The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
14 Points

On Balance the World is Changing for the Better

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 4 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/16/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,423 times Debate No: 65264
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (30)
Votes (4)




The world: earth as a planet, societies in all the countries that exist today
Better: towards a positive direction
Round one acceptance
No semantic arguments


I dost accept.
Debate Round No. 1


I thank my opponent for accepting. Seeing how he is unbeatable, I'll make my arguments extra tough!
*WARNING*: Lots of pictures. Don't blame me if I miss a picture that can't be seen. I can't make sure all of them remain pictures. :P

Let's start off with the basics.
1. Less people die
As modern medicine is improving, less people die by disease. The two graphs below [both from] show that fewer and fewer children are dying.
graph on infant mortality

childhood-mortality gaph

Just in case my opponent somehow accuses my source being "biased", I shall provide another graph to back up my information:

Japan? Japan's just being weird. :P Besides, it's such a small region, it doesn't really effect the overall resolution anyways. We don't really know whether Japan is changing for the better, but certainly the world is.
Thus it is evident, we save lives of innocent children; the world is definitely changing for the better.

Now onto argument number two...
2. Better technology for everbody
As the world progresses so does its transportation. Before we started off with the first car ever made...

Now we have ultra-aerodynamic cars....
s://; alt="" width="708" height="398" />
They move gazillions time faster than the first car ever, and are far more efficient.
Not to mention we have much cheaper methods than trains--with our new subways all around--and better airplanes--from Wright's first to now, fighter jets and humongous airliners-- transportation is cheaper, easier, and faster than ever. With better transportation, countries can trade more easier, and people can get from place to place easier as well. The world is definitely changing for the better with these technological innovations.

Not only so, communication has improved much. Long long ago, we had to use the telegraph.

Then we moved on to the first telephone ever.

Then we had home phones...


And finally, the iPhone!!

From hard communication, to easier communication, to the addition of internet searches, GPS, and games, our communication device has improved much, and it has become more and more helpful as we have improved. We see the world changing for the better with technology's vast improvements.
3. Poor people are being helped
Not only less people are dying, and less people are getting sick, people are getting better medical benefits. "in 2002, only 230,000 people in the developing world were getting treatment with lifesaving but expensive antiretroviral medicines." says. "Today, in part because the pharmaceutical industry moved from being a low-volume, high-margin business to a low-margin, high-volume one with guaranteed payments, that number is 8 million. " --
Not only so, " in the 25 years leading up to the current economic crisis, more people worldwide moved from poverty to the middle class than at any other time in history." The next page of this article,, states. Now, why is this important, other than saving people's lives as said in the first argument? Well, you see, thievery is mostly due to poor people not being able to make enough money for themselves or their family, and thus forced to steal from others. But since they are helped and no longer have to pay so much for medication, they can delve their efforts into other parts of financial responsibility and steal less, if they even continue to steal. This argument also has another (surprising) side effect. It's actually not technically a side effect. It's actually a side related policy that caused to help out people. You see, Brazil managed to efficiently cut its deforestation rates by 75%.
How does this have to do with helping poor people? Well you can't help people without sufficient economy right? So therefore Brazil cut down on its oil spending, creating new jobs to support the economy, and maximizing the hydropower. Brazil, in an effort to change its own economy, helps its people. This of course applies to most other countries as well. They want to help their government and society? They have to start with the people. Thus, governments in their attempt to grow in power and influence, inevitably improve people's lives--and the environment for the animals' lives-- for the better.

Now let's go to....
4. Human rights
Humans are gaining more and more rights as revolutions and rebellions occur. From the overall natural rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness [] to the voting rights of all men, including blacks, then to the civil war, where slavery was finally abolished, and recently, women gaining "equal treatment of women and men under the law and voting rights." [] Thus we see here, the rights progress, from everyone having practically completely different statuses--white men, black men, and women--transform into the men versus woman movement, and finally our people as one. Nowadays, pretty much the only right that women don't have is topless rights. We're working on that, though. After some debate we'll come to a good conclusion and do women justice.

I have like 2,500 characters left but I can't really think of anything I haven't covered. Technology improved and helps everyone in their usual lives. People's living styles improved--with their environment around them improving too- and they are also gaining more rights as they continue to fight for themselves. The world is definitely changing for the better.
Onto you, mighty unbeaten JayConar.


