The Instigator
Pro (for)
11 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
17 Points

DetectableNinja's Tournament: Sex offenders should be sterilized/chemically castrated.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/8/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,359 times Debate No: 18668
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (25)
Votes (5)




Sorry about the previous mistake in the set-up. Everything should be fine now. Good luck.

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Opening Arguments/Rebuttals
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4: Final Rebuttal/Closing Statement

Sex Offender (1): an individual who was convicted of a sex offense.

We will be using the list of sex offenses and relevant definitions provided by the above source.

Sterilized/Chemically Castrated: The ongoing regular injections of anti-androgens in order to achieve the effect of temporary sterilization.




I accept and agree to the definitions provided. Mestari, good luck!
Debate Round No. 1



The resolution asks whether an action should be taken. In order to understand whether actions should be taken we must analyze their implications. The only way to clearly assess implications is to look through the lens of a specific policy-action. Thus, to affirm the resolution it my burden as the Pro to prove that a specific policy action dependent on the sterilization/chemical castration of sex offenders should be implemented. The burden of the Con is simply prove that this policy action should not be taken, or to propose a better, mutually-exclusive, alternative. Thus, I will be defending a plan of action, or a "plan" for short, and advocating that the implementation of this plan will provide several advantages that are preferable to the alternative options.

Plan Text

Sex offenders in the United States will be sterilized until rehabilitated. Sterilization shall be achieved through the ongoing regular injections of Medroxyprogesterone acetate. The alternative option is prison for the current sentencing period.

Advantage 1: Recidivism

A. Inherency

Recidivism rates are high for child molesters (1).

"Recidivism is extremely high among child molesters; 75% are convicted more than once for sexually abusing young people"

B. Solvency

Chemical castration directly results in a dramatic drop in recidivism rates.

"When used as a mandatory condition of parole, chemical castration decreases the occurrence of repeat offenses from 75% to 2%" (1).

Advantage 2: Cost-Effectiveness

A. Cost of Chemical Castration

Anti-androgen injections costs vary from $160-450 per month (2).

B Cost of Jail

"It costs an average of about $47,000 per year to incarcerate an inmate in prison in California" (3).

This equates to about $3,900 per month.

C. Comparative Analysis

To be fair, we must input the cost of supervising a parolee into the cost of Chemical Castration in order to have a fair and balanced analysis. The Executive Office of Public Safety and Security states (4),

"The cost to supervise one parolee is $5,000 per year."

That comes in at about $415 per month, plus the cost of anti-androgen injections. Assuming the most expensive anti-androgen, we are looking at a comparison of $815 per month for chemical castration as opposed to $3,900 per month per offender. In order to fully analyze the effect of this cost difference, we must look at the total expenses per year. There are 739,853 registered sex offenders in the United States. Once the math is done, we are looking at a $602,980,195 per month for chemical castration as opposed to $2,885,426,700 per month for incarceration. The difference becomes even more shocking at an annual level of $7,235,762,340 for chemical castration compared to $34,625,120,400 for incarceration. I believe that the economic benefit of chemical castration is obvious.


I will end my argument here as I do not know how my opponent will choose to respond to my case. These are just outlines of the advantages of chemical castration that may be expanded upon in the next round.




I would like all the reader's to know that chemically castrating an individual will not by any means cure them of their problem. It simply slows the sex drive.

I also want to let everyone know that 99% of sexual offenses go unmentioned [1]

I have a couple of contentions in order to strengthen my case; therapies, and how they are extremely effective; and Recidivism.

C1. Recidivism
Let's start by looking at recidivism rates, as told by the United States Department of Justice.

Since 1983, the recidivism rate for all sex offenders is 9% [2]

Since 2002, the recidivism rate for all sex offenders is only 5.3% [2]

As we can see, in recent years it is a relatively small chance for sex offenders to make a repeat offense. To be precise, it's 1 out of 19, instead of the 3 out of 4 my opponent suggests. This leads us to believe that repeat offenses are very rare, and have been mitigated as time has gone on.

