Total Posts:45|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Danielle's Tournament RFDs

Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2011 2:49:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Due to the fact that I tend to give extensively long RFDs, I've decided to make a thread where I will just post my RFD for all tournament debates, given that I typically utilize a lot of characters.

Because it was suggested we not debate RFDs left on our own debates, I've decided to begin by just posting an RFD of how I would vote on my debate.

*********************************************************

Danielle vs. BlackVoid

Resolution: Drugs ought to be legalized in the United States


http://www.debate.org...

Before/After: Pro

Arguments: Pro...

Spelling/Grammar: Pro for self-explanatory reasons, as well as better flow and a more cohesive structure (Con's final round was especially messy)

Conduct: Tie I suppose, despite Con's abusive arguments in the final round plus several dropped arguments. I also reject the idea that I used the comments section as Roy suggested. My opponent said I didn't source something so I clarified in the comments section for him, though I later realized I DID provide the correct source in the debate itself. But whatever.

Sources: As many people have pointed out, Con's sources were mostly from arguably the biased source of all - the DEA. Many of his sources also provided misinformation. My sources were far more objective and included more peer-reviewed professionals and data.

*********************************************************

DETERRENCE

A) Con concedes that deterrence doesn't work for MOST people, yet never justifies implementing a policy that negatively impacts far more people than it positively impacts.

B) Con concedes to my rebuttal that teenage statistics are unreliable, thereby consenting to drop every single one of his contentions and statistics regarding deterrence considering he ONLY referred to teenage statistics.

C) My evidence proved that implementing harsher penalties did nothing to lessen abuse and dependence of marijuana. In fact, these rates increased after the harsher penalties were implemented, thereby negating Con's contention entirely.

Point: Obviously Pro

AVAILABILITY

A) Con provided statistics of increased use due to availability. I gave examples of decreased use after availability. Clearly this proves that there is no clear answer and that rates vary depending on other factors.

B) However, my main argument was that after making certain drugs legally available, a lot of positive repercussions were noted. Con never proved or even argued that a lot of negative repercussions would occur outside of speculation about user rates which I've proven were irrelevant to the resolution. Further, he said his point stands because my source advocated limits on availability. However I pointed out that I never said I wouldn't put limits on availability here, thereby negating his rebuttal.

Point: More likely Pro

FINANCIAL BURDEN

A) Con argues that an unnecessary financial burden would be placed on non-users as a direct result of users using. I pointed out that (a) this is irrelevant to our current system; (b) changes could be made to our system rendering this irrelevant; (c) we can compensate for that in our current system - and gave a direct example of how we could, i.e. highly taxing cigarettes for the same reason. Con completely dropped this contention!

B) Con completely dropped my point about legalizing drugs implementing over 76 billion dollars into the economy!

Point: Obviously Pro!

HURTING FAMILIES

I proved that this was irrelevant, whereas Con insisted it "violated other people's rights." I pointed out people don't have a right to not be upset at their family member. Con dropped this in the final round.

Point: Obviously Pro

WORK PRODUCTIVITY

Any bearing drug use had on one's employment would be handled between the employer and employee. Con dropped this in the final round.

Point: Pro

ROLE of GOVERNMENT

A) In the final round, Con writes, "I have proved that drug users increase our insurance and hospital costs, which equates to taxation without representation... and that drug users damage their families and injure coworkers at a high rate. Pro has never denied any of these. Her only argument is that obese people increase insurance costs just as often as drug users."

This is blatantly false. First, I explained in the last round exactly how/why that did not equate to taxation without representation. Second, I never denied that drug users hurt their families, but I explained why it was irrelevant. Third, my argument was not only that obese people also increase costs. I extended arguments a, b and c from my "financial burden" section - all of which went completely ignored. I also extended my argument about why it's not the role of the government to protect hurt family members here.

Point: Obviously Pro
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2011 2:50:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
THE WOD

A) In the last round, Con says "Pro makes an absurd claim that I would not advocate a WOD. That is completely false... Never in this debate have I said we should end it." However, in R3 Con clearly states, "The WoD is about the US actively going out and looking for drug dealers. You can end this WITHOUT LEGALIZING... So while the WOD may be a seemingly strong argument for this topic, in reality it does not fulfill the Pro's burden. I cannot stress this enough. Ending the War on Drugs does not equal legalizing."

In other words, he said he would keep drugs criminalized but ignore the War on Drugs. I then explained exactly what the WOD referred to. He said he would not end it, but very blatantly in the previous round he went on to explicitly claim that the WOD was not necessary! He said he ONLY wanted to focus on keeping drugs criminalized.

B) Moreover, I explained exactly how/why he said we should end the WOD. My argument was that the WOD disadvantages society in several ways (i.e., severe costs; expensive yet unuseful programs like DARE; promoting racial inequality perpetuating a permanent underclass; etc.). Con responding by saying the WOD wasn't necessary meaning he was specifically saying these arguments against the WOD did not apply. Ergo, he was suggesting we not implement these policies... meaning he would not want to spend so much money, have these programs, target racial prospects, etc. As such, it was NOT absurd for me to suggest he would end the WOD. That is what he was implying.

C) He also said he nevertheless responded to all of my points, which he clearly didn't as you can see (especially the one pertaining to costs!). He never responded in favor of keeping certain programs or continuing to utilize this much money on the drug war. He also never responded regarding unnecessary and immoral incarceration, i.e. being locked up for a victimess "crime."

Point: Pro

BLACK MARKET

** By far the biggest entirely dropped contention by my opponent **

A) Con completely ignored every single argument about illegal government corruption, specifically the policies I mentioned regarding the CIA and why government abuse is the worst kind due to its monopoly on force and justice.