Thank you, opponent, for giving me a chance to debate with you. I hope this can be an enjoyable experience for the both of us.


1. Less people die.

My opponent correctly suggests that, in recent years, children and infants have died less frequently from disease. This is due to great advances in medicine.

However, those great advances in medicine have also brought other, much less desirable, effects.


Thalidomide was first sold in Germany as an over the country drug in 1957. It was used in the hopes that it would prevent morning sickness in pregnant women, which it did. Unfortunately, however, it had the side effect of deforming the limbs of unborn children whose Mothers had taken the drug. Of the 10,000 children born with limbs that were malformed because of the drug, only 5,000 survived.

Thalidomide was a case of drug companies destroying the lives of 10,000 people without malicious intent. It was also, as my opponent will doubtlessly point out, over 50 years ago. Whilst this is true, there are much more recent, yet less infamous, issues with the advances of medicine which have undoubtedly made lives worse. One example of this is in a BBC news report from 2006:

[1] 'Six men remain in intensive care after being taken ill during a clinical drugs trial in north-west London.

The healthy volunteers were testing an anti-inflammatory drug at a research unit based at Northwick Park Hospital when they suffered a reaction.

Relatives are with the patients, who suffered multiple organ failure. Two men are said to be critically ill.'

This shows that the advancement of medicine has not necessarily made lives better, in fact, it could be said that, although more people now survive diseases, their quality of life is lower. An example of this would be the euthanasia debate.

In the past, your doctor would help you survive disease until the point where you were in insufferable pain which could not be alleviated. At this point, your doctor could, and often would, make the decision to ease your passing with an overdose of drugs (normally morphine) with your consent.

[2] 'Throughout classical antiquity, there was widespread support for voluntary death as opposed to prolonged agony, and physicians complied by often giving their patients the poisons they requested.'

This was made illegal in the UK in 1961, meaning that those suffering from a painful, debilitating and terminal disease may not make the decision to end their life with help if they're unable to do it alone. This is not just in the UK, euthanasia is illegal in almost every country in the world.

[3] 'As of 2014, euthanasia is only legal in the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg.'

Despite even this, the increase in world population is not inherently a good thing in itself. It has led to oppressive but necessary policies such as the Chinese one child policy, which has seen the murder of many young girls in the hopes that the parents will have a son.

Thus, my argument is that whilst life expectancy has gotten longer, quality of life has not.

2. Better technology for everybody

My opponent again correctly suggests that technology has not only improved over the years, but has also become more available to the average peasant (citizen). However, this is not necessarily a good thing.

My opponent asserts:

'Not to mention we have much cheaper methods than trains--with our new subways all around--and better airplanes--from Wright's first to now, fighter jets and humongous airliners-- transportation is cheaper, easier, and faster than ever. With better transportation, countries can trade more easier, and people can get from place to place easier as well. The world is definitely changing for the better with these technological innovations.'

This is all very well and good, however, the increase in 'better transport' has massively increased the consumption of oil and other natural resources all around the world.

Here we see the increase in diesel consumption per year in just the USA. This data only goes up to the year 1998, however, I can tell you that the fuel consumption in the year 2013 in just the USA [4]'about 134.51 billion gallons1 (or 3.20 billion barrels) of gasoline.'

This tremendous increase in the use of natural resources has resulted in a tremendous increase in greenhouse gases emmitted into the atmosphere, notably carbon dioxide.

As you can see here, the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased substantially from 1960-2010. This is resulting in a 'warming' on a global scale. An effect that is commonly known as 'global warming.'

This has resulted in the extinction of countless species and will result in the extinction of countless more.

[5]'Polar bears have started drowning as they have had to swim longer distances between ice flows, and the U.S. Geological Survey has predicted that if the Arctic ice cape continues melting at its current rate, “two-thirds of the world's polar bear sub-populations will be extinct by mid-century.”7 Of course, it is not just the polar bear that is affected—one study predicts that a quarter of land animals and plants could become extinct because of global warming over the next 45 years.8'

[6]'Parmesan and most other scientists hadn't expected to see species extinctions from global warming until 2020.

But populations of frogs, butterflies, ocean corals, and polar birds have already gone extinct because of climate change, Parmesan said.'

