Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

TRW: Week 4

bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2015 10:42:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
== Review (A good RFD should) ==

(1) Evaluate all arguments. Dismissing any major argument made by either side without discussion is the mark of a bad RFD.

(2) Conclude by weighing all offense presented, after mitigating it with all defense presented.

(3) Read contested sources.

(4) Credit dropped arguments.

(5) Not make up its own BOPs or arguments or otherwise reference things that were not said in the debate.

== TRW Week 4: Emilrose vs. Donald ==

Resolved: Europe is superior to the U.S.

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

== My RFD ==

Preview: Donald wins

(Framework)

Emil says that she only needs to prove that *one* European country is better than the U.S. to win that Europe is better. Donald argues that Emil must prove that the entire continent, on average, is better. Donald"s interpretation seems far more reasonable because I fail to see how proving Norway is better than the U.S. establishes that "Europe" is better than the U.S. So I go with Donald"s interpretation. Emil has to prove that the entire continent, on average, is better than the U.S.

(Health)

Emil shows that Americans are more obese than Europeans and this causes serious health complications and costs the American economy a bunch of money. I don"t buy Donald"s rebuttal that obesity just represents a personal choice. The fact that Americans have to pay for the obesity crisis and that it costs the economy money make it enough of a problem that it could be a reason that the U.S. is worse than Europe.

But later, Donald proves that life expectancy in the U.S. is only 3 years less. He proves that waiting lists are much longer in Europe for needed treatments, like for cancer, and that 21% of cancer patients become incurable while on the waiting list. He proves that access to a waiting list is not access to health care. Emil does establish that Europe has more doctors per capita, but Donald effectively rebuts this by proving that the number of doctors doesn"t matter if it doesn"t affect waiting lists.

Emil establishes that health care is more expensive in the U.S. However, Donald proves that the greater cost goes to better quality care, and that Americans can afford the higher cost because they have higher disposable income (on average).

So in the end, Emil is winning that the obesity rate is a problem in the U.S., but Donald is winning that it"s not *that* much of a problem (only 3 years less life expectancy) and that the U.S. does better at *treating* its higher rates of health problems because its health care system is superior. Health seems to be going to Donald, since obesity is just one facet of the total picture.

(Education)

Emil establishes that many European nations are ahead of the U.S. in terms of scores on certain tests (i.e. math). Donald establishes that the U.S. is not very far behind, at all (the top ranked European nation is only 3% better than the U.S.). So Emil is winning this, but not by much. It"s also not impacted very well. Why does the education gap make a difference? Supposedly better education produces better workers which impacts GDP. But Donald proves that GDP per capita is higher in the U.S. than in Europe. So I"m not sure why I should care about the 3% education difference.

(Culture)

I"ll note that this seems like a week point from the get-go. Emil is right that Europe has a much richer cultural heritage than the U.S., but she doesn"t exactly spend a huge amount of time explaining this. She doesn"t -- for example -- mention all the amazing artwork at the Louvre or all the incredible architecture across Europe. Her treatment of culture is a little perfunctory.

Donald establishes that the U.S. has better "mainstream" culture because the vast majority of the most famous movies and books are coming out of the U.S.

Culture seems like a wash at the point where Donald is winning modern culture and Emil is winning ancient culture. I just treat this as a tie, on an issue that already has a small impact in my mind and is too "soft" a factor to weigh against issues like health care and economics.

(Tourism)

This also seems like a wash. Emil says there is more tourism to Europe, but Donald points out that someone traveling from Germany to the U.K. counts as a tourist, whereas someone traveling from Florida to California does not. So the U.S. has a bunch of unmeasured internal tourism. Donald also points out that traveling to the U.S. is more expensive, which explains the tourism gap. This point also isn"t impacted very well (such as by telling me how much tourism adds to Europe"s economy). This is a win for Emil, but not a strong one.

