I’m personally pretty fond of the structural violence framework, and I think it delves pretty deeply into many of the ways damage can be inflicted on a population. I think it would have worked well here.
I think there was room to attack your framing of the debate pretty meaningfully. Pro could have argued that the aim is just a positive outcome for Iran, or he could have argued that it's a broader issue and that short-term aims of maintaining regional stability and peace aren't the most important outcomes to consider. I think the quote works well enough to establish that this was an aim for this administration, though I absolutely would have challenged that if I was in Pro's position, given that DJT has given every reason under the sun for starting the war and this is just one example.
And yeah, I could see adding more of those turns as just regular parts of your case. I think you did a good job of establishing how power vacuums are bad and how their being under attack radicalizes their leadership, but focusing in on concrete elements that have made things more dangerous for the region and disrupted the global economy are really good ways to impact it out.
I'm not arguing that it's a perfectly fair standard (though I would argue that it's not absurdly biased, either), just that it's the only standard present in the debate. Pro had plenty of chances to argue against it and chose not to do so. I'd say the burdens favor Con a bit, but that's not unusual for any debate, and in a debate where they go entirely uncontested and there is not an alternative framing of the burdens to contend with (Pro claimed that he had a different framework, but it blatantly is not a framework at all), I treat it as a given. The alternative is just to throw it out, and personally I think that involves a little too much judge intervention.
Since I didn't mention it in my RFD, I'll just say this about the framework.
If there is no framework presented in the debate by one side, then as long as the other side is even somewhat reasonable with their framework, I basically treat it as gospel. I wouldn't say that Con demanded a lot more of Pro here than she did of herself, and even acknowledged that there was a shared BoP in this debate. Pro clearly didn't meet that BoP and, even if the bar had been set substantially lower, I don't see a world in which he would have met it. If Pro wanted to argue that he should have a lower BoP, though, that would have required actually arguing against the framework. I don't see any ink on that point.
I'm always intrigued by the cross-over between styles. I've judged a few LD debates and had to learn the gist of it for Value debates, but opening rounds have remained a relatively weak point for me, at least in terms of establishing my frameworks. Always something I'm working on.
Thank you for taking the time to vote on this, I know there was a lot to get through and I agree, I think we got a little too in the weeds about each argument instead of taking it back a step and really evaluating how it all fit together. For context, my background is in both American Parli and British Parli, and while I've taken a lot of lessons from the latter, I still default to the line-by-line of the former sometimes and in debates like this, that can just leave things feeling messy in the end. I'm glad you were able to make sense of enough of it to come down on a decision!
It’s particular to the Ultrarated debates like this. They can’t end until there are 3 votes, and the period to post them is arbitrarily set to 3 days when you put in to do it, but you can always just put yourself back in the queue if there aren’t 3 votes.
Appreciate that! It’s been a while since DDO, but fair to say a number of great debaters have stuck with us through site transitions. Savant has always impressed me, great opportunity to debate him here.
If time elapses on your voting period for this, you can always re-start it.
Also, fully don’t expect you to read each source. If it’s not contested, then the source shouldn’t be doing more than backing up the information it’s tacked onto, so the analysis for both of our arguments should largely be enough.
Very much appreciate your putting in the effort to get through this and post a vote. Take your time, I know it’s a lot!
<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>Removed at voter request.</p>
<p>---fauxlaw's former vote---</p>
<p>Voted for: tie</p>
<p>This debate was an enjoyable read. Pro presented a good Topic that typically is approached by an attempt to prove God's existence, which often is a difficult Burden of Proof [BoP]. However, by introducing the principle of parsimony, proof of God became of less significance for Pro's BoP by making a parsimonious argument. This is not to say Pro did not offer av proof of God, because the first pro argument was the Leibnizian Cosmological Argument, which offers a 5-step process concluding with proof of God. Many people automatically assume parsimony is a negative activity, because it tends to be linked to a monetary argument: the cheapest approach to solving a problem. Rather, Pro's approach, while not naming parsimony's "kissing cousin," Occam's [O's] Razor," is that the principle of parsimony is synonymous with O's Razor. He says in R1: " By parsimony I mean favoring the simplest explanation that requires the fewest assumptions or entities to explain a phenomenon and provides for the most coherent framework." Pro also offers the Kalaam Cosmological Argument [KCA], which asserts "Therefore, the universe has a cause." Pro's R1 gauntlet is that "simplest explanation." [citing the Topic] other good R1 argument by Pro is the "fine-tuning" argument, "The fine-tuning of the initial conditions of the universe is due to either law, chance, or design" which concludes that design, a "cause" is parsimoneous.