My opponent implies that communication has become easier in the past few hundred years with the invention of increasingly better, more convenient and inexpensive telephones, right up to the mobile phone. I would agree with him, but that does not mean that the quality of communication has gone up. In fact, I would argue that the quality of communication has definitely gone down.

I want to transport my reader back to a time that is no longer in living memory. A time where telephones did not exist and the easiest form of long-range communication was a letter. I want to transport my reader back to the 1830's, to a young girl called Victoria, who would later be known as Queen Victoria. She wished to write her sister, whom had gone to live with the Prince of Hohenlohe-Langenburg, a letter. It had been many years since she had been allowed to see her sister, and after writing the letter she waited excitedly for a reply. Can you imagine her dismay when, a few days later, she opened an envelope addressed to her from her sister to see nothing but the letter 'K' written upon an almost blank piece of paper?

This, of course, never happened. The cost of sending a letter, whilst not expensive, was costly enough to ensure detailed communication with ones friends and loved ones which invoked a feeling of closeness that is not as often seen in the communications of today. This is primarily because now, with the invention of social media and texting, it is so incredibly easy to lose the sense of connection that communication held in the time of letters. Lengthy and structured replies are no longer seen as important, formality is an art that is often no longer understood or seen to be necessary.

The phenomenon of the 'K' response is often wrote about, it is well recognised for its rude abruptness, yet many people still continue to use it because, with the invention of easier communications, there is little practical reason not to.

Thus, I argue that whilst the quantity of communication has increased, the quality of communication has gone down. As has, therefore, the quality of friendships and relationships.

More arguments next round.


Debate Round No. 2


Let's see now...

1. Enthusiana debate

Of course, enthusiana was the only treatment availible during olden days. Nowadays we have alternative options availible. With increasing methods to keep these people alive without their massive pain, we have better care and training. The easy way out would not allow us to help doctors increase their skills of caring for these terminally ill persons. Furthermore, people who choose enthusiana are usually depressed and only see the sad side, the burdened side of life. By not taking the easy way out, we can learn about their problems that might be effecting their decisions. Maybe one day the man lost his job and his spouse died by heart disease, and he's so depressed he think he's sick too, and the only way out is enthusiana. But that's not right. We can treat his depression, we can treat his illusion of sickness. If we instantly just terminate him without really finding out about his sickness, then it's immoral. Also, we cannot learn how to treat the specific sickness, if the patient is really sick. What if 1,000 more people die of disease X, and we didn't investigate the first person who obtained the disease, just killed him with enthusiana! We lose many chances at medical research that could save the lives of others. The doctor also earns far too much power in enthusiana, and his diagnosis could be wrong, as well as new research that could change the outcome. His emotion or tiredness could affect his decision; too much variables could contribute to an immoral death. There are many reasons why enthusiana isn't legalized in all of those countries my opponent mentioned. There's a reason my opponent sourced a majority of countries that prefer no enthusiana to legalizing enthusiana.

2. Better technology

So what that we consume fuel? We seek other sources; renewable sources that are more efficient and are more environmental, gaining more energy in the process!

Carbon dioxide increase: *Laughs* I was expecting this argument. Now, look at his graph. Tell me what's wrong with it. Nothing? Okay, look on the right side....that's right... it's merely from 310 to 390, and we're merely counting the years 1960-2010. This is what the graph would look like if we started from zero:

Eh, eh? Doesn't look so bad now eh?

Seriously, that graph is biased.

On the other hand, if we look at the bigger picture....

And this...

We see here, even if carbon dioxide is being released (not to mention, at very small rates), the global temperature is not effected by it. In fact, the temperature is still decreasing as shown over time. Since the earth has not warmed, my opponent cannot contribute it to the "extinction of countless species". As for arctic melting, that makes no sense. The arctic is not melting at all, it is, in fact, expanding.

We see it is obvious, my opponent is wrong. Wherever he got the idea of global warming, we don't know. But it isn't happening.