(Freedom)

Emil proves that Europe is more socially liberal. Donald correctly points out that whether liberal or conservative politics is better is entirely subjective. Emil responds by saying that banning the death penalty and permitting gay marriage are civil rights issues. I buy this, but it"s not a strong impact. Emil would have done better to show more of the problems and injustice of the death penalty in the U.S. (e.g. the serious racial disparities). In fact, Emil"s failure to discuss race issues in the U.S. is a big failing (since this is a metric Europe clearly does better on). So I grant Emil that Europe does better on civil rights, but there is some ambiguity as to why that is a good thing, as Donald raises the legitimate question of whether the death penalty being legal is really normatively bad (something Emil never proves).

Furthermore, Donald proves that the U.S. does better on economic freedom, corruption measurements, property rights, labor freedom, and business freedom. This seems to outweigh Europe doing better on social freedom. As with much of the debate, Emil has a serious problem because Eastern Europe is included in all these aggregate statistics, so it makes Europe as a whole look really bad. It was poor topic drafting on her part not to limit the debate to Western Europe.

(Economics)

Donald proves that the U.S. has far cheaper gas prices, lower unemployment, and much higher per capita income than Europe. He also proves that the U.S. has a much lower debt to GDP ratio.

Emil"s responses fall flat. She tries to show that some European countries have a higher minimum wage than the U.S., but average per capita income seems more important than the minimum wage. Perhaps if Emil had made an argument that Europe treats its poorest citizens more humanely she would have a decent argument here, but she never advances that argument. Emil also argues that the U.S. has a higher total dollar amount of debt, but as Donald points out, this measurement is irrelevant. Debt to GDP ratio is more relevant to a country"s ability to service its debt. Emil drops gas prices and unemployment, and her response to the much higher per capita income is inadequate.

This contention is a pretty resounding win for Donald.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2015 10:42:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
(Crimes rates)

Emil proves that the U.S. has a higher murder rate and more gun use in crimes. Donald proves that the overall violent crime rate is much lower in the U.S. and that there are a lot more rapes in Europe. Emil responds that the rate of male rape is astronomically high in the U.S. (she says inexplicably, but it probably has to do with the U.S. having such a large prison population and the male rapes that occur in prison). However, Donald is right that overall rape rates are more important than isolating a single gender. And I don"t think the fact that a rape occurs at gunpoint makes it worse than occurring at knife point, so I don"t think the higher rate of using guns in crime is all that relevant. So Emil wins a higher homicide rate in the U.S., but Donald wins that every other category of violent crime is worse in Europe. And Donald proves that the homicide rate differential is not all that large (approximately 1 per 100,000). So this also seems like a rather strong win for Donald.

(Impact analysis)

So Donald is winning a higher violent crime rate in Europe, higher per capita income in the U.S., better access to quality health care in the U.S., lower unemployment in the U.S., much lower gas prices in the U.S., and less debt in the U.S. Emil is winning that Americans are fatter (and this causes problems), that Europe is 3% better on education, that Europe has more civil liberties, and that the homicide rate is ever-so-slightly higher in the U.S.

Ultimately, Donald winning such huge economic impacts outweighs Emil"s impacts. Her impacts are heavily mitigated by Donald"s defense, and she cold conceded a lot of the economics debate. One of Emil"s problems was that she didn"t really use her rebuttals to refute a lot of Donald"s points, but merely repeated her case. Or she tried to refute aggregate statistics by pointing to only one or two countries in Europe that were better. This was not an effective rebuttal strategy. So Donald wins.

== Let"s look to RFD"s ==

(1) The gold standard: whiteflame [voted for Donald]

I"m going to summarize whiteflame"s RFD so this TRW doesn"t get too long, like my last one.

Whiteflame basically agrees with my RFD on the framework issues: Emil has to win that Europe as a whole is superior.

(Health) Whiteflame analyzes this much the same way as I did. Emil won that the U.S. has slightly lower life expectancy, but Donald won that access to health care trumped cost of health care.

(Crimes) Whiteflame analyzes this much the same way. Emil won homicides, Donald won the rest of violent crime. Whiteflame however considers this to be a tie (one point to each) because no reason is given to prefer other violent crimes to homicide. I defaulted to there being more other types of violent crime, so it outweighed, but I can see why whiteflame would say this.

(Economics) Whiteflame says that Donald won most of these points because they were dropped.

