Sorry I haven't gotten around to voting, I actually really meant to put the time in already, but there was drama drama drama elsewhere on the site.
I have not fully read it yet, but from the parts I did skim over a vote from me will most likely be a tie. This is a very high quality debate, with competing non-mutually exclusive BoPs, that is a hard recipe to win under. I may shift as I read it in depth, but just giving a little advanced notice of early thoughts.
As you may recall, the previous debate on a related subject had a lengthy and outright evil description.
While arguments could attain that level of evil, with none published (yet) they have not. There's dozens of strategies con could use which are not taken straight from terrorist propaganda.
Further, they'd probably need to get even worse, since the desire for legit discussions is self evident from their actively levels elsewhere on the site.
And of course, this debate was created after the moderation team agreed we may have overstepped in the severity of punishment, so to merit a permaban each, they'd need to reach some extreme levels of deplorability.
...
That said, yes, the moderation team is aware of this debate, and will be checking in on the content of it.
We'll review it in greater detail. I know for a fact that whiteflame is currently reading this debate (or was, there's some drama which likely pulled him away). I suspect after he finishes reading it, he'll be able to give a more informed opinion of the vote. The previous ruling on arguments, was made without any of us having yet read the debate.
That said, please try not to jump to the worst conclusions about voters (especially new ones). This debate in particular is extremely complicated, so a voter is more likely confused than intentionally rage baiting.
A far better tactic is to request they clarify a key point or two, such as what gave them the impression you argued from bodily autonomy? Answers (or lack thereof) may inform moderation decisions, or even result in someone requesting to re-vote on their own.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Umbrellacorp // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The argument award is fine, but the legibility should be a tie.
In gist, conduct and legibility are only for extreme poor performance by the other side, rather than just being marginally better. On a debate with two extremely talented debates like this, everything other than arguments is almost certainly within the tied range.
And boilerplate explanation...
Legibility is an optional award as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, wherein sections of the debate become illegible or at least comparatively burdensome to decipher.
Examples:
ā¢ Unbroken walls of text, or similar formatting attempts to make an argument hard to follow.
ā¢ Terrible punctuation throughout.
ā¢ Overwhelming word confusion, or regularly distracting misspellings.
ā¢ Jarring font and/or formatting changes.
**************************************************
--- Umbrellacorp's original vote ---
My vote: Pro
Pro: Consistently maintained a clear line of moral reasoning.
Con: Good direct rebuttals but less precise about why uncertainty is not sufficient.
Reasons:
Pro's āuncertainty principleā was never fully dismantled. Con challenged it but didnāt show it was unreasonable.
The autonomy defense was strong from con but relied on 'asserting' that bodily autonomy beats potential personhood without fully showing why that moral perspective outweighs the
precautionary harm.
Pro suggested and maintained a layered ethical framework (FLO, special obligations, uncertainty) throughout the debate.
Whereas con primarily offered counter-assertions and did not develop a comparable alternative moral framework.
I think Proās arguments were more compelling on balance. Pro demonstrated that even under uncertainty about personhood, the moral risk of abortion equates to potentially committing severe harm (comparable to homicide).
Con did effectively argue for autonomy, but he did not sufficiently counter the moral weight of the 'precautionary principle' or establish why bodily autonomy rejects that moral uncertainty.
Plus, conās engagement with the 'Future-Like-Ours' argument was more dismissive than refutative.
Thus in my opinion, pro stood to their burden more convincingly.
Further reason for decision of best legibility: proās writing was clearer, better structured, and easier to follow.
Plus: Arguments were numbered and labeled (ā1. Uncertainty,ā ā2. FLO,ā etc.). I don't know how much this counts.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Mieky // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
Additionally, the biggest concern moderation has is that people read the debate prior to voting (overwhelming bias is second), and since the voter quoted the debaters, they have clearly put the work in.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Umbrellacorp // Mod action: Not Removed (non-moderated debate)
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 5 to con
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
This debate clearly falls into one or more category of non-moderated debates, and the vote does not seem to be cast in malice. Therefore, no intervention is merited.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#non-moderated-debates
That said I do see mention of in the comments of the source allotment. This debate was conceded, so any majority award in favor of the person for whom to debate was conceded to, are not moderated. Otherwise, the source award would fall below the standard (and honestly, this debate doesn't get source heavy, so it's usually best to leave it a tie even if it's a tie leaning in one direction).
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Umbrellacorp // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
**************************************************
I got into an informal debate with a church minister recently concerning a closely related topic. Effectively it was whether or not Christianity teaches us to question/analyze or to have pure obedience.