As for the letter, my opponent only shows how our world nowadays is much better in communication. You see, long ago people just wrote "K". I even heard of a famous story of a writer who wrote to her publishers, "?" concerning her novel, and the publishers responding, "!". Seriously guys? Now, we don't have to pay for these letters. We can instantly send them by email or by cell phone, much more quickly. The world is much more interconnected with email and computers; two friends separated by 3,000 miles no longer have to wait one month for each other's letters to arrive, they can instantly talk to each other with only waiting a few seconds--or milliseconds--to respond to each other's messages, and even see each other through face time!

As you can see here, my opponent's case defeats his own. Global temperature is actually cooling, not warming. Enthusiana is illegal for a good reason. He dropped almost all of my arguments, and I hope he comes back to rebut them later.

Back to you, mighty unbeaten Jay!



My friend's argument relies on two things:

1. Euthanasia is wrong in all circumstances.

2. Global warming does not exist


My opponent asserts that: 'enthusiana was the only treatment availible during olden days.'

This statement is incorrect. Although my opponent was vague due to not explaining what he means by 'olden days' I'm going to assume he means classical antiquity.

There were a number of medical textbooks in classical antiquity, as well as a number of famous physician's such as Paul of Aegina, whom wrote the '[1]Epitomes iatrikes biblio hepta'

Surgery was also available as a treatment in antiquity.

'If the wounded man or his companions attempted to extract an arrow by pulling on the shaft, there was a good chance that the arrowhead itself would be left within the wound. Celsus and Paul of Aegina offer step-by-step instructions that S. says would have been useful'.

Thus euthanasia was not the only treatment available in antiquity, and would also only have been used on somebody who was in a terminal condition and was, therefore, suffering unbearable amounts of pain which would only lead to death anyway. My opponent has not offered a rebuttal for why euthanasia should not be used in cases such as this when, often, modern painkillers won't even take the edge off of pain that occurs when somebody is dying as to do so would mean giving the patient an overdose of one or another drug, which would be euthanising them. The argument sort of loops around like that.

Global Warming

My opponent asserts that: 'even if carbon dioxide is being released (not to mention, at very small rates), the global temperature is not effected by it.'

My opponent has decided to argue that global warming does not exist. In doing this he decides to use this graph as evidence:

We cannot be sure from exactly where my opponent found this graph, however, we can be sure that there is definitely a positive correlation as, with time, the PPM (Parts per million) of Carbon Dioxide steadily increases. This graph has been scaled all the way back to 1900 in order to make the positive correlation seem weaker, however the positive correlation is still extant. Therefore my opponent has worked to prove my point.

My opponent asserts that the absorption of more Carbon Dioxide into the air does not effect the global temperature. To prove this he puts up a picture of the ice caps in September 2013 and September 2012.

As we can see here, the global temperature does vary by about 0.2 of a degree quite frequently. However, the average global temperature has definitely increased exponentially since 1980 relative to 1880-1980. This suggests that there is a positive correlation between carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the global temperature.

But a correlation does not necessarily suggest a causual relationship, so let's have a look at the science.

'[3]Most of the light energy from the sun is emitted in wavelengths shorter than 4,000 nanometers (.000004 meters). The heat energy released from the earth, however, is released in wavelengths longer than 4,000 nanometers. Carbon dioxide doesn't absorb the energy from the sun, but it does absorb some of the heat energy released from the earth. When a molecule of carbon dioxide absorbs heat energy, it goes into an excited unstable state. It can become stable again by releasing the energy it absorbed. Some of the released energy will go back to the earth and some will go out into space.'

Thus global warming as a result of Carbon Dioxide is a very real thing which we should all be scared of and wouldn't have happened if not for the technological advancement in transport which Pro attempts to paint in a positive light.

Back to you, Pro.


Debate Round No. 3


1. Euthanasia
Again, what makes this pain real? Who says for sure the patients were really suffering? The brain can fool the rest of the body in many, many cases. For one, The Rubber Hand experiment demonstrates how the brain fools you into feeling your hand in the place of a rubber hand, while in reality your hand is further to the left. Not only so, you can control your body temperature by pure will, or even by meditation. [source:] The brain can also confuse you into thinking that the below lines are awry, not straight, or at the very least not lined up, while in reality they are parallel.