(Culture) Whiteflame considers this a wash because it"s subjective, but gives tourism to Donald.

(Education) Whiteflame says Emil wins an education gap, but it"s small.

(Politics) Whiteflame says most of Emil"s points about the death penalty, etc. are too subjective, and that Donald won that the U.S. has better freedom of speech because he established that Europe overcriminalizes speech under the category of "hate speech."

(Impact analysis) Whiteflame says Emil won 5 arguments and Donald won 11, so he voted for Donald.

Ultimately, this is the only part of Whiteflame"s RFD I disagree with. Impacts should be measured qualitatively as well as quantitatively. While I understand why whiteflame did this (because the debaters didn"t explain which impacts were most important), I don"t think this counting method is fare. Whiteflame quadruple counts Donald"s economy points as each being a separate win (e.g. higher per capita income, less unemployment, lower oil prices, less oil dependency). I don"t think that"s fair because a lot of these arguments were all subsumed under "the economy." You could just as easily count "death penalty bad" and "gay marriage good" as two separate wins for Emil, even though they were both under the label of civil liberties. But I think whiteflame gets to the right result because Emil did drop a lot of Donald"s points, which is reflected in his 5 to 11 count.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2015 10:43:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
(2) 9space"s RFD [voted for Donald]

Props to 9space for writing a very long RFD. I"ll summarize, once again, to save space.

(Lifestyle) 9space just describes the arguments that were made, without really saying who is winning them at the end and evaluating the rebuttals to each. He also throws crime rates under here as a response to obesity, which doesn"t make sense and makes his RFD hard to follow since it"s a separate issue.

(The rest of the RFD) Honestly, I have a hard time even reading the RFD. It"s just listing every argument that was made, round by round, with 9space"s impression as he goes (e.g. "why did DK make the argument this way, to confused Emil?" and "Emil had trouble on sources -- Emil I told you not to use just one country"). A good RFD should be well-organized and tell the person reading the RFD what effect the argument and the rebuttals had on the judge"s decision. It should just list everything.

(The conclusion) Emil won one issue, Donald won 5, so Donald wins.

I really appreciate the effort that 9space took to write a 9-comment RFD, and he gets major props for effort. But try to be more organized and say under each issue who won and why. And organize the RFD by issue, not necessarily chronologically. The debater (nor I) need a play by play of the debate. I read it and they wrote it. Just give me a summary on each issue of why you think a particular side won.

(3) Mikal"s RFD [voted for Emil]

I am going to try to keep this as short as possible. I read this when I was checking on my messages the other day, and meant to vote and just have not had time to write an RFD. I finally had an hour to sit down and write this out, so here it goes.

Pro Wins Lifestyle
Con wins economics

Freedom / Culture was basically non nonsensical arguments, and just revolved both participants arguing around each other not gaining any noticeable ground. I think both of these effectively nullified each other as pro just made a proposition that Europe had better freedom, and a better culture with con nullifying it by saying you can find the same type of freedom and culture in the US. Both of these were a was for me and they really had no impact.

Con noticeably and I do mean noticeable slaughtered pro on economics. This is a non contest, as his sources just eviscerated any chance pro had of winning this argument. Cons argument at the beginning is quite relevant as he states that pro has to account for all of Europe and just not certain areas. On a total basis, and via that statistics con gave this is a non contest argument for con. Pro nitpicks certain cities and areas in Europe that are doing well, but this not negate that this is a on whole debate. Meaning as con says pro must account for all of Europe.

The one argument that amazes me is the lifestyle argument. This was an easy win for con had he answered this properly, but his only real response to this is that it is not applicable because it has to be intrinsic. Meaning fat people are not fat because of the US, or because they live here. They are fat because they want to be fat the rambling on and on about these issuing being intrinsic lost con the debate for me. It never touches the issue or addresses the problem. Pro is stating people have health issues, negative health effects, are obese, are overweight because they live and are in america. Con just keeps saying intrinsic, intrinsic, trying to show these issues have to be specifically applicable to the US.

