Instigator / Con
35
1500
rating
16
debates
40.63%
won
Topic
#780

Omar thinks I have political beliefs based on religion: NAME ONE

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
12
9
Better sources
12
12
Better legibility
6
6
Better conduct
5
6

After 6 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...

Our_Boat_is_Right
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
33
1650
rating
44
debates
77.27%
won
Description

BoP is on pro (or Omar hopefully if he doesn't wussy out) to prove I have just ONE political belief based on religion. I will waive the first round, and pro will start out the arguments. Pro will then waive the last round. Only rebuttals in last round.

-->
@dustryder

When people didn't want blacks to vote in history, they would add extra requirements to voting to stop them from voting.

Whether intended or not, this is what is happening here. Making people explain votes is one thing. But tuning around and telling them their reason is not good enough is censorship. No moderation can know what convinces me of an argument and nobody can determine what is the proper way to be convinced of an argument.

If there was a truly objective way to vote, then there wouldn't be need for votes in the first place. You would be able to just have a computer figure it out.

-->
@dustryder

You're reading the wrong mod comment. My vote was sufficient the first time. Bsh1 is simply coming up with post hoc justifications for why my vote doesn't meet standards.

This is why voting moderation is impractical. The only thing that should matter is if the person is voting sincerely. Beyond that, making them jump through hoops is akin to censorship.

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

He said the RFD you made was fine for awarding points to arguments, but not the points awarded to conduct.

If you had recast the vote with only the argument points and the same RFD, the vote would stand.

If you want to award conduct points, you need to award them based on the three criteria for conduct points which you have apparently not met

-->
@bsh1

Okay, I'm actually personally offended. This is the second time that you have said that I am being dishonest about my vote. Con literally states that as a Christian, he is against X views. Is this moderation or censorship? If you're going to be a dictator, then cool. But how dare you hide under the guise of objectivity when you go out of you way to delete votes that make an effort to explain their reasoning. Do you seriously think I'm voting dishonestly? You say that I'm reaching a conclusion that cannot possibly be reached from the argument? How could you possibly know that? Even if you could, how is my assessment unreachable from the argument? It's not my fault he admitted the position that he did.

-->
@Pinkfreud08

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

>Points Awarded: 4 points to Pro for arguments and conduct

>Reason for Decision: RFD in comments

>Reason for Mod Action: The vote sufficiently justifies argument points. The voter seems to misunderstand why their previous vote was removed. The voter writes "due to my previous vote not elaborating onto why this is poor conduct" as a précis to their discussion of the conduct point. The issue isn't that they did not elaborate, the issue is that actions which take place in the comments are not legitimate grounds for awarding conduct except in extreme cases, which this isn't. That being said, the actions in the comments section are only one reason the voter awarded conduct points, the second reasoning being that the voter feels some strategies/points were "misleading." That is acceptable grounds for awarding conduct, but only if all three criteria to award conduct (as listed in the voting policy) are met. As the voter does not explain how "this poor conduct was either excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate," the awarding of conduct points was insufficiently warranted.
************************************************************************

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

Again if the mods remove my vote, I will personally examine the debate again and apologize however until then my vote will stand.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

Oh yeah man you totally got me I'm a bias socialist SJW who wastes my life trying to vote against you.

Honestly, this made my day thanks.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

You need to stop pinging us in the comments. Hit the report button, and we'll review the vote.

-->
@bsh1

Pink misrepresents my position in so many ways. He did the same thing wrick did about conceding the debate when I explicitly denoted a seperate politcal belief in the arguments "My opponent is saying I admit to it being religious, however, I literally say "AS A CHRISTIAN, however, I am against it." I specifically say "as a christian" to denote a separate belief from politics"

Pink also said I made rebuttals and arguments in the comment section, which is absurd, I never did. In conduct, pink fails to prove how "Misconduct is excessive when it is extremely frequent and/or when it causes the debate to become incoherent or extremely toxic." As well as "Compare each debater's conduct from the debate."