[image source:]

2. Global Warming

My opponent only sources the time period of 140 years, from 1880 to 2020 predictions. He does not look at the bigger picture, at the general decline from year 1000 to modern time, or even from millions of years ago to now, there has been the similar pattern regardless of CO2 emissions. And even if CO2 does create global warming, (which, really, it's not even the main cause--global warming happens naturally due to climate changes, heavily due to changes in solar activity [source:], it's not bad to us at all. "CO2 levels are so low that more, not less, is needed to sustain and expand plant growth.", "if CO2 levels are cut, he warns, food production will slow because plants grown at higher CO2 levels make larger fruit and vegetables and also use less water. ", and finally, "Earth's atmosphere currently has about 338 parts per million of CO2 ....the danger level for carbon dioxide isn't reached until the air has 8,000 parts per million of CO2." All of these quotes, from, show that CO2 not only helps the environment (remember who you are, Brazil, when you remember cut down their rate of deforestation!) it does not harm us humans at all.

Opponent has failed to uphold his burden of proof. He does evoke philosophical stances within euthanasia, and he even goes for environmental effects. But he dropped a majority of my arguments in round 2, forgetting to refute them (and refuting them in the last round would be unfair, and he would have to have a conduct point lost), and overall, I have won. This was a good debate, but I believe I have become the first person to ever beat out JayConar. We are changing for the better; the world is changing for the better. Vote for me.


Final Round

Simply stating that you've won does not mean that you have actually won, I'm afraid.

I have not dropped any of my opponents arguments, instead I have flipped them on their head, proving that the things that he paints in a positive light are, in fact, more negative than positive. Thus, I have rebutted my opponents points successfully and he had the BoP to prove that the world is actually changing for the better, he did not fulfill his BoP as I rebutted all his arguments.

My opponent asserts that:

'and refuting them in the last round would be unfair, and he would have to have a conduct point lost),'

Yet he used the entirety of his last round refuting my rebuttals in which he essentially claims that pain does not exist as the brain is just tricking it (which is true, the brain is what makes you feel pain, but that does not stop an individual from suffering. If you stab yourself then it doesn't matter how much you think 'it's just my brain sending signals,' it will still hurt), and claiming that global warming is due to solar activity and not carbon dioxide which, as we can see

It's not.

As for danger levels of CO2 not being reached until it reaches 8,000 PPM, allow me to read you the entire quote which my opponent harmfully cut to pieces:

'[1]He also said that higher CO2 levels are not harmful to humans. As an example, he said that Earth's atmosphere currently has about 338 parts per million of CO2 and that in Navy subs, the danger level for carbon dioxide isn't reached until the air has 8,000 parts per million of CO2.'

The CO2 levels may not be harmful to humans, but that is not the argument, the argument is that the variance in the temperature caused by the warming which is caused by the CO2 increase in the atmosphere is harmful, and has led to the extinction, of many species, which I proved in a previous round.

It should be mentioned that source 1 was also published in 2009, 5 years ago, scientific views change very quickly so something which was posted 5 years ago is incredibly out of date.

Most of my opponent's last round is him, essentially, being irrelevant. Stating that pain is a mental process does not mean that people cannot be in insufferable pain and stating that you have won does not mean that you have won.

My opponent has offered no argument that has got unrefuted by me, despite what he may think, and in this last round I have offered no new arguments, so conduct points should not be lost.

Thank you for this debate.

Debate Round No. 4
30 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
RFD (Pt. 1):

Both debaters made this a lot more difficult to judge than it had to be, and the problems start with the resolution.

"On Balance the World is Changing for the Better"

The only definition I get that really clarifies what's needed is in R1:

"The world: earth as a planet, societies in all the countries that exist today"

This leaves me scratching my head. No one discussed how Earth, as a planet, is changing for the better, so I'm leaving that out entirely, though it could have been a big point (I don't view the global warming argument as pertinent since that has no effect on the planet itself, just on the organisms that live on it).

So that leads me to consider the latter. But what are societies? Pro seems to assume that all societies are human, and therefore that the only things worthy of consideration are the effects of time moving forward on humanity. Con at least partially challenges that perspective, stating that there's a broader issue of animal and plant societies that needs to be considered.

That would have been fine, if either side had taken the time to weigh their perspective against the other... or, for that matter, weigh any of the arguments against one another. I felt like each argument existed in a vacuum. Even when Con employed turns, it felt like these were separate arguments, granting the fundamental reasoning of Pro's arguments and simply arguing that there's a fault as well. Debate is not supposed to be two ships passing in the night, yet this felt as though it was.