Taking this from an example. If you are reviewing a neighborhood where you want to live. One has a higher crime rate, the other has a lower one. The area with the higher crime rate is still responsible for the higher crime rate. The reasons why there is a higher crime rate, apply to that area. Saying it has to be intrinsic to that area, does not answer the question or the issue at hand. If people go there, they are more than likely to get shot.

This basic line of logic extends back to this debate. If people are in the US, judging from pros studies, they are more than likely to be sick, over weight, unhealthy, and all the other negative effects she listed and con never really contested other than saying it has basically has to be specific to the US. Cons same argument applies to him, he is taking on the US as a whole. Whether this is from marketing, perception, or a general lifestyle is a non factor. The US has a higher rate of all the issues that pro listed than most other countries. Whether or not that is a personal choice or people could do that in other areas does not solve the dilemma, pros point is that the US is a cayalsyt for stupidity basically. If you live there, you are more than likely going to suffer from negative effects.

From there the debate is measured in impacts. Pros impacts specifically revolve around health, why cons revolve around money. In this type of debate, at least to me any time you are judging impacts life generally will always outweigh costs, or is on balance a larger and more solid impact.

For that reason debate to pro

This RFD notes that Donald destroyed Emil on economics, but votes for Emil anyway because lives outweigh. However, it doesn"t credit Donald"s rebuttal (that the impact from obesity on life expectancy is only three years and that the U.S. has a better health care system). I agree that Donald"s rebuttal about it being American citizens fault for obesity is not sufficient, but Mikal ignored all the other rebuttal responses. It"s also unfair to credit life over money, when Emil"s impact from obesity was mostly from the health care costs, and lost life-years is not the same as "life." Lost life-years is an actuarial measure that by its nature could be quantified in terms of money. Not a great RFD, as it ignores most of the debate and a lot of Donald"s rebuttals.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2015 10:43:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
(4) 16kadams" RFD [Voted for Donald]

(1) Healthcare
Pro argues Europeans have fewer problems (e.g. ailments such as obesity) and then makes an assumption that their healthcare system. As Pro rightly pointed out, the vast majority of these ailments are in no way related to the healthcare system. They are related to unhealthy lifestyles of Americans, but this in no way proves America is inherently worse. A societal difference"which varies person to person"does not prove that it is the fault of *America*, rather *Americans*, and this is an important distinction. On things which are actually relatable to the healthcare system"like waiting lists, a DIRECT consequence of socialized medicine"Con noted how they had much LONGER wait times. This is something DIRECTLY related to a healthcare system and NOT subject to 16k being a fat fvck and ordering the entire wendy"s menu" Holy sh!t that sounds good"

(2) Culture
As Con noted, this is ENTIRELY subjective and unrelated to anything. And what does "diversity" even mean? Indeed, diversity, for example, would include gay rights and such. People like me"and other conservatives, which is a large portion of the country"would dislike this. So whether or not this makes it "better" is not an empirical fact, but rather a matter of political opinion. This point"as pro tries to do with (1) and others"claims this culture is superior. However, this alone is not a convincing argument. Pro has potential to win in other areas, however.

(3) Education
Full disclosure: The sources used in Con"s R3 (abc) was provided by me. Regardless, I will describe why I felt Pro"s arguments here were lacking. Now, Pro"s arguments were convincing on the surface. Putting a ranking on something makes something better. However, as Con noted, these rankings tend to be based upon miniscule differences. These differences are so small that, generally, such differences are immeasurable and likely have no effect on child outcomes in the long run. Con also does something people well versed in statistics love to hear debaters say: margins of error (R3). This is exceedingly important as it conveys data uncertainty. If the bars, say, in a bar graph have overlapping error bars, they are assumed to be the same. If someone says "within the margin of error", in statistics, that means the same. The bar is an average. But as data is uncertain, there is still the possibility"often times a strong one depending on the correlation"that they are equal. This really refutes Pro"s entire case here. Pro cites a pretty ranking, but Con seems to understand how statistics actually work and how they are measured. Pro, in fact, drops this, conceding Con"s rebuttal as true.

