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

RFD thread

fire_wings
Posts: 5,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2016 6:00:51 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
I'm tired of RFD threads here and there. So, from now on, this will be a RFD thread for all debates.

Rules

Write the debate resolution, the people who debate, and the link, then post your RFD. Do Part 1, Part 2, to make things easier.

Now, go, go, go!
#ALLHAILFIRETHEKINGOFTHEMISCFORUM

...it's not a new policy... it's just that DDO was built on an ancient burial ground, and that means the spirits of old rise again to cause us problems sometimes- Airmax1227

Wtf you must have an IQ of 250 if you're 11 and already decent at this- 16k

Go to sleep!!!!- missmozart

So to start off, I never committed suicide- Vaarka
fire_wings
Posts: 5,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2016 9:18:20 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
RFD: Dog Fighting Should Be Legal

Danielle (Pro) v.s. ThinkBig (Con)


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

This is quite easy vote.

Danielle argues that people eat meat, therefore there is animal abuse, and there is horse fighting, and it is legal, horses are used to go around, and animals in zoos, so Danielle says why not dog fighting.

ThinkBig argues that Dog fighting harms the community, makes kids have violence, and dog fighting makes other crimes. The moral status of animals is not explained a lot, so I can't really address this argument because it is not full. ThinkBig says that Danielle's arguments aren't connected to the resolution

Danielle forfeits.

Danielle rebuts ThinkBig's argument on moral status on animals, and ThinkBig concedes this argument, so there is no point in addressing it. Danielle says that we can trust kids to not look at these, as violent movies also. Danielle says that other crimes is wrong because dog fighting is currently illegal.

ThinkBig says that Danielle failed to defend that she was off-topic. ThinkBig says that he agrees to ban meat, it is not the resolution, evolution made us humans eat meat, and meat helps us grow. ThinkBig says that he does know why animals working is animal abuse, and I agree this.

ThinkBig posts his defense. I will evaluate this, because Danielle did not make her chance to do so when ThinkBig did a little and very vague rebuttal. ThinkBig drops his first contention. ThinkBig says that video games are fake, and this fighting is real, and it is different, so it cannot be weighed.

THE OUTCOME

Danielle's contention's are refuted, as she argued for another topic basically, she mostly argued about animal rights, and animal abuse (if it was that debate, your case would be awesome). ThinkBig argued about the topic. ThinkBig rebutted Danielle's contentions, when Danielle failed to refute the second argument of Pro's, of the children part, and the illegal activities. Danielle puts bare assertions in her rebuttals. Danielle fails to defend her arguments when she had the chance, and ThinkBig did have the chance. Though that conduct wasn't nice, not enough to give a conduct point for Danielle. Danielle forfeited, so conduct goes to ThinkBig. Therefore, I vote Con, and I hope all voters does the same.
#ALLHAILFIRETHEKINGOFTHEMISCFORUM

...it's not a new policy... it's just that DDO was built on an ancient burial ground, and that means the spirits of old rise again to cause us problems sometimes- Airmax1227

Wtf you must have an IQ of 250 if you're 11 and already decent at this- 16k

Go to sleep!!!!- missmozart

So to start off, I never committed suicide- Vaarka
fire_wings
Posts: 5,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2016 9:18:46 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
Conclusion

Therefore, arguments and conduct to Con.
#ALLHAILFIRETHEKINGOFTHEMISCFORUM

...it's not a new policy... it's just that DDO was built on an ancient burial ground, and that means the spirits of old rise again to cause us problems sometimes- Airmax1227

Wtf you must have an IQ of 250 if you're 11 and already decent at this- 16k

Go to sleep!!!!- missmozart

So to start off, I never committed suicide- Vaarka
fire_wings
Posts: 5,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2016 9:29:27 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
Feedback

ThinkBig said it was okay to give feedback, so I will do.

Danielle- I liked it when I first read your arguments. If they were connected, and if you connected it, it would have been a strong case. You did not connect it, so it was off-topic. And, rebut everything in the round. Never forfeit

ThinkBig- If you don't have time, that is your fault. We can't do anything for you. It is your responsibility to make your arguments, even if you don't have time. And don't just drop contentions, explain a bit at least.
#ALLHAILFIRETHEKINGOFTHEMISCFORUM

...it's not a new policy... it's just that DDO was built on an ancient burial ground, and that means the spirits of old rise again to cause us problems sometimes- Airmax1227

Wtf you must have an IQ of 250 if you're 11 and already decent at this- 16k

Go to sleep!!!!- missmozart

So to start off, I never committed suicide- Vaarka
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 3:02:39 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/15/2016 9:18:20 PM, fire_wings wrote:

You just restated what Danielle said and ThinkBig said in the debate with respect to the societal harms contention.

