Continuing on to round 2,
Carleas continues to reinforce what he views as what should be the focus of the metaphor. That it needs to say more than just humans are captive to other humans, providing a warning to Hahahha to be wary of taking such a route. Carleas concedes that humans can make other “means” to ends, but without making “livestock” of them, or rather each other. In such, Carleas does now take on Hahaha’s “artifice of human heirachy” by stating we humans can benefit from each other, however livestock cannot. In so much as making the analogy we are all farmers as much as livestock, and notes it is a very different situation of livestock. A compelling argument from my view - it is up to Hahaha to counter this or he will lose a point for his case.
Carleas continues like livestock, we must eat, but we can choose where we get our feed unlike livestock. Another distinction that coincides with Careleas initial argument of “agency”. Unlike livestock humans have the agency to decide whether or not to participate. As judge, I would say that is true, but livestock simply do not have the physical capability to effectively commit suicide. I would consider this point to be trivial and a non issue for the sake of Carleas stance. Nonetheless it does not take away from his greater argument, it just doesn’t add to it. Human’s are very much more capable than livestock we know this, I would not suspect our capabilities to be the reason for the metaphor, and as such would be a reason to counter the metaphor. It was not a reason that Hahaha provided as well. Carleas then makes the point that we depend on each other, which is why we cannot establish that we are all livestock (please note ALL of us being incorporated here. This was never made clear earlier, as such it should be seen that we are in a debate that all humans are livestock, not just some, as that distinction was not yet made). Carleas’ rebuttal here is fairly on point.
Hahaha opens his second reply by stating we are not talking about captivity of stones - and I would agree we are not. Hahaha seems to effectively counter Carleas’ submission that because humans are more capable naturally, that they have more agency. I would agree here that this shouldn’t be a factor for the metaphor - but agency of what each are capable of naturally is, and if that natural agency is taken away by artificial means. Hahaha does go ahead and counter Carleas point by asking for proof that we choose to get our own feed or that we choose our own labors, or that we can choose not to participate. This is a reasonable quest - as Carleas did not back that up with reason previously. Hahaha uses his reponse here to make Carleas prove his previous claims. Not necessarily the best way to rebut in my judgment, however it isn’t the worst. Hahaha seems to want to keep the burden of proof on Carleas, not necessarily a bad choice considering Carleas opened up on the debate in an abnormal fashion. Typically Hahaha would be the one to provide the initial argument in for a positive claim that Humans are livestock. As such, it seems Hahaha wants to capitalize on this anomaly of a debate. Hahaha however ends with 2 new claims, that if we all work for our own ends there would be chaos, and that social order revolves around the rank of power then there are winners and losers, asking Carleas “is there not?”. I’m not sure the point of either statements, we will see if this opens up further in the debate.
Round 2 seems to be in favor of Carleas - as Hahaha didn’t do much to back his previous assertions and is now focusing on Carleas backing up his previous assertions. Carleas did provide some reason previously, but Hahaha has requested Carleas solidify his assertions and reasons with “proof”.
Round 3 Carleas claims ranks (hierarchy) aren’t reason enough to prove Hahaha’s point by providing reason that because some are strong does not mean weaker people are powerless - alluding to the livestock being powerless I presume. Carleas apples this distinction in the farmer/livestock analogy - an interesting point by stating livestock just go through the motions and hierarchy doesn’t “get us there” - which means to be the point of validating the metaphor. Carleas interestingly states that agradation is not a difference in kind - between farmers and livestock. I need more reason from Carleas to consider this an effective point. Carleas backs this up by stating we know that people are treated as livestock in certain ways making a distinction that shows that not all people are livestock, because here are the people that actually are worthy of the metaphor of being livestock… the ones that are disenfranchised. A valid point, however, is this another means of the natural way humans have more choices naturally? Carleas furthers his argument by pointing out Chattel slaves are the ones who have no choice as livestock doesn’t. A solid point - one that I think Hahaha would be put in the juncture of arguing just what humans are livestock. I see no reason to shift that argument to some humans are livestock however, so Hahaha must effectively counter this reason provided by Carleas or risks losing the debate.
Hahaha counters this with more questions. It seems hahaha is either learning from Carleas or is still trying to keep the burden of proof on Carleas. In any case, I don’t find this to be an effective way of winning the debate at this point has Hahaha has some more important claims and reasons to counter, and Hahaha does so in alluding to propaganda is controlling public perception on the matter of all people being like slaves - as opposed to just the Chattel slaves. Overseas they let their people starve to death Hahaha says, (i’m not sure if “let” has been proven - nor does Hahaha provide evidence here that this occurs.) Hahaha says in the West they are still slaves living in captivity but are well fed in order to give the illusion that they are indeed cared for in the name of egalitarianism. An interesting point but does it effectively counter the Chattel slave analogy? Carleas has already pointed out that people have choice - cattles do not have choice and Chattel slaves do not have choice. Hahaha is arguing with a broader generalization without much reasoning provided, as if we are supposed to understand immediately that we are under propaganda and people “let” people starve. Hahaha does note that those in the ghetto have no choices, I presume - or very little choices - but states it sarcastically. Not good form for a debate such as this - sarcasm should be avoided when providing a counter point - instead clarity and reason should be given. Hahaha makes another claim that people in power have figured out that in order to have an effective human hieracrchy it was necessary to give it slaves the illusion of choice. This statement is fairly bold and needs a lot of backing up. Also - there is no distinction that those in power also are part of this hierarchy and have no choice. Apparently they may have choice just the same or may not, or do they have more choice? If so, how? Nonetheless, this doesn’t effectively counter how livestock have no choice. Round 3 decisively goes to Carleas
Round 4 is unfortunately all Carleas. Which means the content and debate winner will be Carleas at this point, if he merely said nothing. However, the format has given Carleas an edge by not only being the first poster, but the last poster. To counter that edge, I would judge Carleas the winner if this format would have ended here. Hahaha did not effectively support his claims as well as Carleas and has left us exposed to the no choice factor in livestock to the some choice factor in humans - but the distinct separation of no choice in Chattel slaves. As such, Carleas seemed to effectively argue that some humans are livestock, not all. Hahaha was arguing much more broader, but not distinctly, that either all humans are livestock, or just the ones not on top of the hierarchy. Hahaha did not make that distinction. Carleas warps up the debate reinforcing his previous reasons that humans have choice - an easy lay up at this point considering his is the final argument.
To wrap up the entire debate - Carleas is the clear winner. I hope that you enjoyed my analysis of the discussion and found it informative of your own debate styles as much as you may have on my style of judging. Thank you all for your participation and allowing me to judge your debate - in the future I think Hahaha could have made a more effective argument had there been more posts allowed and if Hahaha was the final one to post, but I wouldn’t necessarily think that could lead him to victory either, in this one.