(4) Economics
Probably the point of all of these which I have any experience with and can comment on. Con argues the US debt is smaller in comparison to US debt. 71% vs 94%. Con argues US unemployment is lower"something pro drops. Now, I must say Pro could have easily crushed this argument. US unemployment does not count people who dropped out of the workforce as unemployed"Europe does. The US U6 unemployment rate is 11.2%--so higher than Europe"s. But as Pro did not say this, I did not factor it into the decision. So already Pro is losing the argument"at least in part. Con claims the US has a higher wage rate, yet Pro claims Europe has higher minimum wages. Something I thought when I read this is that minimum wages do not relate to *actual* wages, as wages will decrease as minimum wage fires people" And in many cases makes people work part time, so any effect the minimum wage has is minimal or negative. Guess what? Con says this "Minimum Wage =/= Higher Wage." Indeed, *actual* income is higher in the US. Economic growth is also faster in the US. Pro later claims (in response to debt" jumping back here) the *overall* in debt is higher" ok" Something I immediately thought was "um, the US is a bigger country" so we will have bigger debt". This MUST be controlled for, and per-capita debt must be included. As Con"s original statistics do, they control the size of the country by comparing it to % of GDP. So my first concern is met. Con meets my concerns by using external debt and actual debt" Per-capita is never met, though we can assume per capita is higher in the US as we have more debt in total"but, again, Pro couldn"t respond to this. So, I give this point to Con.

(5) Crime
Pro seems to focus on homicide"a specific crime. Con relies on overall crime rates. This is important as other crimes"rape, robbery, etc."harm people. Homicide is arguably the worst, but having an overall higher violent crime rate likely evens this out. Con notes how Europe"s *total* violent crime and rape rates are significantly higher. Pro counters with specific crimes"male rape"but again, who cares about one piece of the pie. We must measure in aggregate. And Con does this. So he wins the point.

(6) Conclusion
Con pretty much wins every point. I am NOT saying Pro did poorly"in fact, she did extremely well. I hope my RFD assists her in the future. Understanding statistics, as Con seems to, is extremely important in a debate like this. I am a very statistical person, so getting the numbers correct is extremely important.

So I vote Con.

This RFD makes sense, but I don"t think it"s fair to take into one"s own knowledge of the statistics or to prefer statistical arguments just because you like them. I also think it was improper to treat Donald"s response that Americans are fat and that"s their fault as a sufficient response to obesity. But overall, a good RFD.

(4) Imabench"s RFD [voted for Donald]

Con is absolutely correct when he says that culture is relative and that politics are relative, so to argue that an entire continent as diverse as Europe is overall superior to the United States is close to an impossible burden of proof to meet, and pro did not meet that burden of proof, for every point she introduced showing that Europe was better in some aspect than the US, con would produce a point suggesting otherwise. The evident outcome is that while both sides have their strengths and weaknesses, there is by far no clear indicator that suggests one side is superior to the other, so i have to award argument points to con since pro did not meet the BoP which was nearly impossible to meet in the first place. Conduct to pro though because con posted all of his sources in a separate link to conserve character space and i f***ing hate it when people do that, and its a rather cheap tactic to use. Great debate though, HoF nominee easily

This RFD doesn"t even mention the economics arguments. It awards the win to Donald on BOP alone. It ignores all the objective arguments Emil made, like education. Noting the subjectivity aspect was only *one part* of whiteflame"s and my RFD"s. You"ll notice most of our analysis focused on the rest of the debate, but Imabench"s RFD ignores this. So I agree with his analysis on politics and culture, but it gives the rest of the debate -- where most of the more important arguments were made -- short shrift.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2015 10:44:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
(5) Paleophyte"s RFD [Voted for Donald]

Sources and spelling/grammar were good for both sides. Conduct was a little rough on both sides. Arguments go to Con by a slim margin. As Con pointed out, the resolution is Europe vs the USA, not individual European nations or cities. Despite this contention from Con, Pro continued to present arguments based on individual European nations in spite of her own definition: "By "Europe", I mean the European continent." IMO, Con missed an opportunity to drive this home by not using unflattering comparison of e.g.: civil liberties in certain Eastern European nations vs US.

