Thoughts On Votes

Hey just wanted to hear people's thoughts on voting issues here on DebateArt

As a voter, is it ok in my reason for voting to:

1. award source points to a debater because I feel they used sources that exactly state what the debater's saying even though their source doesn't reflect or state anything about what their saying at all, in fact is an unrelated video?

2. ignore when Con affirms the resolution twice, i.e. in a god exists debate Con clearly agrees that god exists twice in the debate, because I feel Con did a better job?

3. dock a debater for linking something that I felt was unclear despite the debater writing exactly what each link was for, because after all I felt it to be unclear?

4. ignore a debater's relevant sources so I can claim that the debater did a poor job with sources without having to explain why I ignored the crucially relevant sources?

5. ignore the requested rules of the debate that ask to address the majority of resolution-impacting points made by both debaters and only focus on the debaters performance who I am trying to vote source points for?

The mods have told me they are totally fine with this, so I want to see what the public thinks.

That's a bit disingenuous, since it's not what moderation said.

Moderation said that it is not for the mods to interpret the sources for the voter. To do so would be to impose moderation's perceptions of a source on a voter, and thus to inject moderation opinion into the content of a vote in an unacceptable way. Moderation's only job, as it comes to voting, is to assess whether votes pass the bare minimums required by the site voting policy.

As to the other questions (the ones not relating to the sources dispute), they were not raised with me in any respect, so it's a bit presumptuous to claim that I have offered some opinion on them.

Even when he wins, he is filled with rage and fury as the voters cheer me on in my glorious defeat.

Get over it, Raltar didn't like how you used your sources and he wasn't the only voter to vote that; nmvarco also voted that way.

Hey where in your sources did it mention socially constructed hemispheres?

Oh I reported the other vote too

Ok, well i'm raising these questions now.

As I see it, this is what happened in the vote in my debate?

Your thoughts?

Do you understand that they were saying my sources better supported my case in direct ways? Do you understand that if there is a scientifically proven North Pole and 'South Pole' (Now that we're out of the debate I don't need to pretend I believe in NASA or there being a south pole) but no 'West Pole' or 'East Pole' and neither a NW, NE, SW nor SE Pole then it follows that the 'Western Hemisphere' and 'Eastern Hemisphere' are completely arbitrary social constructs since they are merely added on to give a horizontal/longitudinal to the vertical/latitudinal?

Dude, all voters so far have misinterpreted how destroyed your case was by my liquidating of there being any Western or Eastern Hemisphere in actuality. You are the lucky one with lax vote moderation. You need to learn to accept interpretation of voters of your arguments won't always agree with you. The fact that they do agree with you and that you're winning makes your whining all the less justifiable.

When you made ANY ARGUMENT your source said exactly what you said?

Is this real life?

Nothing said socially constructed hemisphere.

It seems like you disagree more with the substance of the votes than whether those votes meet minimum standards. I can't make the voters vote a certain way--that's not appropriate and not my job. I am not here to pick winners and losers.

Dude, you want him to remove the words 'exactly' and 'explicitly'? He can do that, paste it and get the vote completely allowed.

On all other sources my sources genuinely were saying what I was saying, but that particular one required a tiny bit of interpreting what there being only 2 poles meant which I do for you before I give the source-quote.

Did you see the absolutes in the voters vote?

When Con made ANY ARGUMENT he provided a source that EXPLICITLY STATED WHAT CON HAD SAID.

How is it that these types of absolutes can be used and they are not true.

It;s a fucking lie. How do you not see that?

"On all other sources my sources genuinely were saying what I was saying"

Hey which source did he give you points on?

That's right the socially constructed hemisphere, buit also he said when you made ANY ARGUMENT!!!
Dude, admit it.

It's a lie.

When I used the source he mentions, it immediately proves that the axis of Earth's imaginary rotation is in fact only along north-south and that west-east places on Earth have neither poles nor validity beyond social construct.

I think you need to calm down. You are clearly over-invested in this.

I don't give a shit what you say, all the voters lied about how I defeated you, just cry more and see that they all misinterpreted who had which burden of proof and how annihilated you were by me on an otherwise unwinnable debate as Con.

You are just jealous that they all admired me while voting against me and pick on the one guy who thought we tied on arguments.

"When I used the source he mentions, it immediately proves that the axis of Earth's imaginary rotation  is in fact only along north-south and that west-east places on Earth have neither poles nor validity beyond social construct."

No no no, he said " which explicitly said the same thing as the argument he was making. "

Your source does not explicitly mention socially constructed hemispheres does it?

So if he takes out the words 'explicitly' and 'exactly' and pastes the entire rest of his RFD and votes the exact same points you admit that you have no crying left to do about his vote, yes?

I'm using this voter's rfd as a template to vote whomever however I want on source points regardless of debater performance, if you think that's over invested, you don't care about the voting on the site.

No.

He didn't talk about the coordinates and none of your sources mention a socially constructed hemisphere, none of them

he's awarding the points based on how the socially constructed hemisphere was just soooo supported by your sources, but he clearly didn't even read your sources or he would have seen they were garbage, which you know they were.

Do you know what makes something socially constructed? Aside from that, when I used the sources I explained how the source proves it and what to look for in the source. I didn't say 'look in my source for it saying they're socially constructed' I said 'here look, North and South are the only real poles due to the axis along which the Earth rotates' etc etc and it would always be directly useful, extremely reliable (although NASA is actually a government-endorsed fraudulent franchise) and unlike you never once used a source for the sake of it unless you consider my R3 ones for the sake of it as I didn't really need them, they just added reliability.

It is sooooooo supported by my R1 sources though.

If it becomes clear from your actions, based on your public and private proclamations to vote in a spurious fashion, that you are indeed deliberately voting in a spurious fashion, your voting privileges may be suspended.

Voters shouldn't lie, and you should be on my side on this.

Well, obviously not as Raltar still can vote.

You're gonna end up on the wrong side of this, and you know what he did was lying; it's just not right.

Get all votes removed and I'll be on your side. Admit I decimated your case via thrusting the BoP totally onto you that you thought your semantic-plays would thrust irreparably onto me and that all voters so far have not comprehended how well I played it to the degree that you could not win your 'invincible resolution' or so you thought. :)

Do you know the difference between lying and having a misconception close to the truth, the separation due to subjectivity/flaws in thinking?