ThinkBig's first argument was access to children. Danielle argued that dog-fighting can be *conditionally* legalized by banning access of dog-fighting matches to children. ThinkBig addresses the tangential point about video games without addressing the substance here.

ThinkBig's second argument was that illegal activities take place in dog-fighting rings, which Danielle successfully refuted by showing that when it is legal and *regulated* illegal activities won't take place. ThinkBig completely dropped this response.

That leaves the arguments from (1) liberty and (2) happiness from Danielle and nothing from ThinkBig.

Your RFD doesn't even address Danielle's point about banning access of dog-fighting matches to children, and you completely fail to explain how ThinkBig won illegal activities either.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
fire_wings
Posts: 5,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 3:08:30 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/16/2016 3:02:39 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/15/2016 9:18:20 PM, fire_wings wrote:

You just restated what Danielle said and ThinkBig said in the debate with respect to the societal harms contention.

ThinkBig's first argument was access to children. Danielle argued that dog-fighting can be *conditionally* legalized by banning access of dog-fighting matches to children. ThinkBig addresses the tangential point about video games without addressing the substance here.

ThinkBig was saying that kids don't follow the rules too, and Danielle didn't defend that.


ThinkBig's second argument was that illegal activities take place in dog-fighting rings, which Danielle successfully refuted by showing that when it is legal and *regulated* illegal activities won't take place. ThinkBig completely dropped this response.

That leaves the arguments from (1) liberty and (2) happiness from Danielle and nothing from ThinkBig.

ThinkBig rebutted them.


Your RFD doesn't even address Danielle's point about banning access of dog-fighting matches to children, and you completely fail to explain how ThinkBig won illegal activities either.
#ALLHAILFIRETHEKINGOFTHEMISCFORUM

...it's not a new policy... it's just that DDO was built on an ancient burial ground, and that means the spirits of old rise again to cause us problems sometimes- Airmax1227

Wtf you must have an IQ of 250 if you're 11 and already decent at this- 16k

Go to sleep!!!!- missmozart

So to start off, I never committed suicide- Vaarka
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 3:10:59 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/16/2016 3:08:30 PM, fire_wings wrote:
ThinkBig was saying that kids don't follow the rules too, and Danielle didn't defend that.

No, ThinkBig didn't say that. It's not there in the debate.

ThinkBig rebutted them.

Where? He just *weighed* those points against his own.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
fire_wings
Posts: 5,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 3:12:08 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/16/2016 3:10:59 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/16/2016 3:08:30 PM, fire_wings wrote:
ThinkBig was saying that kids don't follow the rules too, and Danielle didn't defend that.

No, ThinkBig didn't say that. It's not there in the debate.

ThinkBig rebutted them.

Where? He just *weighed* those points against his own.

Let's have this discussion later.
#ALLHAILFIRETHEKINGOFTHEMISCFORUM

...it's not a new policy... it's just that DDO was built on an ancient burial ground, and that means the spirits of old rise again to cause us problems sometimes- Airmax1227

Wtf you must have an IQ of 250 if you're 11 and already decent at this- 16k

Go to sleep!!!!- missmozart

So to start off, I never committed suicide- Vaarka
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 4:22:04 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
Thanks for your vote, fire.

I argued that if we accept the concept of animal rights, eating meat would have to be banned and so would animal testing. Con would have to defend why both animal testing (which provides useful scientific research) and eating meat (which people rely on) are immoral. My opponent failed to do this and you did not mention this in your RFD.

I mentioned that animals don't have rights. We can BUY animals, SELL animals and OWN animals like commodities. My opponent did not respond to this and you dropped it in your RFD. I also mentioned that we can enslave pets. This, too, was dropped.

My opponent literally conceded the point on animal rights. This was probably the most important contention in the entire debate, and Con dropped it. I used multiple philosophers to explain why animals don't have rights. I also posted a logic syllogism that explains why animals don't have rights. If animals don't have rights then the resolution is already 1/2 affirmed.

My opponent completely dropped my point on the crime surrounding dog fighting being related to the entire enterprise being illegal. Your RFD (and David's) is pretty undeniably terrible, but I appreciate the vote. I'll let the RFD judges decide if this is fair but lol this is the most biased and shoddy vote I've seen in a long time. Con dropped the vast majority of my arguments, conceded the most important one and just repeated his own arguments which I refuted.