If less S.O. (sex offenders) are committing repeat offenses, that means that the majority of sex crimes are committed by first time S.O., which cannot be prevented by a post event measure, I.E. chemical castration. Therefore, it is safe to say that chemical castration simply wastes money on S.O. who will NOT make a repeat offense.

C2. Costs

The costs of chemical castration will be compared to my stance on what should happen to sex offenders, which is therapy; this will be discussed at length later in the round.

There is a major problem with chemical castration; it doesn't cure the problem. My opponent said himself that it's a temporary fix. S.O. who have been taken off the treatment have been known to go right back to sexual offenses, showing it to be only helpful while it's administered.[3]

This leads me to what everyone is thinking, which is this would need to be implemented indefinitely in order to achieve long term success. "Judges, not doctors or even the convicted sex offender himself, will determine when, or if, the use of the experimental drug can be discontinued." [4] You can imagine now a defendant lobbying for a set amount of years this drug will be administered, which would cause this S.O. to be right back out there. On the other hand, you can have judges that the prosecutor really gets to, and sentences the S.O. for a lifetime of chemical castration, which is more likely the case [4].

Since the majority of sex offenders are of the age 36 [2], and since the average lifespan for an American is 78 [5], we can speculate that this drug will need to be administered for an average of 42 years. Going off of my opponent's costs of $450 a month (the $180 treatment needs to be administered weekly, actually amounting in more costs), we can see the costs for each S.O. for this treatment.

The total costs equal $226,800 EACH.

This leads me to my next contention

C3. Castration fails to treat the psychological roots of sexually deviant behavior.

It has been shown that C.C. targets a very small amount of sex offenders. As I have stated, the recidivism rate is only 5.3%. This was shown without the use of C.C. With it, my opponent claims to have gotten that number down to 2%, though his source is an opinionated article. So for a quarter of a million dollars for each Sex Offender, we can get that number down by 3%! OH boy.

What I am about to propose will take all that money and stop wasting it on such a minuet decrease, and actually show how we can stop sex offenders at the source. Remember how I stated that 99% of sexual offenses go unreported? Through this method of therapy, it is possible to tell who is a sex offender and who isn't, giving us the opportunity to eliminate a large mass of sexual offenses in the United States, an opportunity that C.C. will never give us.

"Some researchers have attempted to answer the problem of assessment by studying patterns of sexual response via penile plethysmography, which measures penile erectile responses to stimuli in the laboratory. Proponents have argued that plethysmography can identify rapists and can differentiate those with the most victims and those who show sadistic behavior. Plethysmography has been successful in identifying child molesters, and in differentiating offenders who use excessive force in their assaults" [6]

On top of this... "plethysmography is useful in identifying individuals with high levels of inappropriate arousal and low levels of appropriate arousal...plethysmography can be a helpful adjunct to treatment as well" [6]

Once these S.O. are identified, we can move on to therapy, a much more cost effective treatment then chemical castration. Two major types of therapy that have been successful in dealing with sex offenders are operant conditioning and respondent conditioning, both of which greatly reduce the recidivism rates of sex offenders. [7]

A. Operant Conditioning
Operant conditioning focuses on a reward and punishment strategy, which trains new behaviors in patients. [8] One of these behaviors is problem solving. With this strategy, we can work to establish a higher level of appropriate arousal, which was mentioned earlier as a key to helping cure these S.O.

B. Respondent Conditioning
Respondent Conditioning uses procedures such as aversion therapy, which is known to reduce rates of recidivism.[8]
This type of therapy implements covert sensitization and odor aversion, which both have a large amount of psychiatric science behind them that I will not bore the reader with. However, let it be know that these methods work.

On top of these therapies, in 2007, a Texas sex offender treatment program helped drastically in the recidivism of S.O. The rates of repeat offenses dropped by 60%. [9]

If we were to take the millions we are going to be spending in chemical castration, and direct it to formulating more advanced stages of therapy and more treatment programs, it isn't unfeasible to suggest that we could potentially eliminate not only the 1% of reported sexual offenses, but the high majority of ALL sexual offenses.

The costs of these therapies would be minimal as compared to the cost of chemical castration to be effective. According to the American Journal of Psychiatry, the average costs for 15 sessions of psychiatric help would be $1,331.[10] Now let's say that this goes on for 1-5 years for each patient, and we can all assume that sessions are held weekly. There are about 52 weeks in a year, so that's 52 sessions.

