Saudi Arabia is the Most Evil Country in the World

Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✔ ✗ ✗ 3 points
Better sources ✔ ✗ ✗ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Reason:PRO gives a full and sufficient argument and CON makes no argument of any kind. In spite of PRO's departure and (off-debate) concession, this VOTER has to interpret the absence of any argument by CON across five opportunities as a full forfeit.

*******************************************************************
Mod note: Full forfeit debates are not moderated unless the voter is ineligible or the vote votes for the forfeiting side.
*******************************************************************

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: RichardCarter // Mod action: Removed

>Points Awarded: 6 points to pro for arguments, sources, and conduct.

>Reason for Decision: See below

>Reason for Mod Action: This voter is ineligible. In order for an account to be eligible to vote, they must first have read the rules and completed 2 non-forfeit, non-troll debate OR made 100 forum posts.
************************************************************************

Arguments - Pro used multiple arguments in his first round and was provided in detail and citations to prove them, and was formatted to be easy to read for all viewers. None of it had any sort of bias and unfair views. Con provided no arguments at all and only falsely claimed that Pro conceded because he posted his goodbye message due to school, not because of this argument. That's not a concession.
Sources - Pro was the only one who used sources, marking them in his arguments and providing all links that were trustworthy and hard to argue against. Con did not provide any sources since he didn't provide any argument.
Spelling and Grammar - I'm going to give it a tie. Even though Con barely said anything, what they did said didn't have any spelling and grammar errors.
Conduct - Pro won this one since Con forfeited over half of the debate. But not only that, Con then claims that Pro conceded because Pro was leaving Debateart because of school. That's not at all what it was if Pro was frequently extending the arguments many times.

>> The rule change isn't what bothered me, it's the lack of openness about it that bothers me.

Again, no rule was changed. Existing rules were interpreted to decide how to resolve a novel case. The interpretation of the rules was novel, but that necessarily follows from the novelty of the case at hand. Nothing was concealed from you, and you were told about moderation's ruling at the moment it was made.

>> If the standard is different on this site then you should have told me, which you didn't.

Two responses: (a) no, because you shouldn't have assumed that the rules were the same given that this is not DDO, and (b) as I said before: "in cases which are novel--like this one--the rulings made will be novel (this novelty is necessary to establish precedent which can later be referenced)." Novelty may be inconvenient precisely for the reasons you mention, but making novel rulings is nevertheless vital and unavoidable.

>> And yes, this isn't a court case. But maybe you should alter your policies so that the concepts apply.

Two responses. First, your analogy makes no sense. I am not finding anyone guilty or innocent, and therefore I should not be using a standard that is only applied when finding someone guilty or innocent. What I am doing here is making a ruling about what kinds of votes are permissible--which requires me to interpret the rules, NOT to apply a standard of proof. Rules interpretations are not evidentiary questions, and so they are not concerned with those kinds of standards. Second, you should not fairly expect to deserve a win without making any arguments. This is the basic principle I am applying, and it is unquestionably a good principle. Even if you feel as if this particular application of that principle has led to an unfair outcome, you cannot argue against the principle itself. So, if a good principle is being used to render a decision which is unfair only because the decision is novel, then I don't see any valid objection to the decision because the principle is sound and novelty is unavoidable.

compared to like say north korea come on its a vacation spot

"I do not need to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" Well maybe you should. There's a reason why those concepts exist. To prevent tyranny.

Second, if the standard is different on this site then you should have told me, which you didn't.

The way it was on DDO was if your opponent conceded, you win. Period. The rule change isn't what bothered me, it's the lack of openness about it that bothers me.

And yes, this isn't a court case. But maybe you should alter your policies so that the concepts apply. You are the government of DART.

Do you want to review these concepts? because you really should start following them.

This is not DDO, and the way rules are interpreted on DDO has no bearing on how they will be interpreted here.

You can complain that you didn't know you needed to put forward arguments, but there are three reasons to reject that line of argument: (a) you should not fairly expect to deserve a win without making arguments even if your opponent conceded, (b) in cases which are novel--like this one--the rulings made will be novel (this novelty is necessary to establish precedent which can later be referenced), and (c) the reasonable inference based on your prior forfeits is that you were unlikely to contribute in rounds 4 and 5. This is not a court of law, nor even is this a case of me finding anyone guilty or innocent; therefore, I do not need to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Making reasonable inferences based on context is perfectly acceptable.

If you’re interested in the topic, start a new debate on it. You could even recycle anything you already wrote for this one...

NO, I had no idea I had to post arguments in Rounds 4 and 5 AFTER my opponent conceded the debate. I was acting off of Airmax's interpretation of the rules, and you rejected the common DDO interpretation and substituted it with your own.

you say that because I didn't post in the first three rounds means that I wasn't interested in this debate. You don't know that. you can't see inside my head. I was interested; I was just busy. You assummed I was already guilty of being uninterested based off of only 3/5ths proof, which is the "guilty until proven innocent" logic, when it should be "innocent until proven guilty".