I donāt think heād dealt with a well executed kritik before. That said, Iād call it a bit of a stalemateā¦ I could not back up my claims scripturally, and he was reduced to moving the goalpost for being nether Catholic nor Jewish. We did however agree that various Abrahamic splinter groups are brainwashed and are obedient the wrong thing.
Moderators are not bots, but we do use boilerplate descriptions for some of the most common vote removal reasons.
That said, we actually do appreciate you putting the time and effort to vote. The policy we enforce is necessary to minimize issues perceived unfairnessā¦ Imagine you debate your favorite topic, you make what you believe are excellent thought provoking points, and then voters talk about their opinion of the topic without addressing what you wroteā¦ That would suck right? While thatās taking it a few steps further than what you mean to do, but hopefully it still works as an analogy for you of what feeling to avoid.
>Reported Vote: Umbrellacorp // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to Pro (Arguments)
>Reason for Decision:
Reason: Con does not understand the topic nor does he understand the arguments made from pro. Due to his innability to counter-argue he loses my vote in this debate.
I hope this vote is robotic enough to not get removed.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Itās not about robotic, itās about showing analysis of the debate in question. You donāt need to comment on every line inquiry, but even being able to name the main contention from each side and why it succeeded or failed would do fine. For this debate, if conās main contention was that he couldnāt understand proās standpoint to argue against it, then spell that out a bit (along with what said contention was) and youād probably be fine.
**************************************************
Congratulations on finding a clause which mentions forfeiture. Youāre still leagues away from identifying any which say I should delete any debate which fails to meet my quality standards.
As someone who keeps complaining that Iām infinitely corrupt, this is frankly bizarre that youāre also complaining that Iām so very corrupt as to refuse to abuse my moderation powers.
Your imagination is a wonderful thing, but when it disagrees with easily verified facts like this, it may be prudent accept the facts (or even suggest future refinements).
The main CoC doesnāt mention the word forfeiture, and the part of the voting policy you are tryingāand failingāto quote specifically says:
āA forfeiture occurs when either side in a debate is a true no show for a round, allowing the timer to expire. It is not to be confused with merely waiving a round, or having an abysmally poor argument (see Foregone Conclusions below)ā
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Umbrellacorp // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro
>Reason for Decision: I will vote for pro even though i do not agree with his stance, but his arguments are considerable. Con fumbles hard here. There are a few potent and irrefutable arguments (with real life examples) to be made supporting his position and i can't find any of them in his arguments. Instead he turns it into some kind of a written rant, but that is none of my business.
>Reason for Mod Action:
In essence, this vote was just too vague... This can be avoided in future by just commenting on the core contention (and the main counterpoint or the lack thereof), listing a single source you found important (if voting sources), saying what conduct violation distracted you (if voting conduct)... You need not write a thesis, but some minimal level of detail is required to verify knowledge of what you're grading.
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Mieky // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro
>Reason for Decision: even though he forfeited a round he still in my opinion had the best agreements and rebuttals he shut down most of Cons points with the 2 agreements he had.
>Reason for Mod Action:
In essence, this vote was just too vague... This can be avoided in future by just commenting on the core contention (and the main counterpoint or the lack thereof), listing a single source you found important (if voting sources), saying what conduct violation distracted you (if voting conduct)... You need not write a thesis, but some minimal level of detail is required to verify knowledge of what you're grading.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Shane.Roy // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
In essence, this vote was just too vague... This can be avoided in future by just commenting on the core contention (and the main counterpoint or the lack thereof), listing a single source you found important (if voting sources), saying what conduct violation distracted you (if voting conduct)... You need not write a thesis, but some minimal level of detail is required to verify knowledge of what you're grading.
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content. ... aka, we had more of a sense of the debater's profile content than the debate.
**************************************************
- - - Shane.Royās original vote - - -
While Con raised a minor amount of logical points - this was overshadowed by his rude, dismissive, arrogant, inappropriate and defensive stage performance.
Really, this was an adolescent rant dressed up as an intellectual analyses.
Can't really blame though, him since his bio reads:
"Obsessed with truth, allergic to nonsense. I debate because silence isn't my strong suit. Interests: public policy, legal theory, and calling out lazy arguments."
Furthermore, Con used a vastly - appeal to emotion argument - with immensely painful execution. Along with centering many arguments around fallacies such as ad hominem.
Pro on the other hand, calmly threw Con off his carnival stage through kindly dismantling his and rudeness and arrogance, along with his emotion induced points.