This RFD basically ignores all of Emil"s points under the guise that they only mentioned some European countries. It ignores all the aggregate comparisons, like education, health, culture, etc. It really doesn"t explain why Donald had better arguments. It just explains why *some of* Emil"s arguments were unpersuasive, and doesn"t mention Donald"s contentions at all.

(6) Beagle_Hugs RFD [Voted for Donald]

Ultimately, even though Pro was more articulate than Con, neither side was very convincing. I tied the sources because there were flaws in bias for both and in what I believe is following rules for con. I had to vote for the Con regarding his arguments. Even though most of his arguments were unconvincing and I think at times not factual, he made several arguments that the Pro attempted to sweep under the carpet rather than respond to, such as the need to take Europe and the US as wholes, the problem of preferences, and flaws in data. In fact, the Pro's articulate arguments still contained numerous factual misstatements or questionable attempts at implying counterfactual statements, such as misstating the reality with respect to gay marriage and presenting death penalty facts in a way that I felt was misleading.

This RFD misses all the major points brought up by both sides. Besides the last sentence, it talks in such generalities that I couldn"t tell until the last line if it even read the RFD. Not good.

(7) Commondebater"s RFD [Voted for Emil]

Ok, so overall this debate was done amazing by both sides. However, the arguments go to pro for some reasons. The first thing is, con failed to see how this entire debate is regarding Europe as a continent. This was pretty clear and it also stated in the resolution (as well as the title) how Europe is being identified as a continent. Furthermore, Con dropped many of Pro's claims by simply stating them as an opinion. (Con misspelled opinion leading to loss in Spelling and grammar) Pro kept making points, however con kept denying them because they were "opinions" or they were intrinsic. Con struck down the economical argument however I actually disagree with con how just because its the people's choice means an invalid argument. I mean the industry in America and the society can be a major contributor to decisions. Looking over the sources, I feel like the sources were more beneficial towards pro than of cons.

This RFD ignores all the economics points. Basically it ignores all of Donald"s offense. For that reason, it really makes sense. And the sources vote is bogus too. Why were sources more beneficial for Emil. Both sides used sources, and if anything, Donald used the more effectively by parsing Emil"s sources to prove that the effects were small (e.g. only 3% worse on education).

(8) Yoshindo"s RFD [voted for Emil]

Most convincing arguments goes to pro. Pro made many valid claims that shewed that Europe is indeed superior to the US. Con copped out calling many of these claims irrelevant and "oppinion." Although naturally this debate required much opinion, pro used the opinion of the majority consensus, thus justifying it, acausing these opinions to bear much relevance, which con failed to see. The debate was concerning Europe as a continent, which naturally requires statistics from many of the countries of Europe to represent the continent as a whole. Overall, pro did a fine job of providing many statistics to support her claim, and con was unable to properly debunk the many points made by pro. Sources also goes to pro. Pro used a total of 15 different valid sources, while con used only two sources. One of these two sources was Wikipedia, wich is not considered a ver reliable source because it's information can be easily changed.

This RFD also ignores all of Donald"s offense in terms of economics and crime. It"s like the entire debate came down to the fact that the U.S. has a death penalty and Europe doesn"t. That seems silly. And this RFD lied about sources: Donald did cite a lot of sources other than just two. This RFD wins *second worst RFD of the week* for completely lying about sources.

(9) NoMagic"s RFD [voted for Emil]

Con tries to claim culture as subjective. Pro gets around this by citing statistics within culture that provides evidence that Europe has better culture. Con thinks low taxes are a plus. I don't think this is the case. Low taxes mean low investment within ones own nation. I've driven the autobahn, fantastic road paid for by higher taxes. U.S. decaying infrastructure because of low taxes. Low taxes aren't positive, unless you live in a selfish nation. U.S. is a selfish nation, that isn't positive. Both argued well. Pro wins some points. And I've lived in both. Europe is superior to the U.S. and it isn't close. I'm also giving Pro a slight source advantage.

