Savant

Forgot to put this in my opening arg, but I am excited finally debate against you as well.

Edit: Also should put this in my next arg probably, but I just realized I linked to the wrong source for min salary threshold increase for Skilled Worker visa's salary threshold (the link I gave has info along similar lines, but the details are slightly different). Here's the right link:

https://www.jobbatical.com/blog/uk-goverment-raises-skilled-worker-visa-minimum-salary-by-one-third-and-eliminates-discount-for-shortage-occupation-roles

Ultrarated will probably be the de facto leaderboard for skill level. Won't take long to get to #1 there if you are good, but it won't be easy.

Rap is a type of poetry. It's still not a rap battle because he didn't diss Venera.

Thanks for the detailed vote! I thought about bringing up the NPVIC but decided against it as that would just open up more paths for Pro if he decided to defend it or argue its political feasibility.

To vote on ultrarated, you have to go to your profile then badges, then take the voting quiz, then click to be assigned a debate to vote on. You'll be randomly assigned a debate in the voting stage if it doesn't have enough assigned voters yet. Might be this one, might be another one.

All right, I revoted.

<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>I promised to revote if asked to, so I am removing this initial vote.</p>

<p>---Savant's former vote---</p>
<p>Voted for: pro</p>
<p>Pro appeals to the debate description making this debate a truism and says that by accepting the debate, Con must accept the definitions in the description. Con never responds to that point directly, which is necessary to argue why I should prefer his definition over Pro's. Hence, I default to the (admittedly very biased) description, and Pro gets my vote.</p>

My vote + comments are longer than the debate at this point. If you really want me to, I'll revote, but it will just be copy+pasting all the stuff I said so far. With regard to the voting rubric, it's unclear to me, but I think so some extent Rated debate votes aren't held to the same standard as strictly as ultrarated. Although with everything I have said so far I think I've at least made reference to all the points in this debate.

"Unless you are saying God cant own ownership, in which case you disregarded the debate."

There are paths to victory doing what you did, but you needed to be more explicit about how being a deity overrides site rules. For example, responding to "By site rules, once you accept the debate, you agree to debate's description" with some kind of challenge like "I have the right to decide about that per the description." Claiming divine status gives you access to a lot of arguments, but you have to actually address Pro's point imo to satisfy your burden. You are accepting the description initially but then effectively changing it by expanding ownership.

I'm realizing that this may bias future voters, so I'll leave it at that. Not sure if my thoughts are all coming across clearly, but regardless, I hope there are more votes so it's not all up to me.

I think expanding what ownership means is effectively challenging the obvious interpretation of the definition. The premises SatanLucy gave looked straightforwardly like a valid syllogism, so if you wanted to argue that "decide about" meant a different thing in each premise, I think you had to be more explicit about that.

Expanding on RFD:

Pro has a relatively straightforward case, with P1 and P2 being enough to satisfy the resolution if both of them are true, as he points out. I can buy that Con advocating another definition of ownership means implicitly challenging the second premise. However, Pro reiterates in the second round the goal posts that they think Con needs to meet (directly saying the premise he challenges), and claims that "By site rules, once you accept the debate, you agree to debate's description." In my experience, there are some exceptions to the description if it is unreasonable, but Con has to at least dispute Pro's claim there or argue why the definitions are unreasonable (even though they obviously are, in my opinion).

Basically, Con's last round is nonresponsive to Pro's second round, where Pro has said that Con is bound to the definitions in the description. Con could have argued against that but he needed to at least address it.

I can expand on the reasoning for my vote if it helps. (Only reason it's as short as it is owes to how short he debate ended up being.) But if the charge is that I missed something core to Con's case, then just expanding on my reasoning not be sufficient.

For now, though, I'll leave this up to the mods to adjudicate.

Lincoln won a plurality of the popular vote but not a majority.

Thanks for voting!

Please vote!

I messaged TheOriginalInjil2 about changing his password, ball's in his court.

Why start a debate directed at another "sperm maker" if you are opposed to having it in the first place?

"divine goddess"

what?

Looking forward to reading this.

<p>>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Removed</p>
<p>>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy</p>
<p>>Voted for: tie</p>
<p>>Reason for Decision: other</p>
<p>>Reason for Mod Action:</p>
<p>Voted for a tie but wrote a justification for voting Pro. Votes for a tie need to justify why the debate was tied.</p>

<p>---fauxlaw's former vote---</p>
<p>Voted for: tie</p>
<p>To be precise, a tongue-in-cheek farce of debate, and yet effective given rules of debate [must reference a discontinued, yet accessible site, https://www.debateart.com]. So, with the farce in mind:

Pro's R1 outlines a precise argument in 3 phases: backed opinion, opinion perfection, and population agreement, which all conclude with appearance of wisdom.

Con forfeited R1. Not, however, a loss, relative to the above cited former site since this forfeit was only 33% of the total arguments available to Con..

Pro's R2 offers three primary support features added to his R1 arguments: by logic, emotion, and credibility. Logic was demonstrated by R1. Emotion was demonstrated by original poetry; a haiku. The poem was not well constructed, but what poet follows poetry rules, anymore? or ever, since poetry has always been open-season relative to "rules." [see referenced site from Pro's R1] Credibility was demonstrated by Pro's reminder he is the premier authority of his opinion, as substantiated by Pro's sourcing of "the most trusted people in America," headed by Tom Hank's, aka Pro according to his demonstrated superior opinion.

Con's R2 consisted of denial of credibility of Pro's R1 and R2, denying the sourcings Pro clearly offered in R1 and R2, therefore, a failed Con argument.

Pro's R3 is a clever self-referece one had to research to discover Pro's claim of being the leader in the field of personal opinion, and we know it to be his alter-ego [his ego being Tom Hanks]. One may pass by Pro's username, Ultracrepidarian, to ignore the Ultra- and go to crepidarian, which is a shoemaker. Thus, one may suppose Ultra means he is the ultimate shoemaker. Nope, not in shoes, at all, but in an intangible: an opinionater of no expertise, and this fits the sense of Pro's absurd Resolve, demonstrated by his "Crippling Evidence" sourcing in R3.

Con's R3 was a late-to-the-party attempt at proper rebuttal of an absurd Resolve. Too little too late.

Pro wins the debate.</p>

You said Pro wins but voted for a tie. Was this a mistake?

test2 test3

test test1

test comment editing edit1 edit2

I'm basing this on precedent from DART. I think there was one called "blargh is better than dkdikgb" or something. I think this would also fall under "comedy debates," in the DART voting policy, where it said that "voters on these are encouraged to judge arguments based on how funny they found each case." It also advised, "Please do not join an obvious comedy debate with the intent of treating it in a wholly serious manner." If every comedy debate was labeled as such with explicit rules, I don't think the notice about "obvious comedy debates" would be required.

https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#comedy-debates

I don't know if these rules have been copied over explicitly to this site, but people were debating on here before I even copied over parts of the code of conduct, and the community has remained largely the same, so I think it's fair for people to expect that overall, voting will work the same here as it did on DART.

Never mind, I was right. All of these rounds are mostly AI.

See:
https://www.zerogpt.com/
https://quillbot.com/ai-content-detector

It was the line "Your argument for classifying cereal as a type of soup presents several points, but it also contains potential fallacies and counterarguments" that made me think of chatgpt. But tbf, some of the others look like things it wouldn't say.

chatgpt vs chatgpt