This would equal out as follows:

1 year: around $4,500
2 years: around $9,000
3 years: around $13,500
4 years: around $18,000
5 years: around $22,500

Even if you were to say there are multiple sessions a week, everyone can obviously see the large decrease of expenditures from chemical castration to therapeutic methods.

I have shown that a different action would be more beneficial for multiple reasons. Through everything I lobby, we would identify more sexual offenses and we would create a much more cost effective way of dealing with them once found out. Not only this, but through what I advocate, we would be keeping society safer, as opposed to chemical castration, which only keeps them under wrap for as long as it's administered, which is decided under the judges discretion.

8. Rea, J. (2003). Covert Sensitization. The Behavior Analyst Today, 4 (2), 192-201
Debate Round No. 2



Before I run the theory argument (Theory Shell) I will explain its function in a round for non-debaters. Theory arguments debate the "theoretical rules of a debate round". When a debater believes their opponent is being abusive, they can run a theory shell in response. The theory shell must have an interpretation, which is what they believe should be a theoretical rule of debate. Then they have a violation, which is the section where they explain how that rule was violated. This is followed by standards that justify their interpretation by claiming a loss of either fairness or education or both due to the abuse. The final section is the voters where you explain why this loos of fairness/education is sufficient reason to either reject the abusive argument or to "reject the debater" by voting for the person running the shell.

Debaters must accurately represent evidence.
Violation: My opponent misrepresents his recidivism evidence. In fact, the evidence in his study NEVER talks about recidivism rates since 2002 OR 1983. The evidence speaks of prisoners released from prison in 1994. My opponent claims to have found recidivism rates in the study from 1983 and from 2002, one is over a decade before the sample group was studied and one was almost a decade after. Even more so, he claims a recidivism rate of 9% decreasing to 5.3% when the study he cited argues that 28.5% of those studied had been previously arrested for a sex crime, some of those two or three times (page 17), which is already over three times higher than the highest recidivism rate my opponent cited. My opponent also states in both of these statistics that they are represent the recidivism rate for all sex offenders since 1983 and. Leaving aside the fact that the study only counts a sample of sex offenders imprisoned in 1994, it also only includes 9,691 people, far from all sex offenders. In addition, there was only a 3-year follow up period. So effectively what his evidence states is a 5.3% recidivism rate of 9,641 individuals within 3 years of their release in 1994. This is far from the all-inclusive statistic of every sex offender from 1983-present that my opponent claims.
Standards: 1. Academic Integrity: We must hold debaters to accurately represent their evidence.
A. Character Limit Abuse: It takes must longer to argue that a debater has skewed the evidence's results than it does for their opponent to quote the evidence. If we do not hold debaters accountable then it would justify them citing 20 sources and misrepresenting every piece of evidence as it would be impossible for their opponent to clarify the true intention of every source and present arguments of their own. Academic integrity is key to fairness because it prevents debaters from abusing character limits and the fact that judges simply do not always have time to read every source in its entirety to create unrealistic statistics and force their debaters into an uphill battle to keep the debate honest.
B. Real-World Applicability: Academic integrity is also key to education because an honest interpretation of evidence is necessary in order to fully understand the topic at hand and learn about its real-world implications. If we can make up statistics then we could never apply them to the real world.
Voters: 1. Fairness is a voter because if we allow unfair debates then as the judge you cannot objectively evaluate the round. My opponent cannot simply drop his misrepresented evidence and solve for this as I won't be able to adapt my strategy of debate to honest evidence until the final round of debate where I am unable to make new arguments. Once the abuse has occurred in-round, an objective evaluation of the round becomes impossible and you must vote against my opponent because his abuse has caused that. Furthermore, this is a tournament round. If tournaments were not fair then debaters would not waste their time signing up for them and competing. We join tournaments looking for a challenge, but on fair terms. The violation of fairness is of an extremely high magnitude as my opponent did not simply make a mistake in interpreting his evidence, but completely made up new years and new recidivism rates that were NEVER mentioned in the study. It was not an honest error, but a blatant lie.
2. Education is a voter because a primary reason for debating on DDO, and a motive for most voters, is to learn more about various topics. If we misrepresent evidence and take away the education aspect of the debate then that provides reason for a large amount of members to just stop debating altogether and to solely use the forums as a medium for educated argumentation. A loss of education is a reason to reject the debater because it will deter him from misrepresenting evidence again in the future, and thus prevent him from destroying the motive for reading for voting on debates.