Please don't ask me to vote on your debates anymore if you're going to retaliate with unsubstantiated vote bombs.
President of DDO
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 4:46:26 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/16/2016 4:22:04 PM, Danielle wrote:
Thanks for your vote, fire.

I argued that if we accept the concept of animal rights, eating meat would have to be banned and so would animal testing. Con would have to defend why both animal testing (which provides useful scientific research) and eating meat (which people rely on) are immoral. My opponent failed to do this and you did not mention this in your RFD.

I mentioned that animals don't have rights. We can BUY animals, SELL animals and OWN animals like commodities. My opponent did not respond to this and you dropped it in your RFD. I also mentioned that we can enslave pets. This, too, was dropped.

I did think you won, but this point was severely under-explained since it extrapolated from "we do abuse animals" to "we should be allowed to abuse animals." In fact, Con pointed that out, saying if meat-eating posed a net harm to society inclusive of animals, they would be fine with banning it.

Please don't ask me to vote on your debates anymore if you're going to retaliate with unsubstantiated vote bombs.

I agree that fire's votes tend to be poor.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 4:47:03 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
Also, I'm glad that I'm not the only one left critiquing this RFD.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 8:45:45 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/15/2016 6:00:51 PM, fire_wings wrote:
I'm tired of RFD threads here and there. So, from now on, this will be a RFD thread for all debates.

Rules

Write the debate resolution, the people who debate, and the link, then post your RFD. Do Part 1, Part 2, to make things easier.

Now, go, go, go!

This is probably a completely unnecessary post but since I have spare time, I'll just talk about why this isn't a good idea (just in case, some weird thing happens and suddenly everyone decides to use this thread to post their RFDs - they won't but still).

1. Having separate threads for each RFD make them more easily accessible. Are you really going to look at post #348 to find your RFD?

2. Having separate threads keeps them tidier and limits discussion to the topic at hand.

3. You getting tired of the RFD threads doesn't reflect everyone else's views. In fact, RFD threads are excellent and a great way to get around the character limit in the vote box. They are a whole lot better than comments too since comments get buried.

So, no. I won't use this thread. I'll create a separate thread for each of my RFDs. Normally, I'd do this in the Miscellaneous forum, but because bsh1 replies to every RFD in the main forum with "this should be in the misc section" as if the site belongs to him, I'll do my next RFD in the main DDO forum to annoy him.
fire_wings
Posts: 5,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 10:02:37 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/16/2016 4:22:04 PM, Danielle wrote:
Thanks for your vote, fire.

I argued that if we accept the concept of animal rights, eating meat would have to be banned and so would animal testing. Con would have to defend why both animal testing (which provides useful scientific research) and eating meat (which people rely on) are immoral. My opponent failed to do this and you did not mention this in your RFD.

I mentioned that animals don't have rights. We can BUY animals, SELL animals and OWN animals like commodities. My opponent did not respond to this and you dropped it in your RFD. I also mentioned that we can enslave pets. This, too, was dropped.

I agree with you, animals do not have rights, but that wasn't the topic about the debate.


My opponent literally conceded the point on animal rights. This was probably the most important contention in the entire debate, and Con dropped it. I used multiple philosophers to explain why animals don't have rights. I also posted a logic syllogism that explains why animals don't have rights. If animals don't have rights then the resolution is already 1/2 affirmed.

Animal rights was not the topic


My opponent completely dropped my point on the crime surrounding dog fighting being related to the entire enterprise being illegal. Your RFD (and David's) is pretty undeniably terrible, but I appreciate the vote. I'll let the RFD judges decide if this is fair but lol this is the most biased and shoddy vote I've seen in a long time. Con dropped the vast majority of my arguments, conceded the most important one and just repeated his own arguments which I refuted.

I was in a big rush when I posted this RFD, I was in my phone, in a taxi. Later tomorrow, I'll extend it more, if that is fine for you.


Please don't ask me to vote on your debates anymore if you're going to retaliate with unsubstantiated vote bombs.
#ALLHAILFIRETHEKINGOFTHEMISCFORUM

...it's not a new policy... it's just that DDO was built on an ancient burial ground, and that means the spirits of old rise again to cause us problems sometimes- Airmax1227

Wtf you must have an IQ of 250 if you're 11 and already decent at this- 16k

Go to sleep!!!!- missmozart

So to start off, I never committed suicide- Vaarka
fire_wings
Posts: 5,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 10:05:48 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/16/2016 4:22:04 PM, Danielle wrote:
Thanks for your vote, fire.