Maybe that's because of the dropped arguments. I'll start by going through those.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
(Pt. 2)

Con grants that less people die today than died over a century ago, and that that is the result of advanced technology. Con grants that transportation is much faster, as is communication. I don't say dropped, because Con didn't drop these. Strangely enough, Pro did. In the last round, I'm not seeing any mention of any of these arguments anywhere. The argument that death is way down, in particular, was surprising to see fall out of the debate entirely after the first round. Easily Pro's biggest argument, granted outright, and yet somehow completely absent from the majority of the debate. Pro had more than enough room to revisit these points and weigh them against Con's arguments, but didn't use it.

Con does drop the human rights aspect, but, once again, Pro fails to revisit the issue. This leaves me with the concerning fact that Pro has actually dropped more of his own argumentation than he did Con's, which is really problematic given that he's the one with the burden of proof here.

Pro also drops this argument that advances in medicine have led to more deformities and medical issues. I thought this one was wide open to rebuttal, or at least could have easily been outweighed by the benefits of saving so many lives, but Pro fails to do either of those. Con could have probably secured an easy win here by amping this up in the last two rounds, but he also proceeds to drop his own argument out of the debate, choosing to focus on the remaining two issues.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
(Pt. 3)

All of this is really confounding. Half of the arguments in this debate is dropped by the very debaters who made them. They don't disappear, but in many cases, these are among the most essential arguments in this debate, and instead we're left to turn to two other arguments that could be entirely separate debates in and of themselves. I think it's mainly Pro's mistake to let Con drag him into these arguments, as there is, indeed, some uncertainty on both fronts. Many of his own arguments would have outstripped these easily if he'd thought to extend them.

Before I get into euthanasia and global warming, though, I'm going to make one note. I don't think Con was successful in countering Pro's analysis on communication. I'm not sure what shorter messages and altered language does to damage conversation. I am sure (mainly because Con granted this) that more rapid communication is beneficial in and of itself. Hence, that point still goes pretty strongly for Pro.

Alright, onto what was regarded as the key issues.

1) Euthanasia

I'm really confused as to the applicability of this argument in general. The argument appears to be that euthanasia is good, most societies used to allow it, and now most societies don't allow it, so... medicine isn't all better than it was, I guess? The logic here isn't straightforward. If I completely buy that euthanasia is a net benefit, that doesn't really prove that medicine has gotten worse. At best, it proves that one possible way to solve for problems in society, that should continue to exist, has been lost, not that medicine as a whole has gotten worse.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
(Pt. 4)

I can see hints of a bigger argument here that probably should have happened: society has become too focused on extending life and not on providing patients with basic choices for palliative and end-of-life care. That argument could and probably should have appeared here. Pro pretty much assumes that a longer life is a better life, but that's a pretty big assumption. He's also arguing that less death is good, something that Con barely contests (the Chinese one child policy sub-argument is really insufficient in this regard). There is a very decent argument to be had about overpopulation and the focus on lives over any other aspect of humanity (which also would have strengthened the argument that thalidomide and other drugs are causing more harm than good), but it doesn't come up.

That being said, I'll still evaluate the arguments here. Con argues that people should be able to alleviate their suffering through death, as other methods are often incapable of managing pain. Again, this argument could have been a lot stronger (it's not just about pain " it's about having to subsist for much of a person's life on medication that's often toxic to them, or at least causes other harms that can become unbearable), but it's a reasonable stance. Pro's response is a little disorganized, essentially stating that euthanasia can be overused, and that medicine can solve. I do disregard Pro's argument from the final round, with regards to pain not being real (there are more than a few problems with it anyway, and Con's response that "it will still hurt" isn't a bad one), leaving me to side with Con, mainly because I'm not given sufficient response by Pro. Perhaps there are some harms, but Pro really fails to provide any reason why a personal decision to end one's own life is harmful. Again, I think this could have been part of a larger argument about the importance of human life in general that simply never appears in this debate.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
(Pt. 5)

2) Global Warming

Generally, I think this argument isn't explained as well as it could have been, and more importantly, it's weight within the debate is really left entirely up to the judges. Global warming is a big problem. It could cause mass deaths on a tremendous scale. There's an entirely reasonable argument to be had here that Pro is only saving small numbers of people over time, whereas Con is arguing that all of those saved lives are moving inevitably towards a massive crash. But mass death among humans really isn't an argument Con provides.