This RFD basically admits that it voted on NoMagic"s own personal opinion because he lives in Europe and thinks the U.S. is a "selfish nation." He advances his own arguments on taxes. And he says Pro cited "statistics" on culture, but I don"t get how you quantify culture. I don"t remember Emil citing some sort of quantification proving that Europe ranks superior on measures of "culture." This sounds like bs. This vote also doesn"t explain its sources vote. It sounds like a strategic vote. It wins *worst RFD of the week* for voting solely off bias and using an argument point vote strategically.

(10) Shadowguynick"s RFD [Voted for Emil]

Cons arguments on health impacts outweighed pros argument for money. From there the rest of the debate was pretty even. Con had some good points about money and indivdual countiries but overall, pro was able to make a case for an objective negative impact in the US when compared to the US in regards to health. To be honest he kept trying to shift the debate in a somewhat unfair way to Pro.. This debate has gotten out of hand..

This sounds like a parrotting of Mikal"s RFD, and we know Mikal was PMing people how to vote. I really don"t see how fat people outweighs a vastly superior economy.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2015 11:32:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/20/2015 10:44:11 PM, bluesteel wrote:
(9) NoMagic"s RFD [voted for Emil]

Con tries to claim culture as subjective. Pro gets around this by citing statistics within culture that provides evidence that Europe has better culture. Con thinks low taxes are a plus. I don't think this is the case. Low taxes mean low investment within ones own nation. I've driven the autobahn, fantastic road paid for by higher taxes. U.S. decaying infrastructure because of low taxes. Low taxes aren't positive, unless you live in a selfish nation. U.S. is a selfish nation, that isn't positive. Both argued well. Pro wins some points. And I've lived in both. Europe is superior to the U.S. and it isn't close. I'm also giving Pro a slight source advantage.

This RFD basically admits that it voted on NoMagic"s own personal opinion because he lives in Europe and thinks the U.S. is a "selfish nation." He advances his own arguments on taxes. And he says Pro cited "statistics" on culture, but I don"t get how you quantify culture. I don"t remember Emil citing some sort of quantification proving that Europe ranks superior on measures of "culture." This sounds like bs. This vote also doesn"t explain its sources vote. It sounds like a strategic vote. It wins *worst RFD of the week* for voting solely off bias and using an argument point vote strategically.

Don't forget that he invented a (kind of stupid) argument to award taxes.
"Con thinks low taxes are a plus. I don't think this is the case. Low taxes mean low investment within ones own nation."

Not only did Pro never make that argument at all, Pro flat out dropped Taxes first round they were up.

(10) Shadowguynick"s RFD [Voted for Emil]

Cons arguments on health impacts outweighed pros argument for money. From there the rest of the debate was pretty even. Con had some good points about money and indivdual countiries but overall, pro was able to make a case for an objective negative impact in the US when compared to the US in regards to health. To be honest he kept trying to shift the debate in a somewhat unfair way to Pro.. This debate has gotten out of hand..

This sounds like a parrotting of Mikal"s RFD, and we know Mikal was PMing people how to vote. I really don"t see how fat people outweighs a vastly superior economy.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2015 11:45:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Another good one, bluesteel. I appreciate the feedback, wasn't really sure how to weigh arguments so I just did it in the most basic way I could think of. To be sure, I might have given more points to some arguments in the process.
Unitomic
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 1:46:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I would like to point out that the person who says that the US infrastructure is bad forgot to mention that: 1) The US has just as much (if not more) infrastructure (with much smaller population), and has been repairing much of it lately. And 2) Europes Infrastructure is mostly newer. This is because alot was destroyed in WWII, and the US Marshal Plan (and USSR) basically helped rebuild alot of it. The US' lower tax rate paid for it's infrastructure and much of Europes. So US gets that win.l
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 2:52:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/21/2015 1:46:32 AM, Unitomic wrote:
I would like to point out that the person who says that the US infrastructure is bad forgot to mention that: 1) The US has just as much (if not more) infrastructure (with much smaller population), and has been repairing much of it lately. And 2) Europes Infrastructure is mostly newer. This is because alot was destroyed in WWII, and the US Marshal Plan (and USSR) basically helped rebuild alot of it. The US' lower tax rate paid for it's infrastructure and much of Europes. So US gets that win.l