Additionally, Pro cited multiple verified and credible sources which further his arguments.
Furthermore, Pro systematically broke down Con's points and used solidified evidence rather than emotional appeal.
In conclusion,
Pro appropriately engaged in this debate through professionalism, organization, citation and effective dismantling of points.
While Con ultimately led a stage performance, with little to no logical points, along with no citations at all for many bold claims.
Con used fallacious styles of argumentation such as ad hominem.
I refer Con to these sites as a kind helping gesture - https://www.holidify.com/pages/carnivals-in-india-3538.html
- https://www.talktoangel.com/best-therapists-in-india
> I strictly said to consult or ask me / fauxlaw before removing his vote second time , but you removed without asking us.
Why on earth would you be asked to clarify your writing of a vote cast by someone else?
> Clearly, I believed that jonrohith exceeded a minimum requirement, considering the volume of the citations given,
As has repeatedly been explained, three or more is the standard to begin considering sources (exceptions are allowed, but they need to be explained). That he insists outside the debate it was actually three, has no reliance on the content presented inside the debate which is what judges are supposed to grade.
> Those two citations consisted of much more than singular quotations of single sentences, which most references to sources amount to and are considered acceptable voting criteria.
You were given every opportunity to refine your vote to meet the standards for source allotments (or to withdraw giving bonus points for that), but you chose not to.
> I entirely disagree with a non-scoring range.
Irrelevant. While the rules for judging may be changed, until they are changed they are enforced as is. You (or anyone else) is more than welcome to initiate a referendum to refine the rules.
Honestly, I think much of why we donāt want sources given lightly, is that theyāre significantly over valued in the current setup.
We probably need a better term than tied range, maybe non-scoring range? Like admitting someone was better, and not giving them extra points for it because itās not by enough.
Because of recent developments we might be able to get the code changed. Iāve started a thread for this discussion:
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/12859-categorical-votes-optimal-points
Ironically, had you given that analysis for sources in either of your votes they would have stood (likely with a "borderline" tag, but still stood). When you revoted, it was a blink and you miss it level of refinement; not enough to justify that those sources were so great to invoke the "barring for exceptional cases" clause.
As for your view that the "Things not to award sources for" section is misleading, I'd be glad to see your proposed refinements to avoid anyone else misunderstanding them.
Itās pretty clear that you donāt know what cheating is.
David, whiteflame, and I all reviewed the reported votes. We removed any which fell short of the standard, and advised improvements. Said improvements did not include switching sides, nor to magically vote for David, whiteflame, or myself (that would have been cheating).
Had RM hacked the site to delete votes against him, that too would have been cheating. But no, the removals were performed by David and I.
As far as I know there was no vote petitioning via PMs.
So all the obvious ways to cheat are ruled out. What method of cheating are you suggesting occurred?
ā¦
And since voting is closed, I can now say this without risk of influencing votes to be against you: the resolution calls for the goalposts of ānot on basis of forfeitureā and you conceded that you should be given points explicitly on the basis of forfeitures! Do you have any clue how damning that is to your case? And itās not like you misspoke, since you did not report votes which gave you those points.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 6 to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Same as before: https://www.debateart.com/debates/6207/comments/65158
The voting policy section on source allotments may be viewed at: https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#sources
To quote instead of paraphrase the rule: "Things not to award sources for (barring for exceptional cases): ... A lead of only a couple sources, even if only one side had any. While quantity isnāt the standard, there is a minimal threshold for consideration."
Ergo, this debate does not have a significant enough use of sources for sources to be awarded.
**************************************************
---fauxlaw's second vote---
As worded by the instigator [Pro], the Resolution may have better served the Pro BoP had he phrased the Resolution exactly as worded in his Round [R] 1 : "Debate must be voted on basis of arguments, not on [the] basis of forfeiture, alone." This is a sound argument because of the addition of a single word; "alone." because many votes are cast by members, including Mods, who should know better considering the current working in voting rules concerning the incident of forfeiture. Even with multiple-criteria designated debates, requiring voting on four specific criteria [argument, sourcing, legibility, conduct] the vote is rendered as a win by one opponent for the forfeiture of the other opponent. There is question among the members and moods if this is appropriate voted consequence. Nevertheless, the added "alone" makes for a significant argument point that is never truly defeated. Further, Pro weakens his argument by closing R1 with two questions posed to Con. Posing a question on a point of potential argument is much better made as an argument to which Con is obligated to successfully rebut to defeat it. An open-ended question does not accomplish that. At best the question will receive an open-ended answer, which may or may not fail as a rebuttal.
