@benmouse42 @noahdfarley Great debate guys!Please note that the winner for this round will be determined based on the best out of 3 votes (community+2 judges). Your confirmed judges so far: @matthewhidalgo @essie
The judges have spoken!@benmouse42 Congrats for advancing to the next round! Please expect further details on your next debate in the next couple of days@noahdfarley Great job but damn these studies :-) Please stand by while we select the 3 people who will be saved from Round 4 (based on majority of votes) to advance to the Quarter Finals!
@noahdfarley This study is only applicable to the US land base"We considered the U.S. agricultural land base and accounted for losses" No evidence as to why it would be true of the rest of the worldIt is also self-admittedly inconclusive. On how to measure land efficiency it says the following"yet this field is sufficiently young that comparison of the merits of each approach has not yet been assessed"So by its own admission it could be using the wrong measure of efficiency.Did I mention I hated studies?
@benmouse42 The point still applies. Even if it is inconclusive it still refutes the notion that veganism will be beneficial because you can't make that claim. And the US is an enormous agricultural producer. If the specific results cannot be applied everywhere, the general results can.
@noahdfarley The first study isn't talking about veganism"However, eating the recommended “healthier” foods — a mix of fruits, vegetables, dairy and seafood — increased the environmental impact in all three categories: Energy use went up by 38 percent, water use by 10 percent and GHG emissions by 6 percent"Note there they include DAIRY which is not vegan, so for all I know the energy use was because of the increased use of animal products.The second article appears to confirm all of my points... no mention of any of the conclusions you used in the debate.
@benmouse42 I feel terrible about this, honestly. I read it over the first time and remembered the numbers so I skipped to them afterward without re-reading it. However, the logic behind it still stands. And the second article is rather long but if you read far enough you can find the bits I was referencing.
@benmouse42 Great debate. Really enjoyed it.
@noahdfarley you too man!
Great debate man, although pretty much shows why studies are totally useless in debates. Cheers again for making the times work @noahdfarleyhttp://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/758171468768828889/pdf/277150PAPER0wbwp0no1022.pdf
@benmouse42 I would've taped a clip for you but I'm in a library so I can't do that. I would agree with you that often studies are misused in debate, henceforth why they lend themselves better to policy debate as we have in the US, as well as there being requirements to read methodology, scope, purpose, conclusions, etc such as in academic journals. However, I believe they can play a necessary role in the debate. I believe you would agree with me that the purpose of an argument is to determine the veracity of a claim or claims. In other words, we're trying to find out which explanation, which argument is closest to reality. For example, if we are debating a topic "semi-automatic gun bans do more harm than good", there can be competing warrants on each side for each truth claim (SA gun bans stop crime) or (SA gun bans increase crime). The warrant on "Stop Crime" could be that the handguns used in mass shootings were semi-automatics. The warrant on "Increase Crime" could be that guns serve as a deterrence and are used more often in self-defense. I know you are a proponent of comparing warrants, which is helpful and debaters should do. However, if the purpose of debate is to determine the veracity of a claim, rooting the truth claims in real-world analysis (often in the form of empirics or a study- though I will note that study on an issue doesn't equal true) is superior at ensuring truth claims are in fact true, rather than merely looking at logic or reasonability in order to find which one is most true. Again may I note that just b/c evidence supports a position or a study is there doesn't mean we can 100% "prove" something true, it's to build up towards that. What do the statistics show? What can we see from the empirics? Because warrants can make more logical sense, but that's not the point of the debate (though it is a means to it). It may not be backed up by what has happened in the real world.
In debates however where my opponent doesn't read the methodology and just reads the conclusion, I would agree that it is frustrating because there is no possible way to comparatively deny or refute it. It's a seemingly brick wall and when another person brings up a study without methodology, context, etc, it muddles the debate and makes it extremely difficult to debate and adjudicate.
@josh808 However, very rarely can the judge or either party truly have a solid understanding of the methodology. For example, I helped work on a paper about Latino Satisfaction with seeing doctors of multiple ethnicities, and we used a probit model. Let us say that you major in Stats, and wanted to read through my report and disagreed with the conclusion because the statistical significance was not high enough for typical data science. That would be a great attack on the veracity of the study. There is a huge problem with this idea. You do not know if I was even caring about the measurement of what it is statistically significant versus what is economically significant. The same can be said of running the raw numbers or having an understanding of the metrics involved. If I told you I was posting a study with a Vector AutoRegression and from that doing an Output/Inflation rate Phillips Curve, and a journal has agreed to publish my study despite the fact that there might be errors in my lags that was not caught by me. That would throw the whole study under the bus. People think this does not happen but I have more than one occasion come across a study from a peer-reviewed journal that would later be redacted because it made it through the peer process without a hitch. Now, think of all the studies that get through without being noticed because it is almost never cited. Two things I posit as possible fixes is A) Try to not use studies to make a point, a study can help you learn your subject well enough to argue it if you read them fully and try to understand the steps of the process. So just stating the study is useless when you can just argue it well enough and have the citation as needed if called on a certain claim that seems illogical. B) If you are going to cite a study, not only does it need to be from a reputable source, you should also explain its citation rate. A study that you say will be a DA to an opponent from a source but the source has no citations, we can bet that there is either something wrong with the study, or the information is possibly heterodox.