Well not really. In reality, yes, you're right, but in terms of the debate if Europe is only better because of the US then she still wins as they are better--regardless the source.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Unitomic
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 8:32:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/21/2015 2:52:35 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/21/2015 1:46:32 AM, Unitomic wrote:
I would like to point out that the person who says that the US infrastructure is bad forgot to mention that: 1) The US has just as much (if not more) infrastructure (with much smaller population), and has been repairing much of it lately. And 2) Europes Infrastructure is mostly newer. This is because alot was destroyed in WWII, and the US Marshal Plan (and USSR) basically helped rebuild alot of it. The US' lower tax rate paid for it's infrastructure and much of Europes. So US gets that win.l

Well not really. In reality, yes, you're right, but in terms of the debate if Europe is only better because of the US then she still wins as they are better--regardless the source.

Regardless of the source? The source is very important.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 8:41:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/21/2015 8:32:12 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 2/21/2015 2:52:35 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/21/2015 1:46:32 AM, Unitomic wrote:
I would like to point out that the person who says that the US infrastructure is bad forgot to mention that: 1) The US has just as much (if not more) infrastructure (with much smaller population), and has been repairing much of it lately. And 2) Europes Infrastructure is mostly newer. This is because alot was destroyed in WWII, and the US Marshal Plan (and USSR) basically helped rebuild alot of it. The US' lower tax rate paid for it's infrastructure and much of Europes. So US gets that win.l

Well not really. In reality, yes, you're right, but in terms of the debate if Europe is only better because of the US then she still wins as they are better--regardless the source.

Regardless of the source? The source is very important.

In reality, yes, not in terms of the debate.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Unitomic
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 8:43:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/21/2015 8:41:38 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/21/2015 8:32:12 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 2/21/2015 2:52:35 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/21/2015 1:46:32 AM, Unitomic wrote:
I would like to point out that the person who says that the US infrastructure is bad forgot to mention that: 1) The US has just as much (if not more) infrastructure (with much smaller population), and has been repairing much of it lately. And 2) Europes Infrastructure is mostly newer. This is because alot was destroyed in WWII, and the US Marshal Plan (and USSR) basically helped rebuild alot of it. The US' lower tax rate paid for it's infrastructure and much of Europes. So US gets that win.l

Well not really. In reality, yes, you're right, but in terms of the debate if Europe is only better because of the US then she still wins as they are better--regardless the source.

Regardless of the source? The source is very important.

In reality, yes, not in terms of the debate.

How is it not relevant in the debate?
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 8:56:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/21/2015 8:43:50 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 2/21/2015 8:41:38 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/21/2015 8:32:12 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 2/21/2015 2:52:35 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/21/2015 1:46:32 AM, Unitomic wrote:
I would like to point out that the person who says that the US infrastructure is bad forgot to mention that: 1) The US has just as much (if not more) infrastructure (with much smaller population), and has been repairing much of it lately. And 2) Europes Infrastructure is mostly newer. This is because alot was destroyed in WWII, and the US Marshal Plan (and USSR) basically helped rebuild alot of it. The US' lower tax rate paid for it's infrastructure and much of Europes. So US gets that win.l

Well not really. In reality, yes, you're right, but in terms of the debate if Europe is only better because of the US then she still wins as they are better--regardless the source.

Regardless of the source? The source is very important.

In reality, yes, not in terms of the debate.

How is it not relevant in the debate?

The debate was whether or not Europe was superior, which heavily relates to standard of living. Even if the U.S. helped prop up the institutions EU uses for prosperity, their standard of living is higher. It really does not help Con much.

He won, don't get me wrong. But that point alone isn't very strong.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 9:25:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/21/2015 8:43:50 PM, Unitomic wrote:

How is it not relevant in the debate?

I agree with 16K. Even if Europe is only awesome because of the Marshall Plan, if it is currently better than the U.S., Emil would have won. It doesn't really matter who built the infrastructure, if it is there.

If your argument works, then Europe is better because the U.S. wouldn't have existed without England... We also got so many things from them, like our court system. This "origins" argument just doesn't make sense.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)