He misrepresents the gay marriage and prostitution points because he failed to address my rebuts and statements about them.

Overall this is an awful vote and bias votes should be removed among mod discretion.

-->
@Pinkfreud08

when did I ever put rebuttals in the comment section??!! My gosh your votes are idiotic.

-->
@Pinkfreud08

yay another bias pinkfreud socialist vote in the book

RFD Part 5:

So essentially Con does little to elaborate this point and never explained his claim.

To conclude I have to award arguments and conduct to pro since Con posted arguments in the comment section several times, claimed DDO was accurate to his views and then pivoted to stating they weren’t accurate, and he avoided arguments and gave poor rebuttals.

If anyone has an issue with my vote, I urge you to report it so that the mods examine it. Otherwise, it will still stand.

RFD Part 4:

To which Pro expertly replied that,

“ Problem here is that prostitution is: The practice or occupation of engaging in sexual activity with someone for payment.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/prostitution
The instigator has failed to state that prostitution is enslavement since the definition no way states enslavement.
Enslavement: The action of making someone a slave; subjugation.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/enslavement
Slave: a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/slave”

This baseless statement goes to show how Con has little understanding of the definition of prostitution.

Another poor argument con made was,

“ My opponent is making an argument and using where morality and politics stem from. This is not a valid example since my particular views themselves are not based on this.”

To which Pro responded with,

“ My opponent basically said I am wrong because he said so. The problem here is that he never explained it instead said: "my particular views themselves are not based on this". The reason why this is bad is that this is no way rebuts my claims instead adds his opinion without supporting it with an explanation. If he explained why morals are not the basis to do anything then he might have a point but he doesn't even try.”

RFD Part 3:

Because of these two facts, I must award Conduct to Pro since Con mislead Pro and posted his rebuttals in the comment section which both broke the flow of the debate.

“ I prefer to use my more in-depth stance on "gay marriage".”

Pro pointed out this is strawman which is true since the argument was about civil unions, not gay marriage both of which are two completely separate issues.

Con gave a rebuttal regarding prostitution which was,

“ Principles of right and wrong are among societal standards and existing laws.”

Pro then pointed out that,

“ Christianity dictates societal standards so it neither rebuts or even attempts to rebut my claims. Laws are created based on morals and also does not rebut my claims. This comment is a non-sequitur.”

This is true since societal standards are mostly based around morals which Christianity dictates.

Meaning that by default Cons views on politics are based around his Christianity morals.

This is sort of irrelevant however Con made an absurd statement against prostitution,

“ It is wrong to enslave a human being and to treat them less than another human being.”

RFD Part 2:

Posting rebuttals in the comment section are very confusing and disorientating to the voter and their opponent since they constantly have to check both sections.

Secondly, due to this, it is rather hard for me to examine some of Con's arguments since they are buried in the comment section, so because of this, I will have to disregard their rebuttal and arguments since I am unable to view it.

The fact that Con put some of his rebuttals in the comment section made the debate rather tedious and annoying to read since I constantly had to check the comment section to read his arguments which is poor conduct on their part since they had more than enough room to post their arguments and instead opted out to post their argument in the comment section for no good reason.

Speaking of conduct, at the beginning of the debate Con provided a link to his stances on issues on DDO, and then later on criticized Pro for using these stances since they are " outdated"

- This is poor conduct since Con misled Pro which in turn broke the entire flow of the debate since it nearly made it impossible for Pro to understand Con's stances on issues.

RFD Part 1:

“ I" as a Christian, I am against them" is basically admitting his political beliefs is based on Religion. If this wasn't the case Our_Boat_Is_Right would be able to provide a non-theist reason for his political beliefs but he couldn't.”

Here Con literally concedes the entire debate since he is admitting that he is basing this political belief based on his religion.

“Note that he has provided no proof of this claim instead his opinion. He was so adamant to call me out in the comments for what I did but here he refuses to accuse. I wonder why. Maybe because he is not able to defend that position instead he much rather relegate it to the comment section.”

