Savant

<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

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?