Implication (In DDO Terms)

This theory shell should be a reason for you to drop the debater as stated in the voters, thus giving me all 3 argument points. It should also earn me the conduct point as I am supporting honest debate practices whilst my opponent is not and the sources point as my opponent is not accurately representing his story while I am. The way you represent your sources and implement them into the debate round should weigh in more heavily than the quantity of sources you provide.


At this point, I have 2,600 characters left which is far from enough to respond to my opponent's case and simultaneously defend my own. It seems that theory has become an all-or-nothing issue for me in this round. With this in mind, I will attempt to preempt my opponent's responses to theory the best I can.

"My opponent claims that because 1 source was not accurately represented there is abuse so great that he had to resort to theory to have a fair shot at winning the round. This simply isn't true, he could have cited the correct statistic and moved on."

It is not what you do, but what you justify. Theory argues the theoretical rules of debate that all debaters and judges should hold true. Your misrepresentation of the recidivism evidence justifies everybody lying about their sources. We must accept the idea that sources must be accurately represented as a rule and vote against violators in order for it to be taken to heart by all debaters. If we deny this, then it would be completely legitimate to make up 20 pieces of evidence as I stated in my character limit abuse standard of the theory shell.

"Fairness and education don't matter. This is a competition, you do anything to win."

Even in competitions fairness and education matter. In professional sports rules are strictly enforced to preserve fairness. If the sport were not fair, people would get frustrated and stop playing. The same goes for debate. Education is uniquely important for debate as a competition as a motive for many debaters is to learn more about the topic. If we deny that education is important and exclude debaters who intend on learning, then there will not be enough debaters to "compete" with.

"Even if I am violating the so-called 'theoretical rules of debate' I am winning on the substantive level of the debate."

Theory precludes substance. For the substantive level of the debate to matter, the judge must be able to objectively evaluate arguments in the round. My fairness voter explains that once you commit abuse it is impossible for an objective evaluation of the round to occur, thus we must vote against the source of the abuse. I also explained in my first preempt that we must vote against violators in order to legitimize this rule in the debate community. Voting against abusive strategies will also deter debaters from using them in the future.


My opponent has bee abusive with his misrepresentation of evidence. Theory is the most important issue in the round and if I win it, then I should win the round regardless of who wins on substance.


The first order of business for this round is to establish the situation that caused my violation. I will be explaining in depth how my carelessness managed to translate to my sources, and apologizing to both Mestari and the readers.

When I was doing research, I had many tabs open. One of those showed me those recidivism rates, being 5% and 9% respectively. That was from the wiki source that I cited as SEVEN from my previous round. It stated this statistic, then another statistic in the same paragraph, then cited it all with a 2. I followed the two to the bottom, found the link, which is the pdf file cited as two in my last round, and opened it. I know it seems completely unrealistic that I managed to miss the giant bold title in the beginning saying how it was a study on prisoners released in 1994....I skimmed through it (very big file) and read over some charts, saw the 5.3% in a certain section (although upon closer inspection, this section was in relation to the prisoners. The whole thing was...) and said Ok, good to go. I know that feeble excuses shouldn't be used as a defense, so I will just use my own stupidity to blame. I was disorganized that morning, with the multitude of tabs and tons of sources I never used. I apologize.

In any case, this is me saying that my previous source is indeed wrong. In fact, the wiki source stated the two years that I had stated, but since they sourced the pdf file that didn't have any statistics in correlation with these two years, I hope everyone DISMISSES this statistic. Instead, everyone should replace it with this:

A 1994 study by the United States Department of Justice stated that recidivism rates in sex offenders, after 3 years released from prison, reached 5.3%. [1]

I will still be arguing my contention on recidivism and how the rate is smaller than what my opponent suggests.