Con giving a rebuttal in the comment section is a very coward move and isn’t very well debate conduct since voters most likely wouldn’t think to look in the comment section for arguments.

Due to my previous vote not elaborating onto why this is poor conduct, I'll do so here.

-->
@bsh1

My apologies.

You are very lucky you're a mod, otherwise this comment would be extremely different. Thanks for still having my vote visible in the comments for omar to see. I really love that.

Thank you for your time. I won't "revenge vote" again.
- King_8

-->
@King_8

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: King_8 // Mod action: Removed

>Points Awarded: 7 points to Con

>Reason for Decision: I like Con's more.
Because of omar's bias when I clearly won my debate in the rap battle: "Rapp Battle Omega" https://www.debate.org/debates/Rapp-Battle-Omega/1/ and he stated "I like Pro's more" his vote was inaccurate and was bias because 1. My bars were way better and 2. My opponent conceded in Round 5. How are you going to give the win to someone who conceded? Want to be bias and let your feelings and emotions get in the way just because you dislike someone instead voting fairly, then alright. Gave you a taste of your own medicine.

>Reason for Mod Action: Revenge voting is not permitted. This is not only a violation of the site's voting policy, but it is a violation of the site's conduct policy. Because it is a violation of the site's voting policy, the vote will be deleted. Because it is a violation of the site's conduct policy, the voter will have their voting privileges revoked for three days as a slap on the wrist to demonstrate how seriously moderation views retaliatory voting.
************************************************************************

-->
@TheRealNihilist

the fact you still do DDO and are online on DDO RN is sad.

-->
@dustryder

Plus he always responds to our wars, and given he has been online and responded somewhat, I know my points to be true.

-->
@dustryder

Accept he ignored some of those points and claimed i was wrong even though he is the one who ignored what I said, hence making him illogical.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

Not responding to points is different to responding to points in a fallacious manner. If there hasn't been any reasoning at all, it can't be an error in reasoning

-->
@TheRealNihilist

Def- "an error in reasoning that renders an argument invalid."

I just gave you three of those. Your inability to respond when you normally do shows me you are struggling refuting my points and logic. You also have never responded to my original comment.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

>>I don't care what they are called

You don't know what logical fallacies I committed but still said I committed them?

-->
@TheRealNihilist

I just gave you three. I don't care what they are called, but they extremely valid points that you won't respond to because you are wrong.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

What logical fallacy did I commit?

-->
@TheRealNihilist

First, knowing you are wrong because you did not respond to my comment I re-posted twice, second, this point I made several times that you continued to ignore and then blamed me for being wrong "I prefer 4 rounds because with these types of debates arguments are long and multi-faceted. 3 is too short and 5 is too long. Therefore I like the middle option of 4 rounds."
3rd, another statement I made several times " If your opinion is different, then make a debate under your rules. This is a logical conclusion you have yet to address. Simply make a debate with 5 rounds and your rules and I will accept. No need to argue because that is a simple solution that fits your needs."

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

Name one logical fallacy I committed.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

No. I am at work now. Will do so when I can

-->
@TheRealNihilist

So I take it you are incapable of responding because you are wrong and have many logical fallacies.

-->
@David

Did you have a look at my #64?

-->
@TheRealNihilist

Because RM's vote preceded the implementation of the new rules for tied debates, and rules are not applied retroactively (according to the general principle that ex post facto laws are unethical).

Virtuoso examined Ragnar's vote, and ruled it to be sufficient. I have not taken the time to examine Ragnar's vote as a result. If you would like to appeal Virt's decision, then I will examine it. Unless you are seeking such an appeal, the best person to talk to is Virt.

-->
@bsh1

Why isn't RationalMadman's vote taken down?

-->
@bsh1

What about my claim that Ragnar is intentionally missing information in order to make my side look worse than it actually is?

Post #64

-->
@TheRealNihilist

To what are you "no way-ing"?