Due to Con's forfeiture of Round 1 by response - which is perceived by this voter as an intended vehicle to argue the point of a clouded forfeiture voting rule, and perhaps instigated by Pro's ill-advised questions, still fails the strict definition of a proper argument. Further there is no provided source to substantiate the strategy as a merit of argument, but certainly fails the sourcing requirement. Since Pro offered no source either for R1, it's a moot point.āØPro begins and ends R2 with a repeat of his BoP, but that's all.
Con's R2 begins by defining forfeit, but uses a contractual legal definition having naught to do with this siteās debate protocol, and is therefore a useless argument. Con's R2 continues by sourcing the DA debate voting rules relative to forfeiture that, by its clouded discussion, appears to, and in practiced citing does result in a potential win for the fofeiter by loophole, as Pro later argues. But Con's R2 rebuttal does not display the strength to overwhelm Pro's R1 argument that forfeiture, alone, is not a valid argument and should be a loser, at least of conduct point.āØCon's R2 ends with an ill-advised question of his own which would also have served him better stated as an argument rather than an open-ended question; ill-advised for the same reason as given to Pro.
Pro's R3 begins by an accusation that Pro asked voters to not penalize Con for his R1 forfeit, but Proās rebuttal that he did not ask voters to vote that way, but asked Con the direct question about voting on forfeitures. Pro invited such an accusation because any statements made in a debate are presumed to be addressed to the eventual voters, in a edition to the opponent, which is one reason why asking direct questions to the opponent may be construed to be posed to voters, but the ruse by Con is too transparent by the accusation, and falls flat. Pro's R3 then offers cited examples of debates which purposefully corrupt use of forfeiture for ulterior reasons, further showing the flaws in the current rules of voting on forfeitures, alone. Pro finished R3 with a convoluted answer to Con's R2 question, but it was not worded clearly, but clearly enough for what follows...āØCon's R3 declares, based upon Pro's R3 answer to Con's R2 question, "Pro concedes the debate," and concludes with some descriptive justification. However, DA voting rules relative to concession say "If either side explicitly conceded the debate... [consequences discussed] ...This is invalid if the concession was not explicit" There is no "explicit" concession by Pro, and the rule declarers it cannot be called a concession if not explicitly expressed. It was not.
Therefore, the Vote;āØ
Argument: Successful R1, R2 arguments by Pro. Po wins argumentāØ
Sources: Po offered better and more connected sources, such as offered in R3, to support his BoP as noted above. By contrast, Conās only source was a dictionary definition of forfeit, but a definiton not related to a debate action of forfeit. Pro wins Sourcing
āØLegibility: Pro's R3 was a bit clouded, but Con's R2 was entirely illegible by forfeit. TieāØ
Conduct: Both Con's R1 forfeit, and R3 concession accusation, lose point.āØPro wins conduct
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: vi_777 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 to pro, 1 to con
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
If there was more time, I'd probably do a little back and forth with basic questions about the debate to estimate bias and to allow implicit expansions of the vote such, but we we do not have the luxury to both do that and give you the opportunity to vote again should removal be necessary.
I'll also say that the vote is right on the line of borderline (flawed but acceptable) or slightly less, so please don't feel anything bad, this is more of a couching moment than anything.
I'm going to use some boilerplates for parts of this (wish I could color code or something)...
In essence, this vote was just too vague... This can be avoided in future by just commenting on the core contention from each side (and the main counterpoint or the lack thereof), listing a single source you found important (if voting sources), saying what conduct violation distracted you (if voting conduct)... You need not write a thesis, but some minimal level of detail is required to verify knowledge of what you're grading. ... To this, legibility is unexplained (and frankly, as neither committed any crimes against English, is almost guaranteed to deserve to be tied)
Arguments must always be reviewed even if left a tie (in which case less detail is required, but some reason for said tie based on the debate content must still be comprehensible within the vote).
Arguments go to the side that, within the context of the debate rounds, successfully affirms (vote pro) or negates (vote con) the resolution. Ties are possible, particularly with pre-agreed competing claims, but in most cases failing to affirm the resolution means pro loses by default.
Weighing entails analyzing the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments and their impacts against another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole. ... That last part is a touch of a problem for your vote, while it's not true that you made no mention of the contender's case, it was basically complete dismissal for an accused fallacy (which is sometimes enough, but his case had enough depth that something more should have been mentioned... perhaps how his side to the loopholes argument turned out or didn't turn out? There's more options that would work, that's just one I'd be curious to read).
Due to the above on arguments, I am sorry to say, but...