TO balance out the fairness in this debate, which has been construed, I will offer Mestari the ability to post new rebuttals and sources for his already existing arguments in the last round. I am not saying that my opponent may bring in a whole new contention, but that he can use new sources in relation to my argument. Mestari doesn't need to accept, though I think it will help balance things out.

Note :
These above statements are not me conceding in any way to my opponent, but acknowledging an accidental wrong and discarding the statistic. I really hope all the readers can look past it, and to be fair I will simply reiterate and touch on my position in this debate, to try and reel this back into a debate on the resolution. I won't bring new sources in this round, nor attack my opponent's position. We will save all the fun for next round :).

Now, to make a brief support on my case. I will stop once I get to 2,600 characters, for that is when Mestari started making pre-emptive cases, which aren't to be used. I might stop before that, if I run out of things to say.

C1: Recidivism

My opponent and I both have conflicting recidivism rates. I would just like to make it known to everyone that my rates are actually from the United States Department of Justice (the 1994 jail study). My opponent brings a source that has to validity, no sourcing of it's own, and is not reputable. Also, it's important to note that with what I advocate, it is possibly to start dealing with the 99% of unreported sex offenses. So we could seriously mitigate ALL the recidivism rates with a Con ballot.

C2: Costs

This contention seems to be secondary, but none-the-less, vital. We see my numbers, which I will assume be challenged by Pro in the next round. As it stands, however, the cost of therapies, which are indeed effective, against the costs of castration are much lower. This is good for multiple reasons; we can start dealing with sex offenders with a much smaller amount of money; we can also not only stop recidivism temporarily, but we can cure their psychological issue.

C3: Therapies

In the last round, this contention focused on how therapies can help indefinitely cure sex offenders, and how what Pro advocates for will never do this. For now, I will reiterate how therapies are effective in means of recidivism and monetarily. With therapies, not only can we help sex offenders become contributing members to society once again, but we can do it at a fraction of the cost. What possible alternative to therapies would be more effective in all these facets? I will digress so that I don't overstep my boundaries in this round.


Once again, I want to formally apologize and let it be known that this debate will NOT include the 1984 and 2002 department of justice statistics. They are invalidated at this point, and if I bring them up again, the judges may give all 7 points to my opponent. It was an accidental mistake on my part, and my opponent has already forgiven me. I hope we can still keep this fair and balanced through the ways which I proposed. My points are that chemical castration doesn't target the mass of sex offenders, chemical castration is more costly than therapies, and chemical castration only prohibits a small amount of return offenders from committing the crime again.

I thank everyone, and hope the debate will continue on it's previous course.
Debate Round No. 3


Between not having much time to commit to this final round and the fact that the final round is meant to be a conclusion, I will keep this short.

My opponent's only response to my theory is an attempt to drop the evidence in question. I stated last round under my fairness voter that "My opponent cannot simply drop his misrepresented evidence and solve for this as I won't be able to adapt my strategy of debate to honest evidence until the final round of debate where I am unable to make new arguments. Once the abuse has occurred in-round, an objective evaluation of the round becomes impossible and you must vote against my opponent because his abuse has caused that."

No matter whether or not it was a mistake, I am unable to refute his case at this point and had to focus on the lack of accuracy/academic integrity in the argument that my opponent posted. My opponent failed to refute that the original lack of accuracy is sufficient to drop him from the round. He has not refuted any parts of my theory shell. Extend it clearly and I should win right there. I am unable to say anything else in this round without copying and pasting my theory or making new arguments against his case, so that will be all.


I would like to start this round by thanking Mestari for opposing me and DetectableNinja for hosting this tournament.

To all who read this. Look back on your own pasts; your own debates. Tell me there wasn't a time where you, as a debater, or just in every day life, made a mistake. We all do. I think that, upon your own reflections, you can still objectively judge this debate on it's content. That is, we do not need to devolve this debate into theory because my opponent says so. An accident happened, and corrections were made. He tries to write this off by saying that I cannot simply drop evidence, because it would put him at a disadvantage. I give him opportunity to post new arguments in his last round, and he declines .The theory attack was just his attempt to claim a win, and a very unorthodox one at that. All of you, hopefully, see this to just be a tactic of Pro's. Nonetheless, I will address Pro's theory, and why it doesn't hold up.

