You pick the topic, I'll do my best with it.

Well, people keep reporting all the votes cast for me in this debate.
There are 30 minutes left as of now. I apologize for the sudden mention, this is just a last effort to get a vote for this to avoid a no-vote tie here.

I need a vote for this debate, so hopefully one of you will see this within 10 hours.

Can you possibly re-cast this vote, but with additional analysis to satisfy the moderators?

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Undefeatable // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 points to Pro

>Reason for Decision:
Con doesn’t really give any convincing arguments why rape the action should be legal. Instead, he talks about the law being passed concerning rape being legal, which side steps the topic. Commentary: To be fair, con did entrap himself with the debate set up. Pro though should really stop accepting malls debates…

>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter must assess specific arguments presented by both debaters when awarding points. In this case, the voter only covers a point made by Con and ignores Pro’s arguments while giving the latter the point without addressing BoP. That is not sufficient.
**************************************************

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Oromagi // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 points to Con

>Reason for Decision:
YOU PICK the TOPIC. I SHALL do my BEST with IT.

This conversation doesn't really qualify as any kind of debate according to any objective debate standard. Essentially, every possible advantage is given to the contender for entirely shock (comedic) effect. This voter considers a debate under these terms non-moderated and essentially subjective. Basically, the instigator has ceded the stage and so it up to the contender to knock our socks of with full license. PRO chooses "THBT rape should be illegal in the United States" which is not only fails to knock the socks but is doubles down on the subjective nature of this discourse by choosing generic, totally non-controversial public policy. On comedic or subjective stylings, PRO scores a zero.

PRO seems to agree with this voter's thinking by arguing that the topic is irrelevant to victory in this debate.

" However, all the resolution entails is that to win, I must choose a topic alone. Consequently, all voters need to do is vote for pro based on the proposition of any topic at all."

This statement of thesis excludes the relevancy of topic and on this we agree but PRO badly misses there was a second condition to the instigation: " I (the instigator) shall do my best with it."

So it not true that PRO wins " based on the proposition of any topic at all," rather the winner is determined bywhether CON did "his best with it."

Given that CON has one round and no ground to argue with, I set the standard for best at an extremely low bar. CON's first argument is nearly unintelligible but something along the lines of "rape is already illegal everywhere, so there's no "should" about it"

CON's second argument that rape should be legal in fiction, fantasy, and the imagination is easier to understand and I point I strongly agree with.

So- did CON do his best? Regrettably, neither defines the standard for "best" giving this voter a third reason to treat this debate subjectively. To the extent that I was able to understand both of CON's arguments (which is itself far above CON's usual standard) and CON made more objective effort than PRO - 2886 characters vs 1906 characters, this voter is willing to view CON's effort as "his best" and by this standard, awards arguments to CON.

>Reason for Mod Action:
Contrary to the voter's view, voting on this debate is moderated, as it doesn't clearly fall into any camp of unmoderated votes - the subjective interpretation of "shock (comedic) effect" does not make this an a troll debate or render it too subjective to assess meaningfully. This vote is borderline, given that it does assess specific arguments given in the debate, but largely focuses his attention on a peculiar view of what is sufficient to win the debate by emphasizing something that neither debater considers. However, given that 1) the voter also posted largely copy-pasted versions of this same vote to two other debates, 2) two of those instances were posted just before the end of the voting period, precluding any attempt at moderation, and 3) all three votes focused on debates between these two debaters, specifically (even though not all votes favor the same debater), suggesting the possibility of grudge voting, the borderline nature of the vote renders it insufficient.
**************************************************

There is grudge voting going on here, as it seems. I now am in need of two votes, one of which being geared towards counter balancing instantiated incompetence.
I would appreciate it if you could assist.

I think Novice's topic will backfire. With a challenge like this, there's sort of an honor amongst the challenger to make it a challenge that's actually somewhat tenable or fair. If you get too greedy, try to overstep and pick a ridiculous topic, there's some punishment for that.

Novice is the troll, not Mall.

Are you serious?