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 6 to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Arguments and conduct are finely measured for judgement, but not so much for sources.
Sources are optional and if awarded require a strong quality lead. Sources go to the side that better supported their case with relevant outside evidence and/or analysis thereof. If both sides have done their research due diligence, these points are usually tied.
A side with unreliable sources may be penalized, but the voter must specify why the sources were unreliable enough to diminish their own case (such as if the other side called attention to the flaws, thereby engaging with sources in a more effective manner with impacts to arguments; thereby flipping the source and harming the opposing argument).
Things not to award sources for (barring for exceptional cases):
ā¢ Common knowledgeā¦ E.g., that Wikipedia says JFK was the president of a country, which is unlikely to enhance any impacts (unless the other side is denying that).
ā¢ The subject of the debateā¦ E.g., in a biblical debate, preferring one sideās analysis of the bible itself already speaks directly to the argument points, not exceptional sourcing.
ā¢ A lead of only a couple sources, even if only one side had any. While quantity isnāt the standard, there is a minimal threshold for consideration.
ā¢ Source spam without relevant analysis by the presenter. Sources are awarded for quality, not mere quantity.
ā¢ The voterās own research on the topic.
**************************************************
---vi_777's original vote---
Proās Victory:
Clear stance: Pro consistently argued that debates must be judged on argument quality, not just forfeitures.
Detailed examples: He cited cases to prove how unfair wins can occur when forfeits are the main basis of judgment.
Nuanced distinction: He introduced the idea of "indirect forfeiture" (e.g., saying just āokā or giving blank arguments), which broadened the debate.
Conās misread: Con wrongly claimed Pro was saying not to penalize forfeits, but Pro never argued that ā he just emphasized that arguments should outweigh procedural flaws.
Conās Loss:
Forfeited one full round.
Misunderstood Proās position and built part of his rebuttal on a strawman.
In Round 3, Con conceded that forfeits can be penalized ā which Pro never disagreed with. This showed a partial alignment with Proās position.
---Fauxlaw's Original Vote (1 of 2)---
The timing of this debate could not be more fortuitous considering the changes to this site that are forthcoming with transfer of ownership, and the potential modifications of site function following the change. The issue of debate argument and the consequence of one or more rounds forfeited by one or both opponents and how such consequence should affect the voted outcome. The created Resolution by the instigator is the perfect foil, for its two opposing Burdens of Proof [BoP] affect the current rule attitude about the success of presentation of argument as the primary, current carrier of voted point value in a multiple criterion debate, or the singular criterion in a winner selection debate, countered by the effect of the clouded judgment of forfeiture by one or both opponents in whole or in part as the opposing BoP, and as portrayed by possible modification of debate rules and voting protocol.
As worded by the instigator [Pro], the Resolution may have better served the Pro BoP had he phrased the Resolution exactly as worded in his Round [R] 1 : "Debate must be voted on basis of arguments, not on [the] basis of forfeiture, alone." This is a sound argument because of the addition of a single word; "alone." because many votes area cast by members, including Mods, who should no better considering the current working in voting rules concerning the incident of forfeiture. Evewn with multiple-criteria designated debates, requiring voting on four specific criteria [argument, sourcing, legibility, conduct] the vote is rendered as a wion by one opponent for the forfeiture of the other opponent. There is question among the members and moods if this is appropriate voted consequence. Never the less, the added "alone" makes for a significant argument point that is never truly defeated. Further, Pro weakens his argument by closing R1 with two questions posed to Con. Posing a question on a point of potential argument is much better made as an argument to which Con is obligated to successfully rebut to defeat it. An open-ended question does not accomplish that. At best the question will receive an open-ended answer, which may or may not fail as a rebuttal.
---Fauxlaw's Original Vote (2 of 2)---
Due to Con's forfeiture of Round 1 by response - which is perceived by this voter as an intended vehicle to argue the point of a clouded forfeiture voting rule, and perhaps instigated by pro's ill-advised questions, still fails the strict definition of a proper argument. Further there is no provided source tor substantiate the strategy as a merit of argument, but certainly fails the sourcing requirement. Since Pro offered no source either for R1, it's a moot point.
Pro legions and ends R2 with a repeat of his BoP, burr that's all.
Con's R2 begins bay defining forfeit, Burt uses a contractual legal definition hang naught to do with this sites debate protocol, and is therefore a useless argument. Con's R2 continues by sourcing the DA debate voting rules relative to forfeiture that, by its clouded discussion, appears to, and in practiced citing does result in a potential win for the fofeiter by loophole, as Pro later argues. But Con's R2 rebuttal does not display the strength to overwhelm Pro's R1 argument that forfeiture, alone, is not a valid argument and should be a loser.