In my round three, I gave Mestari my permission to post new refutations, sources, and arguments in his round four, so that it would balance things out. At that point, there was a way to make it completely fair, but my opponent decided not to pursue this course of action. Being that I gave him ample opportunity to respond to my case, and didn't present evidence against him last round, it is not my fault that the debate ended unfairly for him. SO the fairness portion of my opponent's theory falls.

Really, this debate is being completely twisted from it's original purpose. It is clear that my opponent could not put together an adequate case, and left the debate to theory, a very unappreciated method. Even if you balance out recidivism rates, you still have two of my contentions that stand: the costs of chemical castration is too high compared to therapies, and therapies treat the root of the problem. This ALONE gives me the win. My opponent realized this and tried to attack my sources. One mistake loses me the whole debate, really? I find it hard to believe that the readers would side with such inadequate grounds for a win. My track record of debates shows me to be an honest debater, and this one flaw should be comforting to all; we know I am a human now.

I feel that I didn't get a sufficient debate from my opponent; what was the point of this resolution, if Pro was just going to attack the theory anyway. It takes the debating out of debating. Apply this to his education argument, and it backfires.

See, Pro states that a reason for debating is the education it bestows upon debaters and readers alike. By him straying from the content, and going straight to theory, it invalidates his own argument by his measures, because his argument is no longer informative, but simply semantics.

In the end, we can all see that my accident from before really didn't have a critical role in this debate. My opponent could, and should, have addressed it in a paragraph or two in his round 3, then refuted my other contentions. I would have then agreed with him and still discarded the statistic. Instead, he blows it up to be some god awful sin, and focuses all 8,000 characters on it, then in his last round only has a couple paragraphs. It is clearly a win for me. Do not let my opponent blind you by what is really happening. His refusal to take my offer, which was to post new arguments in his last round, strengthens the fact that he didn't have a case against my contentions even more.

He did not refute my case, but relied on theory, which was not appropriately implemented.

He did not back up his case. He didn't even back it up in his last round

I have multiple contentions remaining.

I have countered his theory argument, though it doesn't even need countering, for we all have been in my position before.

Therefore, Con wins.

Thank you
Debate Round No. 4
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Genghis_Khan 3 years ago
"Theory" is the dumbest thing ever invented
Posted by Dejon 6 years ago
Offenders should not be castrated, this is inhuman, in Sweden we have such rules, but if the offender has committed this act more than 2 times.

But usually he is sent to prison, and psychological help before that.

We should have moral Schools.
Children should be thought standards from early age.
Like this we prevent such crimes.
Prevention is better than cure.
Posted by Mestari 6 years ago
I understand, and that is why I explained what theory is and gave implications in terms of DDO voting that were dropped.
Posted by Raisor 6 years ago
Different venues have different standards. A presidential debate is different from policy debate is different from Lincoln-douglas debate is different from congressional debate is different from DDO.
Posted by Mestari 6 years ago
Where did I claim that the implication of winning the they shell would be to ONLY to win the sources point? I very clearly stated in the debate that theory is a reason to reject my opponent and vote for me in arguments and conduct as well. I fail to understand why a dropped theory shell would be ignored by voters when dropped contentions are not. My opponent dropped:

1. Theory is a reason to vote for me
2. He can't kick out of theory by dropping the evidence
3. That he violated theory
4. All of the standards theory
5. Theory precludes substance

I'm sorry but I must be delusional, I simply do not see how that does not result in a clear win. I don't understand how "because it's theory" or "because we are on DDO" are justifications not to consider it either.
Posted by Jellopants 6 years ago
@Mestari Well mate, you didn't argue your own contention. You brought up a valid theory (which you could have easily just referenced and provided a link) but instead of taking the free point for sources and continuing your contentions, you stubbornly attacked PartamRuhem. After reading your initial premise, your contentions, and your opponants, I don't know what you believe. You have not made any case one way or the other. I suggest that in the future you drop the 'theory' and devote those rounds to convincing the audience. So you know your opponant is wrong... mention it (for the free sources point) and beat them over the head with facts to support your initial contentions!

