Is Daylight Saving Time Still Relevant

*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Speedrace // Mod Action: Not Removed

Reason for mod action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.

*******************************************************************

*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: semperfortis // Mod Action: Removed

Points awarded: 3 points to pro for arguments

RFD: The resolution is "Is daylight saving time still relevant?"
Con concedes that DST is still used, which is therefore a concession, as it is clearly still relevant by definition.
Pro's argument was a kritik of the resolution which is a perfectly valid argument. Kritiks are valid arguments and are therefore not trolling.
I will happily defend this reason if it is contested.

Reason for mod action: This account is not eligible to vote. Although the RFD meets the standards, he has not yet read the COC.

The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
The voter should also review this: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346?page=1&post_number=4

*******************************************************************

I did start an analysis, but I see how little time in left, and honestly don't believe it's fair to knowingly cast last minute votes without some compelling reason.

Not actually sure which way I would give arguments (likely sources to pro, his analysis of the census.gov data tips this). Key problem that has made me not vote way earlier, is that I can't quite get the penalties out of my head if I don't automatically give arguments to the pro side. I've had stalkers on these sites before, and don't care for any repeats of that.

“What is hilarious is that you think you have a single fucking shred of dominance or capability to fuck with me left after the site gains enough popularity such that you're just one of many voters.”

I think you meant:

“What is hilarious is that you think you will have left a single fucking shred of dominance or capability to fuck with me after the site gains enough popularity such that you're just one of many voters.”

What is hilarious is that you think you have a single fucking shred of dominance or capability to fuck with me left after the site gains enough popularity such that you're just one of many voters.

Don't for a second thing your position as assistant on the Trello and vote moderating means a thing. Bsh1, Virtuoso and Mike all know I am the harder worker, with more accurate information and that whether I am in a secret group on Trello or not, I will always contribute more to the community and in ideas to improve on than you.

You have been wrong when I have been correct on all points of us clashing, from Sparrow being Type1 to how people would take new updates/ideas and in time they will come to see that statistically and in raw work ethic I am the member to trust.

Again, RM: my comment wasn’t really directed at you.

While your apoplexy is hilarious, it’s misplaced.

You will come to fucking respect me, whether you smirk arrogantly at first or not.

You're a two-faced thorn in my side but I aint gonna cry and up and leave over that. I will break your spirit, work with others and smile at your dismay.

No, you said you accepted his debates so that I didn't like you're some kind of good guy, then went and trolled him brutally. You're also the biggest laugher and objecter to me saying he was Type1, then come at the end acting like you were always against him and took those debates knowing what he was.

I have objected to everything you said in the forums and on here, read the comments before what you wrote and elsewhere, LOL!

Your arguments against Sparrow where he said I can't prove he is Type1 etc were the most brutal bad faith trolling Kritiks I've ever seen on the entire website.

Hi RM. this comment wasmt
directed at you : and given that you haven’t objected to anything I said, I’ll assume you have none.

I will take the time to point out that it is objectively false that I prey on new member the way you do. A total of 0 If my debates are bad faith arguments and semantic attempts to chance the resolution. The possible exceptions are some debates against Sparrow/Type1 - but everyone really gets a pass on those.

I am getting a win here, suck it up and go grudge vote against me elsewhere.

"when me say it's valid, prey away"

"when me say 'omg i'm, SJW save the noob' it's invalid"

shut up and get the fuck off my debates. Go and preach your bullshit analysis techniques somewhere else.

"me Ramshutu, me dislike RM let me vote against him hehehe"

"me care about Longevity of the site and kindness to others users but 100% of my wins is preying on members who either are new or have a debate they get passionate and worked up about"

Just as an aside this isn’t really a Kritik. A Kritik is where an assumption in the resolution or the debate is challenged as harmful, or antithetical to debate. Normally for a kritik, the person making the kritik has burden of proof to show the harm in accepting the definition or assumption. This is not what’s happening here. RM is simply switching the definition from what was obvious and apparent - to one that wasn’t but was more favourable to him; he provides no argument as to why this definition is the most useful - only that it must be accepted - as RM has burden of proof to show this is what the debate should be about - and he didn’t provide it, this really should go to con across the board.

The main issue for the longevity of this site is to have new members and individuals being able to participate freely in debates, If the first thing that happens to new members, is they see people starting a debate, only to have an odd, and left field semantic argument that isn’t well justified and is not particularly pleasant - then it’s not going to be particularly fun - and was exactly why RM was asked not to participate in someone’s debate a few weeks ago - there’s really no genuine reason for them to stay on the site: you can understand if someone beats you, but beats you by arguing in bad faith is going to drive away new members and participants.

While sniping on troll debates, or the likes of Type1 with semantics is almost inherently valid given their Nature - when the debate is a legitimate debate about something, I will be holding unsupported semantic arguments like this as poor conduct, and will not accept one side unilaterally changing the terms of the debate by assertion without any justification or argument as was done here.

I mean, honestly I don't get this whole SJW act people have with me going for a flawed debate structure and debating correctly but I will bear it in mind.

There has definitely come to be a more caring attitude to noobs around here in the past 3 weeks, which is something that was the polar opposite to the original attitude even Ramshutu had when voting in earlier debates so I am going to become more cautious with my noobsniping and let others suffer the current voting environment.

A tie is better than a loss, so this is pleasant enough for me.

Lol I didn't even know it would tie, that's cool

A.) that’s not what Anachronsitic means
B.) it’s clear what the debate meant
C.) what part of my RfD was misportraying what happened, or specifically unreasonable?

Anachronistic means not still used today. That's a bit impossible for Con to win, LOL

Shut up, you are the biggest fucking hypocrite I have ever seen in my life. In every single debate you have, you argue in brutal bad faith and use cunning and all dirty means to make you opponent ragequit or hate that they worded the topic how they did. You vote in bad faith, debate in bad faith and are a detriment to the site.

RM: if I was grudge voting id have given him sources too.

You solely argued a semantic variation of relevant that clearly wasn’t what the instigator intended - and you at no point made any effort to argue in good faith. I’ve voted down multiple multiple debates - including multiple debates of yours - where people do this, for similar reasons; it’s toxic for the other participant, and your asking me to accept a completely different definition than is obvious in the terms of debate for no good reason.

Regardless of how the voting goes, I suggest remaking this debate with refinements. You clearly did not get the intended debate on the subject.

I'm curious what you'd vote here.

I actually proved both that it's relevant and not anachronistic but he ignored the entire later Rounds and what I said in especially my R3 because it didn't suit his agenda.

Ramshutu's voting at its fucking finest.

Just hoping you guys see what a fucking joke it is and what a grudge he has against me LOL!

The title of the debate should make it clear what the resolution is.

The title of the debate is not automatically the claim. Thanks for playing, but you didn't refute any of the points that support the claim.