B) Con completely ignored every argument I made regarding the heavy criminal process of drug transport under current legislation. Particularly, these arguments were entirely dropped -- "Prohibition of drugs corrupts politicians and law enforcement by putting police, prosecutors, judges and politicians in the position to threaten the profits of an illicit trade. This is why bribery, threats and kidnapping are common for prohibited industries but rare otherwise. Mexico's recent history illustrates this dramatically."

C) Instead, Con's only argument was that because half of drug users are under-age, that a black market would still exist for these people. I explicitly explained that this kind of under-age market (i.e. the one that also exists for things like cigarettes and alcohol) is ENTIRELY different. I pointed out that someone buying say beer for a minor is a crime, but nowhere near as extensively damaging as the SEVERE black market repercussions I just mentioned in point B!!! It doesn't warrant massive cartel take-overs of entire nations like Mexico, and all of the other flagrant crimes like kidnapping and corrupt government, etc. etc. etc.

Point: So obviously and blatantly PRO!

This massive dropped argument amongst others makes it both absurd and pathetic that people would give argument points to my opponent, in my humble opinion.

KIDS IN PRISON / RACISM

Con completely drops all of these arguments in the last round.

Point: Pro, obviously

MEDICAL BENEFITS


A) In the last round, Con brings up the fact that my medical benefits mentioned don't matter because the harms outweigh the positives. This is completely abusive because I could not respond to this, and it was the first time he ever brought it up in the debate. Had I been able to respond, I would have pointed out that the same concept can and does apply to many legal drugs. Con's fallacious comparison of Tylenol does not apply, because I could just as easily cite Vicodin which is a legal prescription pain killer *far* more dangerous and addictive than Tylenol (and also LSD).

B) Furthermore, I pointed out that the dangers and harms of these illegal drugs were greatly exaggerated - often by the government itself. Con never once denies this and completely drops this point like most others in the final round.

C) Con never denied that I provided evidence indicating that many illegal drugs do indeed have several very positive uses.

D) Con completely dropped my argument that keeping drugs criminalized inhibits further experimentation or research on these drugs.

Point: Obviously Pro

CONCLUSION

Con drops most of my arguments, and does not demonstrate any cohesive argument against my conclusion that drug problems should be treated as addiction and not crimes.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2011 2:54:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
*******
DEBATE 2
*******

CiRrK vs. Sieben

Resolution: The USFG should eliminate immigration quotas.

http://www.debate.org...

Before/After: Sieben

Conduct: CirRk

Spelling/Grammer/Structure: Sieben

Arguments: CirRk

Sources: Sieben

== Auxiliary Issues ==

Regarding flow, I am personally not a fan of the formal style of presenting arguments essentially as bullet points instead of thorough arguments. However, I noticed that it has several benefits. First, it makes for a very efficient use of character limits; something I often struggle with. Second, it does make it easy to compare particular arguments and whether or not something was dropped. While I think these things work in a debater's favor, as a judge it's kind of a pain to read. You'll see something like, "Dropped. Ignore the Ford card" and yet I had no idea what they'd be referring to. I had to go back and do a lot of comparisons instead of of judging based on the flow and strength of arguments. Meh, it's a matter of preference, I guess.

== Argument Analysis ==

1. Framework ----> In his last round, Sieben writes, "Consequentialism says we have to weigh the impacts... according to which standard? This is circular. Please continue using my generic human decency standard." I agree that consequentialism does not necessitate weighing practical impacts over moral ones. However, I also agree with Con that the resolution does not necessitate weighing moral value over practical. It was my understanding therefore that each debater had the burden of explaining what standard ought to be of more importance and why. (( TIE ))

2. Debt Spreading ----> Pro presents evidence that Con demonstrates an appeal to authority. When Pro questions Con's sources, Con explains that his source illustrates theory meaning the same logic would theoretically apply to today's figures. In the last round Con never challenges this, which he would have had to do in order to win this point. Instead he says he wins the argument because Pro ignored his point regarding immigrants paying little income tax. However, in the previous round Sieben explained that he responded to that argument by pointing out that immigrants pay more taxes, and rely less on welfare than natives. Now, I agree with Pro that more recent figures are necessary. However, Sieben technically responded to this. Since Pro did not demonstrate that the theory does not apply to today, then we have no reason not to believe Sieben and Con cannot win this point. It ultimately winds up in a tie after all things considered since I don't think Pro met the burden of *proving* this point. (( TIE ))

3. Infrastructure ----> Pro's point was basically that immigrant population = substantial increase in the quality and quantity of infrastructure. Con pretty much dropped this until the final round. His response would have been considered abusive; however, his rebuttal was that current immigration plus birth rate policy allows for these positives regardless even with quotas in place. The thing is that Sieben already responded to this in the previous round, noting "I get more benefit out of immigration than Con does no matter what because immigration increases population a lot more than birth." He also proved that immigration would incease without quotas, so since Con is essentially conceding to the population argument regarding infrastructure quality and quantity, then this point has to go to Pro. (( PRO ))

4. Technology ----> This was admittedly too confusing to comprehend and was a poorly conveyed point by both debaters (too hard to decipher). (( TIE ))

5. Wage Deflation ----> Sieben writes, "Prefer my statistics because I use Borjas' long term estimate, which is slightly positive. Also prefer to cut native wages by 8% so foreigners can grow their wages by more than %400 (mexican-american wage difference)." Con responds by explaining why his statistic is superior using empirical data, and I would tend to agree on a practical level. However, Pro's argument from a moral standpoint is dropped. Pro notes, "Con's logic implies that workers shouldn't be allowed to move if it will result in lower wages. Quarantine on international and domestic scales should be equally immoral."

Sieben writes, "Con completely drops the Peri study, which shows that wage deflation is experienced almost exclusively by other immigrants. Extend this to nullify every Con argument complaining about wage deflation." However in the previous round, Con wrote, "My evidence indicates that any wage deflation is enough to drive down the economy, so it doesn't matter if its for foreigners or natives." Pro insists Con did not provide this evidence. Indeed while Con's *sources* provided explanation, Con himself did not thus I cannot award him the point.

