reply to post by MemoryShock
I trust that everyone will forgive me if I vent some bitterness over my loss.
ATS now has a debate champion who advanced to the final round because all three of his previous opponents abandoned their debates. And during his
debate with me, he broke three separate debate rules: he failed to eet the time requirements, he quoted beyond the allowable limit, and he failed to
respond to two of my socratic questions.
That aside, reading over the judges' comments, I'm basically left with the impression that my side of this topic was unwinnable. The victor was the
one the judges already agreed with, and the quality of the debate itself was not a large factor.
what the heck was that immune system/bacterial infection blame game about anyway?
It was a metaphor being used to attempt to establish culpability. Early on, KJ attempted to suggest...basically...that pharmaceutical companies were
not to blame for the problems they create, because the regulatory environment allows them to get away with it. Like you yourself point out, this was a
pretty weak argument. This was handled in the debate, by both of us, via metaphor.
LordBucket doesn't adequately develop the idea that pharmaceutical
companies are behind society's quick-fix mentality
I'm sorry. What should I have ommited
to make room for that? Should I have left KJ's points about vaccines unanswered? Should I have not
wasted my time pointing out when he blatantly contradicted himself? I'm not sure if you noticed, but pretty much every post was within 10 characters
of the allowable limit. I was down to removing commas. In some cases my original draft was as much as 5000 characters over, and round two in
particular had fourteen links
in it, before I spent the hours it took to prune things down to meet the guidelines. Something that KJ didn't
bother to do.
So I apologize if I didn't "adequetly develop" this one particular point you'd have liked to see more of. But try to understand that KJ was able
to casually toss out "oh, AIDS." And "Oh, vaccines." And, "Oh, diabetes." Things like that couldn't just be ignored. It took a lot of hours and
several thousands of characters to respond to those things, and issues of common knowledge involving the lives and deaths of millions of people seemed
more important to address than trying to find a way to justify attributing the "quick fix" mentality to pharmaceutical companies.
KrazyJethro's closing was much stronger than LordBucket's
Were you really
that impessed when he responded to the environmental toxicity issue, which was established from the beginning as
a major factor in the debate, by his casual dismisal that "This has been disputed." ? Were you really that impressed when he ignored three separate
corroborative links by simply repeating his dismissal with the claim that there was no evidence, despite the fact that I had already cited a source
explaining why, and despite the fact that he never responded to my socratic question asking him to justify himself?
Were you really that impressed when he dismissed the fact that the US is ranked 46th on infant mortality by writing it off as a result of premature
birth, despite acknowledging that nobody seems to know why
that would be and failing to provide any evidence of his position at all?
Were you really that impressed when he dismissed my cited and sourced points about vaccines, by broadly claiming that there are a lot of anti-vaccine
No. You weren't. Be honest. His closing was not strong. He simply said what you expected to hear. After totally and abysmally failing up tp that
point in the debate, after blatantly ignoring my points on toxicity for several posts, contradicting himself, and giving several examples that were
contrary to his own points...he concluded by casually stating what you personally believe and you awarded him the win for it.
did concede a few points to his opponent by limiting his position by not considering
that "a cure" may not always be the intent of those seeking medication.
In what way would it have benefitted my position to draw attention to that? In what way are pharmaceutical companies made to look bad by pointing out
that people might genuinely want the benefits they provide?
Unlike KJ, who opened by talking about how bad these companies are, it wasn't my intent to argue in favor of my opponent's position. You say that I
"concede a few points" for not acknowledging that those who seek medication may be seeking something other than a cure. Would you honestly
have "awarded me those points back" if I'd drawn attention to the fact that people might genuinely want pain relief and that pharmaceuticals give
I don't think you would have.
didn't concede many points to his opponent and the few that were, were later clarified
Really? He opened the debate by describing pharmaceutical companies as terrible and acknowledging that they perpetrate crimes. The only point that he
"didn't concede" was when I pointed out that he contradicted his own statements between rounds one and two. So, by way of metaphor:
All apples are red.
What about granny smith apples?
There are green apples.
So, you just contradicted yourself. Do you want to retract that first statement?
No, I'll stand by what I said.
How exactly is that a strong position? Are you seriously admiring his devotion
to his position, instead of acknowledging that he blatantly
LordBucket simply takes the standard rants about the industry
"Standard rants?" Wow. Biased much?
LB's responses get very weak during the second round and he
flounders from one accusation to the other
The only way I can reconcile that with reality is that the judge here went into this agreeing with KJ's position, and anything I could have said, any
source I could have cited would have fallen on deaf ears. Fact is, I spent nine hours
doing the reseach for that second round.
Here is the post
. Show me the floundering. I open by pointing out the KJ
is using a logical fallacy. I continue by pointing out that KJ is contradicting his own statements. I proceed to respond to his points on vaccines. I
then ask socratic questions which KJ fails to ever respond to. And I close by returning to my original premise.
Where is the floundering? Oh, I'm sorry...my side was just a "standard rant" and the nine hours I spent doing research for that post were totally
eventually gets a little personal.
...I'm sorry. Were you confused
about who was posting when KrazyJethro made the snarky comment about courtesy being dead when I didn't
accomodate his failure to meet the posting deadline? Or am I to believe that you were so terribly offended by my comment that KJ was trying to
distance himself from a "foolish claim" when he blatantly contradicted himself between rounds one and two?
KJ contradicts his own position, LB calls him foolish for it...and KJ is judged to be the better debator because LB got personal? Seriously? If
calling someone foolish for contradicting themselves is more damning than contradicting your own statements
, then I clearly misunderstood the
purpose of the debate, and it was a waste of time for me to take it seriously.
LordBucket presents some damaging evidence of corporate wrongdoing and KrazyJethro's argument that much of the blame for that should rest on a lax
regulatory environment is less than completely compelling. LordBucket is also more persuasive on the environmental issues, but not enough so to
convince me that these problems override the benefits to the overall health of society of pharmaceuticals.
I think this pretty much summarizes KJ's win. Even if my performance was better, even if I presented damning evidence that KJ didn't respond well
to, even if I was "more persuasive," the fact is that all judges went into this already agreeing with his position, and they left still agreeing
LordBucket is also more persuasive
but not enough so to convince me
The purpose of this debate was not
to convince you.
If you're judging the debate based on what you personally believe at the end of it, instead of on the quality of the performance by the debators,
then I'm sorry...but you're doing it wrong, and this whole debate has been a toss-up of wins by who gets which side of which topic.
Was there anything I could possibly have said
, that would have "convinced you" personally, one way or another on this topic?
I feel my performance was better. I did the research. I took the time. I framed the debate. I responded to KJ's points. I formatted my posts better
than he did. And I didn't contradict myself, and I didn't break any rules.
But KJ was given the win.
Oh well. I guess that's just how it is.
Thank you for listening to me vent bitterness. I intended to win this. And I think I deserved the win. But I didn't. Life will go on.