Con's R1 rebuttal does not refute the KCA's "cause" argument conclusion; rather, Com claims that does not necessitate God, ignoring that Pro did not "necessitate" God without evidence. The evidence is the parsimony argument, which is sufficient t to meet Pro's BoP. Con then tries to rebut the "Fine-tunoing" argument by the rebuttal suggestion of a situation, concluded by "“Either Sophia stole the phone, it fell by chance, or she planned it.” But Con. ignores that the third option, "...she planned it" is a perfect example of the fine-tuning "design." Designs are planned.
I could go on to demonstrate these same failed arguments by Con in R2-4 against Pro's R2-4, but they follow this same analysis.
Pro wins this one in a landslide. Parsimony = Occam's razor - BoP proven win R1.</p>
I can't go in and change the point allocation, unfortunately. I can go ahead and remove the vote, say that the removal was at your request, and you can re-post as a vote for Pro. Does that work for you?
<p>>Reported Vote: Saksham // 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>The voter talks pretty vaguely about what's presented in the debate. There's a discussion of the framework, but it's not clear how that factors into their decision, as the focus almost immediately shifts to whether certain points are justified rather than what the "simplest, clearest explanation" is between the two sides. I'm not clear what the voter means by "separately mentioning the lines from pro" or why that was a factor in their decision. The vote generally seems to jump around from one side having pictures in the debate to ignoring arguments presented by Con (which points? Why do they matter?) to a couple of lines of text about specific points (the Cosmological and fine tuning points, both of which are Pro's arguments) to a point about Pro somehow having "arguments on assumptions not facts" that doesn't get any explanation. At minimum, the voter needs to analyze specific points presented by each side, and they do not cover any points presented by Con.</p>
<p>---Saksham's former vote---</p>
<p>Voted for: con</p>
<p>Not gonna lie, reading this debate was actually fun, and the decision was also tough for me, but finally I came to the conclusion as soon as i saw the other vote, so now I will be a tie-breaker, and with the fairness will vote for the one who has followed the framework. honestly by seeing the debate, both opponents had good arguments. so like others i would like to present my views on it. This debate has a shared framework presented by the pro specifically and later accepted by the con that mainly talks about the winning side must give the simplest, clearest explanation without making unsupported guesses. If i talk about this then i guess con does suits this framework more than pro. first here my reasons for this- i liked the way con has presented his arguments by separately mentioning the lines from pro . this was a plus point for con according to me . now as we have moved towards the likeness the pro has also impressed me by putting pictures in the first round honestly in first round his arguments were much more better tha con but later it has been surpassed by con. main reasons why i have chosen con to vote are simply because i like his arguments . TheseCon are some justifications provided by me to favour him- 1) as the other person also justifies the argument about him ignoring many key points written by con, attacking him, which made him lose 1 point from my side. 2) now about the Leibnizian Cosmological Argument, con has argued against it many times but pro has ignored the root argument and has not focused, on it completely. 3) this is somehow related to the 2nd one but different arguments in the fine tuning one again con has suggested other means also that we can read but pro has focussed on sigle line that he did not invent a new one that i think has been clearly mentioned by con that burden of proof in not on him 4) another thing i did not like about him was that he has mostly stated his arguments on assumptions not facts . so yeah that were the mere reasons. overall both the arguments did not had a huge difference in them but a little diference made me favour con over pro.</p>
<p>>Reported Vote: sheetaljariyal // 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: too-vague</p>
<p>>Reason for Mod Action:</p>
<p>Of the three reasons provided for the vote, only the second specifically analyzes any of the arguments presented in the debate. It is not sufficient for the voter to just generally say that one side "argued against the dropped arguments" justified by the other side, say that dropped arguments aren't correct by virtue of their being dropped, nor that one side questioned assumptions made by the other. Those are generalized reasons that don't engage with anything specific from the debate. Point 2 does, but the voter doesn't actually point to or consider any arguments presented by Con, merely stating what Pro did that didn't work. The voter has to consider arguments presented by both sides and explain why Con won, not just why Pro didn't.</p>
<p>---sheetaljariyal's former vote---</p>
<p>Voted for: con</p>
<p>SO I HAVE VOTED FOR CON. HERE ARE THE FOLLOWING REASONS FOR IT - 1) pro has repeatedly argued against the dropped arguments that have been justified by the CON. But on the other sides he has not proved the arguments and have assumed that by only saying that they are dropped his arguments are correct ( which has been pointed out by con but ignored by pro) 2) About the cosmological argument, con has pointed out the pro's argument by saying even if the universe has a cause, that does'nt means its god . hence pro has gone through this big leap that starts from "a cause exists" to "god exists" without proper explanation. 3)Now the third reason that explains why I have voted for Con is that he has consistently questioned the assumptions behind pro's arguments instead of simply accepting them. PRO has heavily relied on the assumptions asserting heavy conclusions, which have been pointed out by Con, and some of the points are completely ignored by the pro, so these are the reasons why I have favoured Con over PRO.</p>
<p>>Reported Vote: DavidAZ // 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>The voter must analyze arguments presented by both sides. Simply saying that one side forfeited some rounds is not sufficient.</p>
<p>---DavidAZ's former vote---</p>
<p>Voted for: con</p>
<p>Obvious reason is that Pro forfeited. </p>
If that's not the basis for removing your vote (note: it isn't), there's no point in having a debate over it, nor is that the standard for vote removals on the site. If you want to try and make it policy, argue your case in the forums.