However, in the second to last round Con mentioned, "He drops H1-B analysis. This is important because it shows that companies artificially deflate wages for immigrants due to legal loopholes, and these immigrants lack recourse." Pro in fact never responded to this particular point, stating only that Con hasn't proven the impact of this and insisting that the repercussions are still better than living on $1/day in their native countries. Con never argued with this logic in the final round. (( PRO ))

6. Economic Growth ----> Sieben writes, "Con drops that wages are inextricably tied up with production costs, so a fall in wages leads to a fall in price level. Again, nullify Con's fears of wage deflation." Con straight up ignores this in the last round. (( PRO ))
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2011 2:55:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
7. Brain Drain ----> I agree with Con that Pro ignored Ford's analysis, simply dismissing it as being assertive. Well yes, that's typically how it goes. Sources assert things. Pro never proved why the analysis was wrong.

Pro writes, "The point of open immigration is to let people in irirregardless of their income or intelligence. So the brain-drain argument doesn't apply. This seems like hypocritical reasoning. He is the one pushing the moral standard in addition to the practical, so it was his obligation to explain why morally this notion is superior. Meanwhile, Con essentially argued that since practically speaking the brain drain would decrease the quality of life and other standards in foreign nations, that this would have moral implications including the repercussions of unrest and other future problems.

Pro also says that brains have an easier time immigrating. However, he didn't explain exactly why they'd want to immigrate back to where their quality of life would be lower. Furthermore, Pro writes, "Rather than set a quota, a ratio of skilled-unskilled immigrants could simply be specified." However a ratio like that IS essentially a quota. He defeats his own argument here, and the point goes to Con. (( CON ))

8. Mexican Unrest / Collapse ----> Con indicates that Mexican unrest would have serious implications on both Mexico and America. He insists such a collapse would have enormous humanitarian, constitutional, economic, cultural, and security implications for the U.S. Pro says this is an appeal to authority yet does not challenge the analysis. Pro says "This is an abusive argument because his ex-marine is just giving his opinion, which I can't argue with." I don't see why he couldn't argue with it.

Pro also suggests, "If you take Con through his own logic, you shouldn't let people leave their own country." However that is not the logical conclusion. The logical conclusion would mean people couldn't enter the * U.S. * unless they met quota requirements; not that one couldn't leave *their* country. This was a straw man.

Additionally, Pro says, "If Mexico collapses they can all come live here. No long term repercussions." This ignores all the repercissions Con mentioned in his first argument though. For instance, he indicated that Mexico buys 73 percent of its imports from the U.S., and sells the U.S. 89 percent of its exports. Ergo, Mexico's economic problems would indeed impact the U.S. In his final round however, Pro just says "Dropped. Don't let Con extend any economic harm back on America." I don't see why, so Con wins this point. (( CON ))

== Conclusion ==

Out of 8 possible categories, Pro wins 3: Infrastructure, Wage Deflation and Economic Growth. Meanwhile Con wins 2: Brain Drain and Mexican Unrest/Collapse. There were 3 ties: Framework, Debt Spreading and Technology. It seems to me that Pro's proven it would be immoral to conclude that immigrants could not enter U.S. soil on the basis of impacting other people's wages or economic situation. He's also proven that there are benefits to increased immigration, including increases in the quality and quantity of infrastructure as well as bettering the lives of immigrants who he feels has the right to seek a better quality of life.

Theoretically, the U.S. is "the people's" property thus the people should have a right to exclude those they feel stand contrary to their best interest. Con proved that it could/would harm the U.S. in particular ways by allowing for open immigration. However, has Con proven that theoretical problems trump the rights of individuals to seek a higher quality of life? It seems Pro wants to nullify "the people's" property rights, so to speak, in favor of an egalitarian standard. I'm assuming his belief is that "the people" don't technically own anything. However under today's standards of government they kinda do.

Overall, I feel it comes down to the framework issue of what's more important: moral or practical standards. I don't think the resolution is inherently specific. However, I think based on what was provided, Con argued successfully that the more practical would be the more moral option. Personally, I'm inclined to agree with Pro's position; however, a lack of elaboration on key points and inadequate rebuttal to certain arguments means I think Con slightly pulls away with the win here.

A good debate overall indeed.
President of DDO
TUF
Posts: 21,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2011 2:58:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Not to undermine your detailed RFD's, but I was under the impression that Via tournament rules we were supposed to vote a winner all seven points? Or maybe your were excluded from that message...
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
TUF
Posts: 21,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2011 3:00:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Nope, just checked, you weren't included in that message. Well this is what Freeman said.

There has been some confusion regarding the voting.

"It is my current opinion that 7 point votes will be most favorable. Some of you have agreed with me, and I think there are good reasons for this position. Allow me to briefly lay out a quick argument for this position.

I don't want there to be a Florida election type scenario. (You know, Gore got the popular vote but still lost.) Someone could end up with a 7 to 4 victory (in terms of people voting for them) but still technically lose depending on how much people were weighting their votes.

In the end, every vote will count for one. Putting the votes at 7 just makes everyone's vote equal in terms of the number that gets attached to the vote. If any of you have objections to this, please indicate this, but it would seem that many of you are ok with this position.

I was not able to contact all of you (e.g., RoyLatham, Mongoose and Hello-Orange) because those people aren't accepting messages. If someone could contact them, then that would be appreciated. "
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2011 3:42:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Thank you, TUF. I was not aware. I can't vote on my own debate anyway and the points I awarded in the last debate haven't/won't change the outcome, I don't think. Still I will change it for clarity if it helps.