-->
@TheRealNihilist

It is subjective. Like I have said, I prefer 4 rounds because with these types of debates arguments are long and multi-faceted. 3 is too short and 5 is too long. Therefore I like the middle option of 4 rounds. That is plenty of debate time. If your opinion is different, then make a debate under your rules. This is a logical conclusion you have yet to address. Simply make a debate with 5 rounds and your rules and I will accept. No need to argue because that is a simple solution that fits your needs.

-->
@bsh1

No way.

-->
@Dr.Franklin

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Dr.Franklin // Mod action: Removed

>Points Awarded: Tied.

>Reason for Decision: Both sides just sucked and it wasnt really much of a debate. Both sides had poor conduct. Meh

>Reason for Mod Action: The vote does not clearly link itself to the content of the debate. It could have been C/P'd to any debate on DART. This does not meet the standard for casting no points votes, which requires that the voter " clearly explain why, based on what transpired in the debate, they chose not to award points." See here for more: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1718
************************************************************************

Pink' RFD (2/2)

“ Problem here is that prostitution is: The practice or occupation of engaging in sexual activity with someone for payment.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/prostitution
The instigator has failed to state that prostitution is enslavement since the definition no way states enslavement.
Enslavement: The action of making someone a slave; subjugation.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/enslavement
Slave: a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/slave”
This baseless statement goes to show how Con has little understanding of the definition of prostitution.
Another poor argument con made was,
“ My opponent is making an argument and using where morality and politics stems from. This is not a valid example since my particular views themselves are not based on this.”
To which Pro responded with,
“ My opponent basically said I am wrong because he said so. The problem here is that he never explained it instead said "my particular views themselves are not based on this". The reason why this is bad is because this is no way rebuts my claims instead adds his opinion without supporting it with an explanation. If he explained why morals are not the basis to do anything then he might have a point but he doesn't even try.”
So essentially Con does little to elaborate this point and never explained his claim.
To conclude I have to award arguments and conduct to pro since Con posted arguments in the comment section several times, claimed DDO was accurate to his views and then pivoted to stating they weren’t accurate, and he avoided arguments and gave poor rebuttals.
If anyone has a problem with my vote, than I urge you to report it so it may be examined by the mods. My goal is to provide an accurate and unbiased depitiction of a debate through my vote. If it does get removed I will reexamine the debate and change my vote.

Pink's RFD (1/2)

“ I"as a Christian, I am against them" is basically admitting his political beliefs is based on Religion. If this wasn't the case Our_Boat_Is_Right would be able to provide a non-theist reason for his political beliefs but he couldn't.”
Here Con literally concedes the entire debate since he is admitting that he is basing this political belief based on religion.
“Note that he has provided no proof of this claim instead his opinion. He was so adamant to call me out in the comments for what I did but here he refuses to accuse. I wonder why. Maybe because he is not able to defend that position instead he much rather relegate it to the comment section.”
Con giving a rebuttal in the comment section is a very coward move and isn’t very well debate conduct since voters most likely wouldn’t think to look in the comment section for arguments.
Giving rebuttals in the comment section in and of itself, is a poor way to format an argument.
“ I prefer to use my more in depth stance on "gay marriage".”
Pro pointed out this is strawman which is true since the argument was about civil unions, not gay marriage both of which are two completely separate issues.
Con gave a rebuttal regarding prostitution which was,
“ Principles of right and wrong are among societal standards and existing laws.”
Pro then pointed out that,
“ Christianity dictates societal standards so it neither rebuts or even attempts to rebut my claims. Laws are created based on morals and also does not rebut my claims. This comment is a non-sequitur.”
This is true since societal standards are mostly based around morals which christianity dictates.
Meaning that by default Cons views on politics are based around his christianity morals.
This is sort of irrelevant however Con made an absurd statement against prostitution,
“ It is wrong to enslave a human being and to treat them less than another human being.”
To which Pro expertly replied that,

-->
@Pinkfreud08

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

>Points Awarded: 4 points to Pro for arguments and conduct

>Reason for Decision: See above.