I argued that if we accept the concept of animal rights, eating meat would have to be banned and so would animal testing. Con would have to defend why both animal testing (which provides useful scientific research) and eating meat (which people rely on) are immoral. My opponent failed to do this and you did not mention this in your RFD.

I mentioned that animals don't have rights. We can BUY animals, SELL animals and OWN animals like commodities. My opponent did not respond to this and you dropped it in your RFD. I also mentioned that we can enslave pets. This, too, was dropped.

My opponent literally conceded the point on animal rights. This was probably the most important contention in the entire debate, and Con dropped it. I used multiple philosophers to explain why animals don't have rights. I also posted a logic syllogism that explains why animals don't have rights. If animals don't have rights then the resolution is already 1/2 affirmed.

My opponent completely dropped my point on the crime surrounding dog fighting being related to the entire enterprise being illegal. Your RFD (and David's) is pretty undeniably terrible, but I appreciate the vote. I'll let the RFD judges decide if this is fair but lol this is the most biased and shoddy vote I've seen in a long time. Con dropped the vast majority of my arguments, conceded the most important one and just repeated his own arguments which I refuted.

Please don't ask me to vote on your debates anymore if you're going to retaliate with unsubstantiated vote bombs.

Actually, I agree that you won this debate. I read it over again, because it is quite short, I voted Con because I forgot to read two of your paragraphs, about the illegal things of Con's arguments, and one of your arguments. I'm gonna vote for you, and I'll do that tomorrow.
#ALLHAILFIRETHEKINGOFTHEMISCFORUM

...it's not a new policy... it's just that DDO was built on an ancient burial ground, and that means the spirits of old rise again to cause us problems sometimes- Airmax1227

Wtf you must have an IQ of 250 if you're 11 and already decent at this- 16k

Go to sleep!!!!- missmozart

So to start off, I never committed suicide- Vaarka
Jerry947
Posts: 777
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2016 10:40:14 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
RFD for debate:

USFG should ban abortion debate:

Arguments-

1. Pro argues that the fetus is a living human being. He also shows that there is no doubt that a human zygote is alive. Then Pro goes on to show that the only people that really disagree with that fact are philosophers that aren"t experts in the field.

Con agrees with this point.

2. Pro uses the Declaration of Independence and other sources to show that all humans have the right to life.

Con tries to refute this by showing that the mother has a right to bodily autonomy. Pro shows that the fetus would have this same right negating Con"s point. Con also fails to establish why the fetus wouldn"t have that same right even if it is still in the womb of the mother.

3. Con argues that back alley abortions are a problem but Pro refutes this by showing that it isn"t as big of a problem a it is made out to be. That said, Con notes that her argument was just to show that these abortions will happen regardless of what the USFG says. This however does not give any reason to legalize abortion. Pro points out that "By Con"s logic, we should reinstate slavery as a legal institution which no pro-choice advocate I know advocates for."

This is a good point. Just because something will happen illegally, this does not mean that the action should be legalized.

4. Pro also states that "Although, the female"s right to bodily autonomy was violated in cases of rape and incest, in what way does this justify violating the rights of the unborn to life and bodily autonomy?"

Con responds by saying that "If a woman decides to keep and raise the child, she may have difficulty accepting it, and both mother and child face ostracism in some societies."

Pro then points out that this debate isn"t about other societies.

5. Con says that the fetus will be used for stem cell research and Pro points out that the research can be done without fetuses.

6. Con then says that "Fetuses arguably do not have the right to life, specifically as it pertains to mandating the use of the mother's body to survive. We do not recognize the right to life in other humans such as those in vegetative states, etc."

This point is crucial to the debate. If it is true that fetuses do not have the right to life, then abortion should of course be allowed. But if Pro is correct, then abortion should not be allowed since the fetuses do have the right to life.

Pro responds by saying that "The 14th Amendment doesn"t grant these rights to animals and plants but persons. The United Nations which the United States agreed to be a part of while also agreeing to uphold the rights that the UN defines, only extends such rights to humans."

In other words, all humans have the right to life. And since Con never disputed those documents, this point goes to Pro as well.

Pro consistently demolished Con"s arguments and there is no reason at all to accept anything Con argued. The arguments made for abortion in this debate were incredibly weak and Pro on the other hand really thought things out.