Another thing - I noticed I got my Pro/Con's confused in my last RFD. I kinda said Pro when I meant Con sometimes and vice versa. Hopefully it won't be too confusing, but that's why it's always easier for me when Pro goes first. Oh well.

Also, I don't mind if people challenge my RFDs. If others consider it bad conduct then just PM me about it; I'm open to correction and/or discussion.
President of DDO
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2011 3:52:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/15/2011 2:55:03 PM, Danielle wrote:
7. Brain Drain ----> I agree with Con that Pro ignored Ford's analysis, simply dismissing it as being assertive. Well yes, that's typically how it goes. Sources assert things. Pro never proved why the analysis was wrong.

Pro writes, "The point of open immigration is to let people in irirregardless of their income or intelligence. So the brain-drain argument doesn't apply. This seems like hypocritical reasoning. He is the one pushing the moral standard in addition to the practical, so it was his obligation to explain why morally this notion is superior. Meanwhile, Con essentially argued that since practically speaking the brain drain would decrease the quality of life and other standards in foreign nations, that this would have moral implications including the repercussions of unrest and other future problems.

Err, my point was that in the status quo, Brains have an advantage over the disadvantaged. If you let everyone in, there's not as much of a disproportionate brain drain anymore since its more of a general population drain (if anything).

Pro also says that brains have an easier time immigrating. However, he didn't explain exactly why they'd want to immigrate back to where their quality of life would be lower. Furthermore, Pro writes, "Rather than set a quota, a ratio of skilled-unskilled immigrants could simply be specified." However a ratio like that IS essentially a quota. He defeats his own argument here, and the point goes to Con. (( CON ))

Nope. You might think so, but CirRk said a quota is a number. A ratio is not a number. I said so in the debate. CirRk didn't rebut it. Don't pick up his argument for him.

8. Mexican Unrest / Collapse ----> Con indicates that Mexican unrest would have serious implications on both Mexico and America. He insists such a collapse would have enormous humanitarian, constitutional, economic, cultural, and security implications for the U.S. Pro says this is an appeal to authority yet does not challenge the analysis. Pro says "This is an abusive argument because his ex-marine is just giving his opinion, which I can't argue with." I don't see why he couldn't argue with it.

Because the source is just a marine saying "this WOULD happen". Its just the marine's opinion.

Pro also suggests, "If you take Con through his own logic, you shouldn't let people leave their own country." However that is not the logical conclusion. The logical conclusion would mean people couldn't enter the * U.S. * unless they met quota requirements; not that one couldn't leave *their* country. This was a straw man.

Actually the brain drain argument isn't about entering the US, its just about leaving their country. So if they were going to the EU or the moon or committing suicide, the argument would still apply.

But Con never made the argument you just did. He basically said that it wouldn't actually happen IRL and therefore doesn't bite the bullet.

Additionally, Pro says, "If Mexico collapses they can all come live here. No long term repercussions." This ignores all the repercissions Con mentioned in his first argument though. For instance, he indicated that Mexico buys 73 percent of its imports from the U.S., and sells the U.S. 89 percent of its exports. Ergo, Mexico's economic problems would indeed impact the U.S. In his final round however, Pro just says "Dropped. Don't let Con extend any economic harm back on America." I don't see why, so Con wins this point. (( CON ))

Ahh no his source didn't prove that. I said that his source only showed mexico depended on america, not the other way around. And yes he also dropped the point so that's another reason why he can't win it.

And also, I said to ignore the long term repercussions, to which Con doesn't have an answer. So again you're picking his argument up for him.

== Conclusion ==

Out of 8 possible categories, Pro wins 3: Infrastructure, Wage Deflation and Economic Growth. Meanwhile Con wins 2: Brain Drain and Mexican Unrest/Collapse. There were 3 ties: Framework, Debt Spreading and Technology. It seems to me that Pro's proven it would be immoral to conclude that immigrants could not enter U.S. soil on the basis of impacting other people's wages or economic situation. He's also proven that there are benefits to increased immigration, including increases in the quality and quantity of infrastructure as well as bettering the lives of immigrants who he feels has the right to seek a better quality of life.

Theoretically, the U.S. is "the people's" property thus the people should have a right to exclude those they feel stand contrary to their best interest. Con proved that it could/would harm the U.S. in particular ways by allowing for open immigration. However, has Con proven that theoretical problems trump the rights of individuals to seek a higher quality of life? It seems Pro wants to nullify "the people's" property rights, so to speak, in favor of an egalitarian standard. I'm assuming his belief is that "the people" don't technically own anything. However under today's standards of government they kinda do.

Con never made a "people's property" argument. This is your logic. Not his. And you also can't vote on U.S. impact alone because I said that whether the resolution is pragmatic/moral, you have to consider all human beings equally outside of a nation centric paradigm.

Overall, I feel it comes down to the framework issue of what's more important: moral or practical standards. I don't think the resolution is inherently specific. However, I think based on what was provided, Con argued successfully that the more practical would be the more moral option. Personally, I'm inclined to agree with Pro's position; however, a lack of elaboration on key points and inadequate rebuttal to certain arguments means I think Con slightly pulls away with the win here.

But CirRk doesn't even have an idea about what counts as practical. I wrote that pragmatism presupposes ends - so what are the ends? He tries to save with consequentialism, but again, what consequences do we care about? So he doesn't actually have a philosophy you can vote on.

A good debate overall indeed.

Trying not to bite your head off. But I have time so wth.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2011 3:52:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Are you doing this for every debate? I'd love to have an RFD this thorough for my debate with TheSkeptic.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 5:35:39 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
According to F. Lee Bailey, there was a case of a man convicted of a murder with good evidence, properly obtained, of guilt. The evidence included a full confession which was not forced. Later, the verdict as appealed on the grounds that the convicted man was locked up in a jail in another city at the time of the murder. However, the only grounds for appeal was an error in law by the lower court, hence ere was no grounds for appeal. So: many arguments in favor of conviction and only one against, and the prosecution obeyed every rule of proper debate. Should the one fact of innocence upset the verdict? All concerned in that case agreed it should, but on DDO the prosecutor who argue fer it was a fair win.