>Reason for Mod Action: The vote is cluttered, hard to read, and poorly organized. Nevertheless, it sufficiently justifies argument points. It insufficiently justifies conduct points. Misconduct must be located within the debate unless it so severe that it is a COC issue. Points may not be awarded for squabbles in the comments section.
************************************************************************

Ralph's RFD:

Argument point.
As per voting policy. I am judging that I can disregard every argument made except for one by Con. Con said.
"My opponent is saying I admit to it being religious, however, I literally say "AS A CHRISTIAN, however, I am against it." I specifically say "as a christian" to denote a separate belief from politics. From a religious belief, I am against gay marriage. I explained my political belief before that last sentence. It is not based on religion. I even say "If you want to be gay and get married, that is fine." I simply BELIEVE(a belief is my opinion, so don't use a technical definition "often one with no proof") government shouldn't regulate which genders marry each other. Marriage is a cultural and religious matter do be decided privately by the parties, and gov. controlling it goes directly against separation of church and state. Nothing about this opinion of mine is religious either. Next."
Con expressly admits to being a Christian and having Christian values. This concedes the debate topic. No further arguments changed this and therefore the argument point goes to con.
All other points tied.

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Wrick-it-Ralph // Mod action: Removed

>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro

>Reason for Decision: See above.

>Reason for Mod Action: This vote is even less sufficient than the last. Not only does it not survey any counterarguments made, but the voter is literally and clearly misinterpreting the meaning of the quote he excerpts from the debate to justify his decision. In his previous RFD, there was the possibility that the voter was "concluding that the volume of matching views suggests the truth of the Pro position, that is an interpretive issue that is beyond moderation's purview." In this RFD, this line of reasoning vanishes, placing the vote squarely within the exception that allows moderation to delete the voter for literally and obviously misunderstanding/misstating what transpired in the debate.
************************************************************************

-->
@TheRealNihilist

It is subjective. Like I have said, I prefer 4 rounds because with these types of debates arguments are long and multi-faceted. 3 is too short and 5 is too long. Therefore I like the middle option of 4 rounds. That is plenty of debate time. If your opinion is different, then make a debate under your rules. This is a logical conclusion you have yet to address. Simply make a debate with 5 rounds and your rules and I will accept. No need to argue because that is a simple solution that fits your needs.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

>>I'm not "wrong." I simply have a different preferred debate structure. Like I said, it would be only logical for you to have full control over the rules and create a debate.

Yes you are wrong. My style gives more Rounds which means more space to give arguments. If you say that is a bad thing go right ahead but you are wrong.

-->
@Dr.Franklin

>>No you didn't vote fairly. You ALWAYS voted against me no matter of you were wrong.

Saying I voted unfairly because I didn't vote for you is an unfair stance to have. Was I supposed to agree with you even though my votes specifically address what you did wrong? No because I was being fair not biased like what you want me to do.

>>You brought up that i lost debates on DDO. Im saying that I lost them unfairly.

If you mean I should have voted for you to be fair then I was unfair but that standard is so ridiculous because to be fair is to judge the arguments not based on who is debating.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

I'm not "wrong." I simply have a different preferred debate structure. Like I said, it would be only logical for you to have full control over the rules and create a debate.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

No you didn't vote fairly. You ALWAYS voted against me no matter of you were wrong. You brought up that i lost debates on DDO. Im saying that I lost them unfairly.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

>>Doesn't matter if you asked first, because I don't consent and don't like your idea of changing the rules on my debate. You have full control of the rules if you create a debate. Creating a debate is easy, it takes 2 minutes. So basically if you don't make a debate there won't be a debate.

It is really difficult for you to change something that you are wrong about? Guess you must dislike being wrong with someone who you disagree with on majority of issues.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

Doesn't matter if you asked first, because I don't consent and don't like your idea of changing the rules on my debate. You have full control of the rules if you create a debate. Creating a debate is easy, it takes 2 minutes. So basically if you don't make a debate there won't be a debate.