn't choose this setup for you specifically. But glad it seems to be an interesting one.
As I said, if you both agree to swap sides then I can't really stop you...like if you each obviously argued the other side I would vote based on the new terms you agreed to. But I disagree that arguing devil's advocate is blasphemy.
"In a situation where we both are DA what exactly is gained by forcing it?"
You learn to consider opposing beliefs and understand them better, which will in turn make you better at defending your actual beliefs.
"All I can do is evade, gaslight and thus be evil to win."
Think of it as representing what atheists believe in good faith. It's not being evil if both sides agree to the terms of debate, framing one side in a way that's useful to your argument is expected. Kind like playing mafia, although I know you may have some issues with that game too.
Hmm...assigning sides is kinda the point. I mean you can always be like "here is an argument I think could be made, but I agree with the resolution and am debating devil's advocate." (I think that's understood anyway, given the format.) So you're not actually advocating for the Con position.
But if you're REALLY strongly opposed to debating the Con side on principle and you both agree to swap...then fine, I guess.
My advice would be accept the definitions here for the sake of argument. Just presume the debate is over whether "An intelligent being or beings who created the universe" exists or not, forget the word "God"