In a debate on whether the earth is flat or round, all evidence from geographers must be excluded on the grounds that they are hopelessly biased iin favor of round. All arguments from authority are bogus. Hence we must judge solely on whether it appears round to us, and to the vast a majority of people it looks flat. Case closed.

Unlimited immigration means the financial death of the United States, because all welfare benefits must be given to every resident. Is it reasonable to demand that the destruction of the country be proved to be a bad thing for purposes of a debate? Murder involves one person winning and losing, so it should be assumed a draw until proven otherwise, right?

What I'm saying is that debate should not be considered game in which judging ought to be done according to abstract rules without common sense. Common sense weighs what is important and what is not so important.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 8:40:51 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 5:35:39 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
According to F. Lee Bailey, there was a case of a man convicted of a murder with good evidence, properly obtained, of guilt. The evidence included a full confession which was not forced. Later, the verdict as appealed on the grounds that the convicted man was locked up in a jail in another city at the time of the murder. However, the only grounds for appeal was an error in law by the lower court, hence ere was no grounds for appeal. So: many arguments in favor of conviction and only one against, and the prosecution obeyed every rule of proper debate. Should the one fact of innocence upset the verdict? All concerned in that case agreed it should, but on DDO the prosecutor who argue fer it was a fair win.

There's a difference between lawyers and debaters. Debate rounds result in you voting for a *person*. Legal cases result in you voting for an *outcome*. So you can say that a lawyer beat the crap out of their opponent but still vote against them on the basis that you want to serve justice. But nothing will actually happen as the result of a debate tournament. In fact a ballot MEANS that one debater beat the other. If you interject your own opinion, it no longer means that.

In a debate on whether the earth is flat or round, all evidence from geographers must be excluded on the grounds that they are hopelessly biased iin favor of round. All arguments from authority are bogus. Hence we must judge solely on whether it appears round to us, and to the vast a majority of people it looks flat. Case closed.

Well first, I think that the consensus among geographers makes an appeal to authority safer. Second, I think you can repeat their reasoning and give evidence for what they say.

This is different from the political cards CirRk used. In politics, there is no consensus on immigration. He used cards from political action groups, explicitly biased non-academic organizations. He used a card from a marine's blog. All of his cards just say "well this WOULD happen". That isn't evidence. That isn't reasoning. I showed in the debate that his economic cards were amateurish at best.

In short, I told you why his cards were bad. He doesn't have a rebuttal, but you save the cards for him anyway. What does he have to do to lose?

Unlimited immigration means the financial death of the United States, because all welfare benefits must be given to every resident.

Nope. He dropped a point where I said immigration fees could be used to offset any negative financial outcomes.

He also NEVER MADE THE WELFARE ARGUMENT. This is YOUR argument. You are picking up his case for him. That does not mean that HE wins.

I also had a source saying that immigrants pay more in taxes and consume less welfare than native families during their first 15 years here.

So what did I have to do to win this point?

Is it reasonable to demand that the destruction of the country be proved to be a bad thing for purposes of a debate? Murder involves one person winning and losing, so it should be assumed a draw until proven otherwise, right?

Again, I rebutted the nation-centric paradigm. You might still think its valid, but he doesn't give an argument against it. You're still voting for him based on something he never did.

What I'm saying is that debate should not be considered game in which judging ought to be done according to abstract rules without common sense. Common sense weighs what is important and what is not so important.

I'm not asking you to vote based on metaphysical doctrine. I'm asking you to vote based on what a vote is. A vote says that one debater beat another. It does not say that one debater is right. It does not say we will actually put this plan into action. So if I say "the earth is flat [1]", and my opponent offers no response, you give the win to me no matter how bad you think my argumentation is.

If you interject yourself vote me down, you are giving him a win for something he never did. You are giving me a loss for failing to debate YOU. But I'm not psychic, and we're not debating, and that's not what you're voting on.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
CiRrK
Posts: 670
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 9:08:58 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Sieben I could understand if it was like 1 or 2 people that just happened to vote for me randomly. However, I have gained the majority of the votes, even from a claimed anarchist. This shows that the votes span ideological levels, so no bias should exist. The only reason you think your arguments are more compelling is because you made them. And I completely understand that. But the fact that 4 people voted for me (with much more indepth RFDs than the people which voted for you) than you, I dont think you should be complaining. Unless you could prove malicious intent on the part of Danielle, Roy, Void, and Orange, then I dont think you should be complaining all that much.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 9:39:56 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 9:08:58 AM, CiRrK wrote:
Sieben I could understand if it was like 1 or 2 people that just happened to vote for me randomly. However, I have gained the majority of the votes, even from a claimed anarchist. This shows that the votes span ideological levels, so no bias should exist.

The bias is not ideological.

The only reason you think your arguments are more compelling is because you made them.

I have never made this argument. I have specific arguments against each of their RFDs, all along the lines of "you're picking up his arguments for him".

And I completely understand that. But the fact that 4 people voted for me (with much more indepth RFDs than the people which voted for you) than you, I dont think you should be complaining. Unless you could prove malicious intent on the part of Danielle, Roy, Void, and Orange, then I dont think you should be complaining all that much.

Actually I provided very good reasons why they're wrong. But that's okay.

