PETA should be banned.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 4 votes and with 14 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Six months
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
It is very controversial and I do not like it.
Pro affectively missed three rounds.
1. The first just pointing to a link, but not saying anything about the content.
2. The second saying he would post later...
3. And the third, forfeiting the final round.
This debate is a foregone conclusion, but without putting the work into reading it, I do not feel comfortable awarding the various other points.
pro's sources were doubtful and oromagi showed they were biased. Also he forfeited more than con.
Argument: Pro's arguments did not withstand the rebuttals by Con. Pro's first round argument was entirely contained within a link outside the debate with no associated argument by Pro. "That says all" is not a valid argument. It says all WHAT? WHY? HOW? - etc. Conversely, Con's arguments were mostly criticized, but lacked credence by Pro's rebuttals, and mostly failed in the attempt. Con's arguments, by contrast, could not be successfully rebutted by Pro, as Con demonstrated in his round 5.
Sources: Pro's sources reflected bias, inconclusively and self-contradiction. Example: "PETA is notorious for it's criticism of everything." Con successfully rebutted this point as being "hyperbole" made by several Pro sources, such as https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/02/23/peta-steve-irwin-tweet-group-faces-fire-conservationists-birthday/2962313002/ By contrast, Con's sources were credible and consistent in their messages which fully supported Con's arguments. Example: the focus of PETA of four specific goals to achieve. points to Con
S&G: Tie
Conduct: Pro's first and last rounds did not meet standard expectation: no argument in r1, just a linked source [needs both sourcing and argument, forfeit r5. Con was professional and credible in all rounds. Point to Con
Pro forfeited. Everything else was ok.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: seldiora // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:6; 6 points to Con.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action: Seriously, this could be called a two round forfeit, but that is pretty far from a full forfeiture.
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
**************************************************
seldiora
54 minutes ago
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✗ ✔ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✔ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Reason:
full forfeit, and pro sources were not that good
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: [Removed]
>Reason for Decision: Argument: Pro's arguments did not withstand the rebuttals by Con. Pro's first round argument was entirely contained within a link outside the debate with no commentary by Pro. Bad form. Conversely, Con's arguments were mostly criticized, but lacked credence by rebuttal, and mostly failed in the attempt. Con's arguments, by contrast, could not be successfully rebutted by Pro, as Con demonstrated in his round 5.
Sources: Pro's sources were biases, inconclusive and self-contradicting. Example: Peta founder was demonstrated to criticize pet ownership, yet engage in proxie pet care, as Con demonstrated. Con's sources were credible and consistent in their messages.
S&G: Tie
Conduct: Pro's first and last rounds did not meet standard expectation. Con was professional and credible in all rounds.
>Reason for Mod Action: While the reasoning for the points awarded is fine, per the Voting Policy, there needs to be explicit mention of at least one argument/counterargument to award argument points. In addition, there needs to be explicit mention of what Pro did to warrant him losing conduct points. I actually agree with your analysis, for the record, and I am sorry for the inconvenience.
************************************************************************
Oh wait that is Oromagi...
Who is that activist flag guy?
PETA gets free speech protections.
Although I see Pro is definitely trying his best, I doubt that he can win against Oromagi.
No kill shelters are far more unethical than kill shelters and this is one thing peta got right. This is the worst common criticism of peta. They use so many ignorant extremist tactics but they get bashed for this? They get some stuff right, just deal with it
As in, no protest, funding, employees fired, relations cut off. Closed.
Banned in what sense?