@PartamRuhem When your opponant ignores the debate, ignore him! Continue your contentions, point out to the audience that he is failing to support his initial contention(s) and stack on your own information. By the end of the debate, the audience will have a whole lot of useless theory from your opponant and solid contentions from you. This should have been an easy win for you.

Otherwise, both of you did quite well. :)
Posted by Raisor 6 years ago
The norms/standards/style is different here than in an LD or policy tourny. Venue matters with respect to what type of argument you run. It was hard for me to make a decision and Im honestly not entirely sure I made the right one, but I dont think it would be right for me to abstain after committing to vote and it certainly is not right to change my vote after it has been cast. This is just a sort of gray area that Im not sure what to think of.

I really wish you hadnt gone all in on the theory- it pissed me off as a judge. It would have pissed me off as a judge at a tourny too. Id be looking for any reason to vote you down if you spent an entire speech on such a weak theory argument.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 6 years ago
Core of Con's argument was that the costs of therapy are lower than the costs of chemical castration, and that therapy attacks the root of the problem. Pro had no response. Pro's argument regarding costs of chemical castration being higher than imprisonment is rendered pre-emptive and irrelevant by the fact that Con argued for therapy not imprisonment. Going by arguments alone, I really don't see any possible reason why I shouldn't vote for Con.

Now, coming to the theory argument: Con screwed up with the statistics. This alone loses Con points for sources. However, Pro was INCREDIBLY abusive demanding that a single screw-up should give an auto-win without even bothering to refute Con's other points. In my view, the point that Con screwed up on is discarded and given to Pro, but this doesn't justify ruining the entire debate by refusing to answer points that had nothing to do with the screwed up statistic. Conduct goes to Con because Pro unnecessarily ruined the debate and absolutely refused to address any of Con's points at all. Another abusive strategy was to refuse to introduce new arguments even when Con specifically allowed it. Con admitted his error and extended Pro every courtesy to make this right, but Pro seems hell-bent on making Con pay for his error by losing the entire debate.

Args: Con
Sources: Pro
Conduct: Con
Posted by PartamRuhem 6 years ago
I was going off the presumption that we were not going to continue theory. Which is why I didn't refute it. I also didn't refute it because you were COMPLAINING like a little B!TCH in your round that "It was unfair that he did that, and now the debate is uneven!" SO please, how about you pay the fvck attention to your actual debate rounds, of which I responded.

Me not responding is me making the debate fair. The theory was abused as it was continued, making the debate unfair at that point. The theory argument counted as a round of debate for you. Just because you had poor judgement in what you should have included in your round doesn't mean the debate was not fairly distributed round wise. You still would have had three rounds of debate, you just would have WASTED it on a pathetic theory attempt.

Stop arguing on the comments. I won't respond to whatever else you decided to start a tirade about.
Posted by Mestari 6 years ago
You also chose not to refute the theory shell. I didn't cause it to go into two rounds of debating, you tried to make that happen. You didn't spend ANY time refuting my accusation of misrepresentation until the last speech of the debate.

You had options. If I were you then I would 1. pay the fvck attention when I write my arguments and 2. go for the RVI. If the theory is as ridiculous as you say it is, an RVI should be easy as hell to win.

Theory is an argument. I made sure we still had 3 round of argumentation, I never threw one out. Theory is part of debate. You still haven't explained how my theory was abusive. You just state that you couldn't refute it. Hell, if you can't refute an argument that's not my fault. If it was so stupid you should have been able to answer it.

I'm not saying that I didn't get 3 rounds of argumentation, I did. I'm saying that going by your plan would go against the rules of the tournament by reducing our debate to 2 rounds.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Jellopants 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: See comments for RFD.
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Comments
Vote Placed by Raisor 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Spritle 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made a better argument. Pro totally blew 2 rounds on his theory. Therefore, Con gets my vote because he made a bigger impression. Pro's theory wasn't necessary at all. It seemed as though he was being picky.