Con's R2 ends with an ill-advised question of his own which would also have served him better stated as an argument than an open-ended question; ill-advised for the same reason as given to Pro.
Pro's R3 begins by an accusation that Pro asked voters to not penalize Con for his R1 forfeit, but pro rightly reb its that he did not ask voters to v toe that way, but asked Con the direct question about voting on forfeitures. Pro invited such an accusation because any statements made in a debate are presumed to be addressed to the eventual voters, in a edition to the opponent, which is one reason why asking direct questions to the opponent may be construed to be posed to voters, but the ruse by Con is too transparent by the accusation, and falls flat. Pro's R3 then offers cited examples of debates which purposefully corrupt use of forfeiture for ulterior reasons, further showing the flaws in the current ruled of voting on forfeitures, alone. Pro finished R3 with a convoluted answer to Con's R2 question, but it was not worded clearly, but clearly enough for what follows...
Con's R3 declares, based upon pro's RT3 answer to Con's R2 question, "Pro concedes the debate," and concludes with some descriptive justification. However, DA voting rules relative to concession say "If either side explicitly conceded the debate... [consequences discussed] ...This is invalid if the concession was not explicit" There is no "explicit" concession by Pro, and the rule declarers it cannot be called a concession if not explicitrely expressed. It was not.
Therefore, the Vote;
Argument: Successful R1, R2 arguments by Pro. Po wins argument
Sources: pro offered better and mores connected sources tor supports his BoP as noted above. Pro wins Spurcing
Legibility: Pro's R3 was a bit clouded, but Con's R2 was entirely illegible by forfeit. Tie
Conduct: Both Con's R1 forfeit, and R3 concession accusation, lose point.
pro wins conduct
Sorry I haven't gotten around to voting, I actually really meant to put the time in already, but there was drama drama drama elsewhere on the site.
I have not fully read it yet, but from the parts I did skim over a vote from me will most likely be a tie. This is a very high quality debate, with competing non-mutually exclusive BoPs, that is a hard recipe to win under. I may shift as I read it in depth, but just giving a little advanced notice of early thoughts.
As you may recall, the previous debate on a related subject had a lengthy and outright evil description.
While arguments could attain that level of evil, with none published (yet) they have not. There's dozens of strategies con could use which are not taken straight from terrorist propaganda.
Further, they'd probably need to get even worse, since the desire for legit discussions is self evident from their actively levels elsewhere on the site.
And of course, this debate was created after the moderation team agreed we may have overstepped in the severity of punishment, so to merit a permaban each, they'd need to reach some extreme levels of deplorability.
...
That said, yes, the moderation team is aware of this debate, and will be checking in on the content of it.
We'll review it in greater detail. I know for a fact that whiteflame is currently reading this debate (or was, there's some drama which likely pulled him away). I suspect after he finishes reading it, he'll be able to give a more informed opinion of the vote. The previous ruling on arguments, was made without any of us having yet read the debate.
That said, please try not to jump to the worst conclusions about voters (especially new ones). This debate in particular is extremely complicated, so a voter is more likely confused than intentionally rage baiting.
A far better tactic is to request they clarify a key point or two, such as what gave them the impression you argued from bodily autonomy? Answers (or lack thereof) may inform moderation decisions, or even result in someone requesting to re-vote on their own.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Umbrellacorp // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The argument award is fine, but the legibility should be a tie.
In gist, conduct and legibility are only for extreme poor performance by the other side, rather than just being marginally better. On a debate with two extremely talented debates like this, everything other than arguments is almost certainly within the tied range.
And boilerplate explanation...
Legibility is an optional award as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, wherein sections of the debate become illegible or at least comparatively burdensome to decipher.
Examples:
ā¢ Unbroken walls of text, or similar formatting attempts to make an argument hard to follow.
ā¢ Terrible punctuation throughout.
ā¢ Overwhelming word confusion, or regularly distracting misspellings.
ā¢ Jarring font and/or formatting changes.
**************************************************
--- Umbrellacorp's original vote ---
My vote: Pro
Pro: Consistently maintained a clear line of moral reasoning.
Con: Good direct rebuttals but less precise about why uncertainty is not sufficient.
Reasons:
Pro's āuncertainty principleā was never fully dismantled. Con challenged it but didnāt show it was unreasonable.