You "had no idea" that you needed to post arguments in Rounds 1, 2, and 3, BEFORE you opponent's concession? Give me a break. As I said below: "At that point, you had shown no interest in the debate, and so there is no reason to believe that you would have actually posted an argument had your opponent not conceded, and given you a chance to rescue what otherwise would've been a loss."

There was no rule change; there was a rule interpretation. You full forfeited, and your opponent conceded. Both of these would normally result in auto-losses, but you can both auto-lose, so there has to be some interpretation to resolve that tension. The obvious way to resolve that tension is to reward the person who actually made arguments over the person who made none. Your full forfeit trumps his concession, resulting in you losing this debate.

I had no idea that I even needed to post an argument. On DDO, I would've won this debate. But you changed the rules without telling me, which unfairly screwed me over.

It was your choice to forfeit Round 1, 2, and 3, before your opponent "conceded." At that point, you had shown no interest in the debate, and so there is no reason to believe that you would have actually posted an argument had your opponent not conceded, and given you a chance to rescue what otherwise would've been a loss.

You cannot honestly and reasonably assert that you should win a debate in which you made NO arguments. Your full forfeit predates and outweighs his concession for that precise reason.

I assumed that since my opponent conceded in the thread, that I didn't have to post an argument, and that the win would be mine. If I had known I still had to post an argument, I would have. you guys screwed me over by not telling me I needed to post an argument. For this reason, I should be handed the win.

Woah wtf? My opponent conceded the debate. This should be my win.

Thanks. Ultimately, the goal is to produce fair verdicts.

So basically what is worse: someone stating they are leaving or someone not giving an argument right?

This is an actual no brainer. An argument is better than no argument. Given it is required for a debate there is only one clear answer to what should be valued when it comes to debates, arguments then everything else can follow if both of them decide to do that as a bare minimum.

Probably because there was confusion whether this debate should be viewed as a concession or ff.

I thought I made it clear in my vote all the relevant data of this debate. Why was this so contested?

@Virtuoso

bsh1 made the right ruling.

@bsh1

Good one.

"I did not report any votes which did otherwise."

I did because it is clearly unfair for someone to give an argument only to lose because the other guy stayed till the very end. The question which should be asked is where is your argument and why didn't you make it when you stayed for that long?

Given this problem I gave the convincing argument and the conduct to Pro because he actually bothered to state what was relevant. Mharman didn't post an argument nor did he state why he didn't bother making an argument. Maybe he thought this would be an easy win so he didn't give an argument. He had the gall to post something irrelevant to this thread but didn't have the time to post an argument. If I accept the new evidence not about the debate at hand. I will still give TheAtheist all the points I gave. If I simply remove that out of the equation I would still vote the same because Mharman still forfeited more rounds and didn't give any arguments.

Yeah, and I saw that. It was kind of a catch-22, but bsh made the final ruling. I am in agreement with his decision.

I strongly assumed if any official ruling was made, it would just be that this debate is non-moderated due to the catch-22 (https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/2534/post_links/112461). Hence, while I respected TheAthiest's work enough to vote in his favor due to the content of the debate, I did not report any votes which did otherwise.

@everyone - see below

*******************************************************************
This debate has perplexed the mod team for quite some time. On one hand, con full forfeited even though pro made a forum post to concede all debates. In this instance, bsh ruled that because this is a full forfeit, all votes must go to Pro. Any votes for con will be removed
*******************************************************************

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: [RationalMadman] // Mod action: [Removed]

>Points Awarded: All points tied

>Reason for Decision: I will like to know what the fuck this is and why I must give Con a single point

>Reason for Mod Action: In order to award a tie, one still needs to analyze the arguments and why they left the arguments as a tie.
************************************************************************

---RFD 1 of 2---
Interpreting the resolution:
On balance Saudi Arabia (SA) is the most immoral or wicked country today.

Gist:
From various direct human rights abuses to outright sponsoring terrorism, SA was proven to be highly immoral and wicked. There was no counter case, con forfeited for over a month (60% of the debate I might add)...

Concession policy:
We may vote on the grounds of an explicit concession without considering arguments, but not an implicit one. Outside of the debate pro gave an implicit concession (it was grouped for the dozen debates he had ongoing, this one was not explicitly called out), so that were what we graded, the implicit concession of con choosing to drop every argument and make none for a whole month, is far closer to being an explicit concession than what pro did.

1. Human Rights
“Saudi Arabia is the seventh most authoritarian regime in the world”
“Women in Saudi Arabia are considered second-class citizens and are denied many of the freedoms granted to Saudi Arabian men.”
“Homosexuals are imprisoned and executed”
“required to be Muslim by law ... Atheists are considered terrorists through a royal decree” WTF?
“Jammal Kashoggi, who was murdered by Saudi agents in Turkey simply because of his opposition to the Saudi government.”
Etc., Etc.