I'm not debating the veracity of the arguments you made in your vote, nor is it relevant to the removal of your vote. I'm pointing out that their imposition on the debate violates site rules for voting (see the "Based on Outside Content" section: https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#based-on-outside-content). That is relevant. If you have an argument for why your vote doesn't violate the voting standards for this site, please, provide it.
Whatever your opinion of the voting system, you are still required to abide by it if you wish to cast a vote.
You aren't required to award points in order to give feedback to the debaters, but if you do wish to award points, then yes, you need to consider points the other side did not touch even if they are objectively false. You can call them out on it, but inserting your own arguments in places Con fell short is not a viable alternative. Pro never gets a chance to respond to you. If you want to award points here based on Pro not meeting his BOP, then that should appear in your RFD. I didn't even see you mention BOP.
I didn't penalize you for knowing more than the debaters. I removed your vote because you are effectively putting your finger on the scale for Con's side of the debate, granting him answers to Pro's arguments, in order to award him the win. If you want to inform the debaters and explain where you feel their arguments are lacking, you are entirely welcome to do so. You can post in the comments or add to your RFD with notes on what the debaters did wrong in your estimation. You are, however, not allowed effectively include arguments you wish someone had made in the debate as a means of awarding it to the side you think should have won.
The rules for voting are relatively consistent between the two sites, yes. If you think it's a joke that you're required to assess the arguments as given in the debate and not impose your own, that's a different story.
<p>>Reported Vote: MasterDestroyer // 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: bias-influences-decision</p>
<p>>Reason for Mod Action:</p>
<p>The voter appears to be inserting quite a few of their own arguments on behalf of Con rather than evaluating the arguments that Con presented directly. For example, the voter points to verses that counter the ones Pro presented, but Con didn't have any biblical verses in his arguments. Similarly, pointing out that Pro's arguments fell short of the voter's expectations, e.g. Pro did not demonstrate "that female deconesses had that role ever in the NT era," is the voter applying a set of criteria to Pro's arguments that is never explicitly laid out by Con. The voter must evaluate the debate as presented by the debaters, and it's both unclear that he evaluates either side's arguments and pretty clear he's predisposed against certain points.</p>
<p>---MasterDestroyer's former vote---</p>
<p>Voted for: con</p>
<p>When it comes to women being pastors/presbyters/bishops (all interchangeable from a biblical POV) there was no contest. Pro relied on appeals to emotion/misogyny and out of context verses. For every verse pro uses in support of female clergy there is a verse which implies the opposite to counter it, and none that explicitly demonstrate female clergy beyond the office of deaconess.
Where con shoots himself in the foot is by including the word "preachers" in the proposition. This could go either way depending on how you define preaching.
In modern churches Deacons often preach sermons, pro has not demonstrated that female deaconesses had that role ever in the NT era. However it depends heavily if you confine the definition of "preaching" to a formal sermon in a church setting or if this includes general evangelism. If it does include evangelism, then it is clearly stated in the bible that women participated in this.
Pro could have won if he honed in on the pastor/preacher distinction and defined preaching as something beyond formal sermons in a church. The arguments used by pro instead seemed like a combination of poor exegesis and feminist ideology. </p>
I disagree with a good deal of that, but it doesn't seem like you really want to discuss this and I've lost interest, so I'll leave it at that.
A definition is not a framework.
Sorry about the delay. I'm working my way through this, should have a vote up this week.
I've made a point of explaining what, specifically, you failed to address in his argument. Your response was that I didn't mention things you did say. I pointed out that, yes, I did mention those points and explained why they weren't sufficient.
And, no, this statement is inaccurate:
"He just dislikes that I wanted equality and use my Round 1 for constructive just like you did, leaving rebuttals for Round 2 just like you did."
If you're going to challenge the definitions in a debate, then yes, that has to come up in your first round. That's part of a constructive, to explain how you're framing the debate and why. Just saying you didn't want to rebut your opponent in the first round isn't enough for me to accept that you decided to tackle definitions, especially those that were pertinent to your own argument, late. It's also not the "sole justification for" my vote. That's just an absurd reading of my RFD.