Yeah Roy gave you spelling and grammar somehow. If that doesn't scream bias I don't know what does.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
CiRrK
Posts: 670
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 9:46:39 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
If the bias isnt ideological, then what is it? They just happen to like me more? lol I doubt it, I started too much controversy in the past, I would hate me xD And Ive read your reasoning about why their RFDs are wrong, and I obviously disagree but i'm not going to waste time arguing in forums and comment boxes about it.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 9:59:53 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 9:46:39 AM, CiRrK wrote:
If the bias isnt ideological, then what is it?
Explained in the rebuttals to their RFDs. Zzzzzz

They just happen to like me more? lol I doubt it, I started too much controversy in the past, I would hate me xD
Looooooool

And Ive read your reasoning about why their RFDs are wrong, and I obviously disagree but i'm not going to waste time arguing in forums and comment boxes about it.

So why bring it up? Why are you challenging me if you wont challenge my arguments?
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 10:17:31 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
There's a difference between lawyers and debaters. Debate rounds result in you voting for a *person*. Legal cases result in you voting for an *outcome*.

The audience is presented with a resolution. The outcome is whether or not the resolution is adopted. Voting categories relate to how well the debaters argued. A debater affirming "The earth is round." could lose, but doing so would require failing to make a single valid argument. "My Uncle Fred and the Tarot reader down the street both say it's round." The common sense element comes in weighing arguments according to their importance and validity. The principle is that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." If no argument is made, then zero weighted by anything is still zero. But if a valid and compelling argument is made, then it must be weighed.

"Would" arguments should be evaluated according to reasonableness. "If my opponent jumped off a tall building he would die." >> "Ridiculous, there are no statiistics on my jumping off buildings. We just can't say."

The lawyer mentality of placing technicalities above reason is a plague on society. A lawsuit was filed against lethal injection on the grounds the lethal drug was not FDA approved. Absolutely nuts, but it prevailed.
CiRrK
Posts: 670
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 10:18:45 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Cause your being ultra-annoying, and I think everyone else sees it. Im just point that fact out. Your not going to change the minds of the judges,so I see no need in actually debating you over your reasons as to why you should have won.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 10:24:19 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 10:17:31 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
There's a difference between lawyers and debaters. Debate rounds result in you voting for a *person*. Legal cases result in you voting for an *outcome*.

The audience is presented with a resolution. The outcome is whether or not the resolution is adopted.

The resolutions on DDO are NEVER adopted.

Voting categories relate to how well the debaters argued.
Yes. The debaters. Not you.

A debater affirming "The earth is round." could lose, but doing so would require failing to make a single valid argument. "My Uncle Fred and the Tarot reader down the street both say it's round." The common sense element comes in weighing arguments according to their importance and validity. The principle is that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." If no argument is made, then zero weighted by anything is still zero. But if a valid and compelling argument is made, then it must be weighed.

This is YOUR reasoning on how we should weigh evidence and sources. But its the debater's job to handle the evidence. If you interject your own analysis you are doing their work for them. People no longer win because they argue evidence well, they win because of what you came up with on your own.

"Would" arguments should be evaluated according to reasonableness. "If my opponent jumped off a tall building he would die." >> "Ridiculous, there are no statiistics on my jumping off buildings. We just can't say."

You can prove it analytically. Its up to the debaters to present evidence/reasoning. If their evidence/reasoning is challenged, they have to defend it. You don't get to intervene and save it for them.

The lawyer mentality of placing technicalities above reason is a plague on society. A lawsuit was filed against lethal injection on the grounds the lethal drug was not FDA approved. Absolutely nuts, but it prevailed.

This is not a "technicality". A vote literally means that A beat B. Not that we're going to put the policy into action or that you think A is objectively true. So if you step in for B and patch his case together for him, you can't say A beat B anymore.

Do you want to add a box that says "A won but I think I could beat him if I used my own arguments"?
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 10:26:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 10:18:45 AM, CiRrK wrote:
Cause your being ultra-annoying, and I think everyone else sees it. Im just point that fact out. Your not going to change the minds of the judges,so I see no need in actually debating you over your reasons as to why you should have won.

1) Nice grammar
2) F*ck the judges. They're voting carelessly.
3) I've heard your plea for me to stop and I'm choosing to ignore it on the basis that you aren't actually willing to engage me.

kk?
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 10:37:57 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 10:32:46 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
Seriously Sieben, it is better to accept defeat gracefully, even if you are right, than throw a tantrum on the forums.

No. Because this will keep happening over and over again. Its really really simple. You don't vote for someone just because you can fix their arguments for them. I basically can't debate until they get that through their heads. If I piss them off, I don't care.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 12:02:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 5:35:39 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
What I'm saying is that debate should not be considered game in which judging ought to be done according to abstract rules without common sense. Common sense weighs what is important and what is not so important.

In other words, you don't judge based on who actually won the debate but rather what your "common sense" tells you the correct position is.

Tell us something we don't already know :)
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 12:03:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/15/2011 3:52:25 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Are you doing this for every debate? I'd love to have an RFD this thorough for my debate with TheSkeptic.

Of course :)
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 12:10:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/15/2011 3:52:13 PM, Sieben wrote:
Trying not to bite your head off. But I have time so wth.

I'm not offended. I know it's typical for a judge to sometimes come up with arguments or a rebuttal that the debaters did not, and it's unfair to judge that way. I can't award CirRk points on arguments he didn't make. Now that I know this is the only other debate done, I definitely have time to go back and look over the points you mentioned since I have nothing else to read. I don't mind going over it and if your opponent really did fail to make certain arguments then I'll revise.

The main problem though was that you dropped a lot of arguments or things I think you could have easily won or used to strengthen your case instead of just focusing on your opponent's mistakes. For instance, yes the marine's opinion is just that - an opinion. That's why if used as a source, it doesn't justify or prove anything. However why couldn't you argue with the marine's theory? Isn't that the point of the debate, since your opponent seemingly shared his theory? He didn't just link the source either but mentioned the theory in the debate, and you just said you weren't going to respond. Without a rebuttal, it's hard to say you won. But as I said I will read it later this week, since it seems nobody else is done and most haven't even started.
President of DDO
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 12:10:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 12:02:34 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 3/16/2011 5:35:39 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
What I'm saying is that debate should not be considered game in which judging ought to be done according to abstract rules without common sense. Common sense weighs what is important and what is not so important.