2. Sponsors International Terrorism
“Saudi Arabia sponsored and continues to sponsor terrorist organizations such as the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and Al-Nusra” And first random line my eyes went to on the source for that “includes links to 9/11 and the growing threat posed by ISIS.”

3. “Forfeited” & “conceded”
“Forfeited” was all con offered in refutation of the topical case (which is to say nothing). A Kritik that the debate should not apply was begun, but any reason to reject the debate content was missing from the appeal.

---RFD 2 of 2---
Arguments:
See above review of key points. I have just used skimmed quotes from pro, as they were powerful and completely non-contested (plus those were just the tip of the iceberg for these issues).
No other nations but SA were introduced into the debate for consideration, nor even the slightest defense of SA as not being purely evil (even a Kritik that evil doesn’t exist would have been better than this...).

Sources:
Sources alone are not arguments. Con offers a single link to a forum, and says he should win for that.
Pro on the other hand offered over a dozen insightful sources, backing up the claims he made about SA. The Wikipedia article on them beheading civilians and refusing to let their families have the bodies stands out (side note: disappearing people is considered a worse war crime than just murder, since the family will never know for certain if the person is really dead; or maybe off somewhere still being tortured), as does the Amnesty International report and the details it links to of the murder and dismemberment of Jamal Khashoggi at a Turkish embassy (side note: whose body they also won’t give up, even while alternating between claims of it was an accident or he’s alive and healthy).

Conduct:
Greater forfeiture from con (pro missed the end, but less than half forfeited vs over half forfeited is a pretty significant difference; even more so when a single missed round is grounds for a conduct award). The only main negative thing to say about pro, is him complaining about what happened “Don't you hate it when you decide to argue a very important topic, put a lot of work and research into it, and then a newcomer...” Which applies to why we have voting standards for any debate.

Plz vote.

I don't think i see a single left right definition i agree with from either side. Let me know what you think of my definition.

1st. Left and right are relative and subjective. The left/right divide is very different in europe vs usa.

In general, the left is for change, and the right is for stability. The left promotes new, revolutionary ideas, the right promotes classical ideas. Both can be seen as positive or negative, and im using the least charged langauge possible for both. Im not trying to be controversial.

However, with that definition, religious fundamentalists, like middle eastern theocracies, are clearly not something new, and are very hard right. Promoting traditional views like classic family values, and adherence to traditions is right wing. Fascism is also very classically focused. Nationalism. Sectarianism. None of this is new.

On the other hand, a centralized command economy is new. Therefore totalitarian communism (if that can even be called communism) is undoubtedly left. Both left and right have big gov options.

On the other hand they both also have small gov options. Anarchy is very new unless you go back to precivilization. Liberitarianism is a classic philosophy often sightning classic liberalism and enlightenment... which are both over 200 years old.

Hopefully this will be a neutral definition every can agree on

Maharman might win by FFing, can't believe it.

What the heck. Mharman posted absolutely nothing and gets to win based off of a technicality of TheAtheist conceding XD This is really fishy.

Aren't you going to say something?

That's fine. I guessed you would not say since you did not write anything about nationality in your profile.

Not saying but I am pretty okay with saying I am not from the Middle East.

Oh, you were angry that we forfeited some rounds. I thought you were angry because you were from Saudi Arabia. lol.

Now that we are discussing this, can I ask you where you are actually from?

Thank you for doing that. Just keep doing it until the debate finishes.

Nitpick but whatever.

Basically say Welp or I await for a response. It makes it look like you are not even participating either.

There is little I think I care about and it certainly isn't Saudi Arabia.

Post arguments.

You're Saudi Arabian? If you are, I didn't mean to offend anybody. I was talking about the government and not the people.

Hey!

How do they defy my paradigm?

They defy your paradigm in opposite ways.

I don't understand what you mean by "Totalitarian Communist and Right-Wing Libertarian both oppose you." In what sense do they oppose me?

I am sorry. What I meant is that the Totalitarian Communist and Right-Wing Libertarian both oppose you.

How do these types oppose my spectrum? Fascist Conservative and Totalitarian Communist are actually very similar in policies, even though their ideology is different.

That's not true at all.

The most obvious severe opposing type to your entire spectrum is the Fascist or (very) Right-Wing Conservative.

The less obvious but just as extreme opposing type to your spectrum is the Totalitarian Communist.

I think that the Left vs. Right spectrum is absolutely terrible. A better spectrum might be the Social and Economic Freedoms one. Countries like Saudi Arabia have very little social freedom, and not a lot of economic freedom, so they are totalitarian. Socialist countries advocate for a lot of social freedom but very little economic freedom, so they are left-wing. Countries with a lot of economic and social freedoms are libertarian. This is a far better version than simply Left vs. Right.