Instead, Con simply argues that there's warming, and that that warming is bad because it leads to the end of certain species. The main problem with this argument is weighing. How do I weigh the extinction of certain animal species against the benefits to more surviving humans? This is where I feel like an entirely reasonable definition battle could have occurred. Con could have argued that many of these animal species are integral to their environments, which means broad extinction and mass changes to the face of the planet. Con could have argued that more humans means more mass extinctions, which is basically what we've done for the last couple of centuries without global warming. This argument just ends up looking weak without this analysis.

Nonetheless, I feel Con wins this part of the debate. Pro shows that there may be other factors involved, that there's some amount of uncertainty, but not that the correlation isn't strong. Con presents the more recent data, and therefore takes this argument down pretty solidly, though it is partially mitigated.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
(Pt. 6)


By now, you probably see my problem. I can easily afford at least one point " conduct goes to Con because of Pro's hypocritical desire not to see new rebuttal in the final round " but I'm lost on how to allocate arguments. Based on granted/dropped arguments, I'd probably afford it to Pro. But based on the arguments that get the most discussion, I'd be affording it to Con.

So, who do I vote for? The failure to extend argumentation is pretty stark for me. I have a very difficult time picking up debaters on something that they themselves don't see as important enough to spend time on. While I would probably weigh many of Pro's arguments more heavily than Con's, I can't do so without interjecting my opinion into the debate, and without making it clear that the majority of the debate was, essentially, besides the point. I'd rather just accept the debate as it was presented, and as such, I end up voting Con by the barest of margins.
Posted by chewster911 1 year ago
I just read the debate. I think i'm going to vote tomorrow.
Posted by JayConar 1 year ago
Silly ;)
Posted by 9spaceking 1 year ago
oh there we go its just adblock XD
Posted by 9spaceking 1 year ago
weird. Am I the only one who doesn't see Round 2?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 1 year 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 1 year 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Con. Pro failed to follow his own rules regarding "no rebuttals in the final round" which he himself broke. I've never heard of the rule "no refutations in the final round"... I've heard of "no new arguments", but never rebuttal restrictions. Due to the irony and ill-will of this rule, Con is awarded Conduct. S&G - Tie. Neither had major mistakes. Arguments - Con. This was a difficult vote because both sides dropped arguments. Pro dropped Con's argument regarding Thalidomide and other ill-effects of modern medicine. This was a huge argument to just drop, so that cost Pro. On the flip side, Con failed to rebut the 'better communication' line of argumentation presented by Pro. So, both sides dropped major arguments presented by their opponent. The debate then came down to Euthanasia and Global Warming. In the case of global warming, Pro's sources were vastly outdated, and he presented a new argument regarding the validity of pain which is never acceptable in the final round.
Vote Placed by Tweka 1 year 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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Firstly, Pro ignores the Thalidomide's effects in his Round 2. Also, Pro drops what Con says that is related to the drowning of Polar bears. Pro is saying that the quantity of communication is increasing. Yes we admit. But the quality remains un-refuted. The statistical data that Pro takes is quite old. I can see that Pro assumes that in every condition the brain of a person always fools him/her. This one I disagree. Yes, it can happen but not always. In the final round, pro is warning Con which leads to his conduct point loss. Pro has more spelling mistakes than Con. So S&G go to Con.
Vote Placed by mishapqueen 1 year 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a difficult debate to vote on. XD Pro brought up some good points about how the world is improving. Con had some good responses, and I liked the quantity of communication verses quality argument. Unfortunately, he appeared to drop about half of the arguments brought up by Pro. Pro dropped the communication point, after which it became a null point, which was sad. I feel kind of stupid, but the euthanasia argument completely went over my head and confused me. So... yeah. The CO2 argument I'm going to give to Pro because he pointed out that the change was very slight. I'm giving conduct to Con because I don't really like people declaring that they won. It's not really fair to the other person, and the voter is the one who ultimately decides. However, it's fine to give reasons for voting for you. All in all, it was an excellent and enjoyable round. Good luck to you both.