The autonomy defense was strong from con but relied on 'asserting' that bodily autonomy beats potential personhood without fully showing why that moral perspective outweighs the
precautionary harm.
Pro suggested and maintained a layered ethical framework (FLO, special obligations, uncertainty) throughout the debate.
Whereas con primarily offered counter-assertions and did not develop a comparable alternative moral framework.
I think Proās arguments were more compelling on balance. Pro demonstrated that even under uncertainty about personhood, the moral risk of abortion equates to potentially committing severe harm (comparable to homicide).
Con did effectively argue for autonomy, but he did not sufficiently counter the moral weight of the 'precautionary principle' or establish why bodily autonomy rejects that moral uncertainty.
Plus, conās engagement with the 'Future-Like-Ours' argument was more dismissive than refutative.
Thus in my opinion, pro stood to their burden more convincingly.
Further reason for decision of best legibility: proās writing was clearer, better structured, and easier to follow.
Plus: Arguments were numbered and labeled (ā1. Uncertainty,ā ā2. FLO,ā etc.). I don't know how much this counts.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Mieky // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
Additionally, the biggest concern moderation has is that people read the debate prior to voting (overwhelming bias is second), and since the voter quoted the debaters, they have clearly put the work in.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Umbrellacorp // Mod action: Not Removed (non-moderated debate)
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 5 to con
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
This debate clearly falls into one or more category of non-moderated debates, and the vote does not seem to be cast in malice. Therefore, no intervention is merited.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#non-moderated-debates
That said I do see mention of in the comments of the source allotment. This debate was conceded, so any majority award in favor of the person for whom to debate was conceded to, are not moderated. Otherwise, the source award would fall below the standard (and honestly, this debate doesn't get source heavy, so it's usually best to leave it a tie even if it's a tie leaning in one direction).
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Umbrellacorp // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
**************************************************
Fun topic!
I got into an informal debate with a church minister recently concerning a closely related topic. Effectively it was whether or not Christianity teaches us to question/analyze or to have pure obedience.
I donāt think heād dealt with a well executed kritik before. That said, Iād call it a bit of a stalemateā¦ I could not back up my claims scripturally, and he was reduced to moving the goalpost for being nether Catholic nor Jewish. We did however agree that various Abrahamic splinter groups are brainwashed and are obedient the wrong thing.
The conduct award was for them conceding, which makes all the votes in your favor incredibly easy on everyone.
> I don't know if you are a bot or a person.
Moderators are not bots, but we do use boilerplate descriptions for some of the most common vote removal reasons.
That said, we actually do appreciate you putting the time and effort to vote. The policy we enforce is necessary to minimize issues perceived unfairnessā¦ Imagine you debate your favorite topic, you make what you believe are excellent thought provoking points, and then voters talk about their opinion of the topic without addressing what you wroteā¦ That would suck right? While thatās taking it a few steps further than what you mean to do, but hopefully it still works as an analogy for you of what feeling to avoid.
>Reported Vote: Umbrellacorp // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to Pro (Arguments)
>Reason for Decision:
Reason: Con does not understand the topic nor does he understand the arguments made from pro. Due to his innability to counter-argue he loses my vote in this debate.
I hope this vote is robotic enough to not get removed.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Itās not about robotic, itās about showing analysis of the debate in question. You donāt need to comment on every line inquiry, but even being able to name the main contention from each side and why it succeeded or failed would do fine. For this debate, if conās main contention was that he couldnāt understand proās standpoint to argue against it, then spell that out a bit (along with what said contention was) and youād probably be fine.
**************************************************
Good for you.
I should mention that for true emergencies (which I assume you believe this to be), you should call 911.
> Pro is brainwashed and just posted propaganda.
This RFD fails on almost every level, beginning with failing to suggest you read the debate.
Judgements must stem from the debate which occurred, not your opinions on the debaters.
> I still have not understood any difference.
Here's an incomplete list...
Differences:
#1 this debate has not been forfeited.
#2 this debate has not been abandoned.
#3 this debate is not spam.
Similarities:
#1 I (and others) have a low opinion of "debabtes" of this type
Repeated lies about the content of CoC in this thread.
Iām not angry. I am however bored of your gaslighting.
Congratulations on finding a clause which mentions forfeiture. Youāre still leagues away from identifying any which say I should delete any debate which fails to meet my quality standards.
As someone who keeps complaining that Iām infinitely corrupt, this is frankly bizarre that youāre also complaining that Iām so very corrupt as to refuse to abuse my moderation powers.
> I canāt believe you deleted Mickeyās vote but not umbrellacorps
One was reported for review, the other was not.