In other words, you don't judge based on who actually won the debate but rather what your "common sense" tells you the correct position is.

Tell us something we don't already know :)

lol. I realized that there was a problem with Roylatham's voting behavior after this debate:

http://www.debate.org...

He was the only person to vote pro, besides PRO himself. Justification:

"A recent study in the US claimed that if a person makes at least $70K a year, then increased earnings do not produce increased happiness. Past studies have put the threshold of happiness-from-money even lower. It is not true that the megarich are generally happier than guys who own tire shops, or whatever. (This is important to understand in discussions on redistribution of wealth.) I think Pro had the right intuition on this subject and expressed it well enough to win arguments."

Seems a bit like he was making arguments for PRO, even though Pro never expressed it.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 12:39:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 12:10:21 PM, Danielle wrote:

For instance, yes the marine's opinion is just that - an opinion. That's why if used as a source, it doesn't justify or prove anything. However why couldn't you argue with the marine's theory?

Because there's no evidence that it *won't* cause a collapse. Its just he-says-she-says. I chose to say that its just short term, so you should ignore it. I also said that if its really that bad, refugees can come here. And I said that the long term effects might be positive because of jurisdictional competition. CirRk has no response to any of these.

Isn't that the point of the debate, since your opponent seemingly shared his theory? He didn't just link the source either but mentioned the theory in the debate, and you just said you weren't going to respond.

There's a difference between describing the theory and generating it. The theory is a string of "woulds", each of which is tenuous at best. For example:

"Any descent by the Mexico into chaos would demand an American response based on the serious implications for homeland security alone."

Would. I actually rebutted this by giving a list of revolutions and observing that America has not become involved in all of them.

"Such a collapse would have enormous humanitarian, constitutional, economic, cultural, and security implications for the U.S. It would seem the U.S. federal government, indeed American society at large, would have little ability to focus serious attention on much else in the world. There would be no running from a Mexican collapse."

Would would would would. All I have to do to match his level of analysis is put "would not" everywhere.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2011 8:55:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
~~~~~~
Debate 3
~~~~~~

TUF vs. badger

Resolution: If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound?

http://www.debate.org...

~~~
Vote
~~~

Pro = Tuf

Con = Badger

Before/After: Con

Spelling/Grammar: Pro

Sources: Pro

Arguments: Pro

Conduct: Pro

WINNER: PRO (TUF)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Reason For Decision
~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Tuf's first contention is that superpositionalism is unfounded. Superpositionalism is the idea that while humans are not perceiving it, "particles" are basically just waves of things not really specific in any particular position. It is only upon human perception that the particles become 'solid things' or what have you.

His second contention is "So if I perceive a sound will be made, based on experience of hearing this sound in the past, I know for a fact that the tree does in fact make a sound" basically providing a scenario in which a video camera is used and a human later witnesses the tree falling (and subsequent sound).

His third contention is that given human experience acknowledging that fallen trees make noise, that upon witnessing a fallen tree it is logical to assume that the tree had made a noise.

In badger's first rebuttal, he argues that superpositionalism has nothing to do with his contention and I agree. I have no idea the connection Tuf is making thus far, so it's okay badger drops it.

However, badger admittedly does not make an attempt to respond to Tuf's other arguments. Nevertheless badger's argument defeats Tuf's third contention. The problem is that Tuf's second contention makes perfect sense to me and seems to fall within the parameters both agreed upon for the debate. As such, Tuf is currently winning because contention 2 has gone undefeated in his favor.

In the second round Tuf makes the connection between badger's position and superpositionalism. Badger is essentially saying that when human perception is not observing something, that thing does not exist (i.e., sound). That is very similar to the superpositionalism proposition. Very interesting point by Tuf (not that I necessarily agree).

Regarding C2, Tuf writes, "This is a huge contention that should have been argued, but wasn't, thus basically ensuring me a win." I agree. He also extends C3 though it's not a strong contention or even one really in his favor at all.

In his final rebuttal, badger replies basically not understanding the superpositionalist argument. As such he didn't really have a strong argument against it. In response to C2, he notes that while humans hear the played back video recording, it violates the resolution. He asserts, "It's heard even more indirectly again, but certainly as a result of being around." I don't see how that constitutes as being around. If badger had really argued this further, perhaps he could have won. I see no direct violation of the resolution OR the agreed upon definition of sound. However this is sort of a low blow I suppose (no more low than the sound wave argument though I guess), and as I said badger doesn't really argue this point at all. He completely drops C3.

Now I have no idea why Pro gets the last word. In the last round badger just wrote "Vote I suppose." Was this an intentional forfeit or agreed upon stipulation? Nevertheless this doesn't help badger at all. I agree with Pro's final assessment:

"We can skip over arguments made on contention 1, seeing as there WEREN'T any.

We can also extend those on contention 3, as that has literally been un-touched the whole debate.

So this leaves us with 'arguments' on contention 2."

I agree that the video camera argument doesn't violate any rules, and once again, badger *could* have made an appealing argument to the judges but didn't. How can you award points to an un-made argument?! So far the judges have voted 3-0 in favor of badger and I think that's kind of appalling. He didn't really take the debate seriously which is fine, but let's not pretend that he won when the arguments (or lack thereof) simply don't support it :/ Love ya though badge. And I've certainly got no love for Tuf, but he definitely won this debate.
President of DDO
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2011 12:33:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/18/2011 8:55:47 PM, Danielle wrote:
~~~~~~
Debate 3
~~~~~~

TUF vs. badger

Resolution: If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound?

http://www.debate.org...

~~~
Vote
~~~

Pro = Tuf

Con = Badger

Before/After: Con

Spelling/Grammar: Pro

Sources: Pro

Arguments: Pro

Conduct: Pro

WINNER: PRO (TUF)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Reason For Decision
~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Tuf's first contention is that superpositionalism is unfounded. Superpositionalism is the idea that while humans are not perceiving it, "particles" are basically just waves of things not really specific in any particular position. It is only upon human perception that the particles become 'solid things' or what have you.

His second contention is "So if I perceive a sound will be made, based on experience of hearing this sound in the past, I know for a fact that the tree does in fact make a sound" basically providing a scenario in which a video camera is used and a human later witnesses the tree falling (and subsequent sound).

His third contention is that given human experience acknowledging that fallen trees make noise, that upon witnessing a fallen tree it is logical to assume that the tree had made a noise.

In badger's first rebuttal, he argues that superpositionalism has nothing to do with his contention and I agree. I have no idea the connection Tuf is making thus far, so it's okay badger drops it.

However, badger admittedly does not make an attempt to respond to Tuf's other arguments. Nevertheless badger's argument defeats Tuf's third contention. The problem is that Tuf's second contention makes perfect sense to me and seems to fall within the parameters both agreed upon for the debate. As such, Tuf is currently winning because contention 2 has gone undefeated in his favor.

In the second round Tuf makes the connection between badger's position and superpositionalism. Badger is essentially saying that when human perception is not observing something, that thing does not exist (i.e., sound). That is very similar to the superpositionalism proposition. Very interesting point by Tuf (not that I necessarily agree).

Regarding C2, Tuf writes, "This is a huge contention that should have been argued, but wasn't, thus basically ensuring me a win." I agree. He also extends C3 though it's not a strong contention or even one really in his favor at all.

In his final rebuttal, badger replies basically not understanding the superpositionalist argument. As such he didn't really have a strong argument against it. In response to C2, he notes that while humans hear the played back video recording, it violates the resolution. He asserts, "It's heard even more indirectly again, but certainly as a result of being around." I don't see how that constitutes as being around. If badger had really argued this further, perhaps he could have won. I see no direct violation of the resolution OR the agreed upon definition of sound. However this is sort of a low blow I suppose (no more low than the sound wave argument though I guess), and as I said badger doesn't really argue this point at all. He completely drops C3.

Now I have no idea why Pro gets the last word. In the last round badger just wrote "Vote I suppose." Was this an intentional forfeit or agreed upon stipulation? Nevertheless this doesn't help badger at all. I agree with Pro's final assessment:

"We can skip over arguments made on contention 1, seeing as there WEREN'T any.

We can also extend those on contention 3, as that has literally been un-touched the whole debate.

So this leaves us with 'arguments' on contention 2."

I agree that the video camera argument doesn't violate any rules, and once again, badger *could* have made an appealing argument to the judges but didn't. How can you award points to an un-made argument?! So far the judges have voted 3-0 in favor of badger and I think that's kind of appalling. He didn't really take the debate seriously which is fine, but let's not pretend that he won when the arguments (or lack thereof) simply don't support it :/ Love ya though badge. And I've certainly got no love for Tuf, but he definitely won this debate.

i'm sorry now danielle but i think you're kinda wrong :P though i acted the sneak with the definitions.. but it's for once in a debate it's not me with a lack of an argument.. (i'll get to the camera bit) with how i'd defined the debate tuf was arguing against a tautology.. and with the burden of proof, right? he should've been arguing for super-positionalism rather than against it lol.. what argument did he make.. the camera one? that was a weak argument.. didn't need much of an answer.. sound was defined as what we human's percieve, what we actually hear.. you know as a result of those mechanical waves having hit our outer ears and being directed into our auditory system or whatever.. that's what we'd defined a sound as.. i did argue that that wouldn't happen.. the camera would hear it.. record it.. whatever.. not with a human auditory system though.. and what, if a human were to listen to the recording, he'd hear the sound.. and that'd be him/her (lol) being around to hear the sound.. why wouldn't it be? i really didn't need to make that much of an argument.. and i can't really remember posting the last round lol
signature
TUF
Posts: 21,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2011 12:54:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/20/2011 12:33:14 PM, badger wrote:
i'm sorry now danielle but i think you're kinda wrong :P though i acted the sneak with the definitions.. but it's for once in a debate it's not me with a lack of an argument..

LOL RIIIIGGGGHHHTT..

(i'll get to the camera bit) with how i'd defined the debate tuf was arguing against a tautology.. and with the burden of proof, right? he should've been arguing for super-positionalism rather than against it lol..

Did you not get what super-positionalism is? I'm assuming based on that odd remark you really have no idea what your talking about haha.

what argument did he make.. the camera one? that was a weak argument.. didn't need much of an answer..

Lol insead you just offer no answer. That's not how your supposed to debate. Usually a debate requires detailed arguments. Just sayin'.

sound was defined as what we human's percieve, what we actually hear.. you know as a result of those mechanical waves having hit our outer ears and being directed into our auditory system or whatever..

Yes we were debating the human definition of sounds as we percieve it. It was your job to prove that these sounds didn't occur when a human wasn't present, which you never did.

i did argue that that wouldn't happen.. the camera would hear it.. record it.. whatever.. not with a human auditory system though.. and what, if a human were to listen to the recording, he'd hear the sound.. and that'd be him/her (lol) being around to hear the sound.. why wouldn't it be?

Because the camera with out human presence picked up the audio in the first place. There was no human around when the sound actually happened. The human came after, so it fits into your definition and supports that a human doesn't need to be around.

i really didn't need to make that much of an argument.. and i can't really remember posting the last round lol

It's because you didn't post a last round. You technically forfeited, so you really shouldn't win this debate.
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227