Your imagination is a wonderful thing, but when it disagrees with easily verified facts like this, it may be prudent accept the facts (or even suggest future refinements).
The main CoC doesnāt mention the word forfeiture, and the part of the voting policy you are tryingāand failingāto quote specifically says:
āA forfeiture occurs when either side in a debate is a true no show for a round, allowing the timer to expire. It is not to be confused with merely waiving a round, or having an abysmally poor argument (see Foregone Conclusions below)ā
Youāve insisted the CoC has a clause which supports your argument, please quote said clause.
You're welcome to look it up and tell me how wrong I am:
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/rules
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Umbrellacorp // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro
>Reason for Decision: I will vote for pro even though i do not agree with his stance, but his arguments are considerable. Con fumbles hard here. There are a few potent and irrefutable arguments (with real life examples) to be made supporting his position and i can't find any of them in his arguments. Instead he turns it into some kind of a written rant, but that is none of my business.
>Reason for Mod Action:
In essence, this vote was just too vague... This can be avoided in future by just commenting on the core contention (and the main counterpoint or the lack thereof), listing a single source you found important (if voting sources), saying what conduct violation distracted you (if voting conduct)... You need not write a thesis, but some minimal level of detail is required to verify knowledge of what you're grading.
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Mieky // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro
>Reason for Decision: even though he forfeited a round he still in my opinion had the best agreements and rebuttals he shut down most of Cons points with the 2 agreements he had.
>Reason for Mod Action:
In essence, this vote was just too vague... This can be avoided in future by just commenting on the core contention (and the main counterpoint or the lack thereof), listing a single source you found important (if voting sources), saying what conduct violation distracted you (if voting conduct)... You need not write a thesis, but some minimal level of detail is required to verify knowledge of what you're grading.
**************************************************
Again, given that neither side forfeited, that question is Non-Sequitur.
> If you delete this vote,
This is a non-moderated debate, thus (baring extreme cases) votes shall not be regulated. Plus you voted a tie, those are likewise not regulated.
> If you delete full FFs why don't you delete this too?
Given that neither side forfeited, that question is Non-Sequitur.
Started reading this, and I may come back to it... But I will say it got painfully off topic.
FYI, it amounted to nothing.
I was on my phone, and could not get the spreadsheet to work for the removal notice, so that was the first half that I could do.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Shane.Roy // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
In essence, this vote was just too vague... This can be avoided in future by just commenting on the core contention (and the main counterpoint or the lack thereof), listing a single source you found important (if voting sources), saying what conduct violation distracted you (if voting conduct)... You need not write a thesis, but some minimal level of detail is required to verify knowledge of what you're grading.
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content. ... aka, we had more of a sense of the debater's profile content than the debate.
**************************************************
Iāll be running an AI check before I vote. Thereās a few red flags. Hopefully they amount to nothing.
- - - Shane.Royās original vote - - -
While Con raised a minor amount of logical points - this was overshadowed by his rude, dismissive, arrogant, inappropriate and defensive stage performance.
Really, this was an adolescent rant dressed up as an intellectual analyses.
Can't really blame though, him since his bio reads:
"Obsessed with truth, allergic to nonsense. I debate because silence isn't my strong suit. Interests: public policy, legal theory, and calling out lazy arguments."
Furthermore, Con used a vastly - appeal to emotion argument - with immensely painful execution. Along with centering many arguments around fallacies such as ad hominem.
Pro on the other hand, calmly threw Con off his carnival stage through kindly dismantling his and rudeness and arrogance, along with his emotion induced points.
Additionally, Pro cited multiple verified and credible sources which further his arguments.
Furthermore, Pro systematically broke down Con's points and used solidified evidence rather than emotional appeal.
In conclusion,
Pro appropriately engaged in this debate through professionalism, organization, citation and effective dismantling of points.
While Con ultimately led a stage performance, with little to no logical points, along with no citations at all for many bold claims.
Con used fallacious styles of argumentation such as ad hominem.
I refer Con to these sites as a kind helping gesture - https://www.holidify.com/pages/carnivals-in-india-3538.html
- https://www.talktoangel.com/best-therapists-in-india
Your opponent may return, but if not, then just āSomehow Palpatine returnedā as your remaining rounds is optimal.
Either way, Iād launch this debate again for a new opponent.
He accomplished more than nothing as president, so with her never rising to that station that could prove tricky for pro.
Much appreciated that you said that in gestā¦
But yes, so unfair, weāre going to do better than delete them and meowete them! š¤£šāā¬
> I strictly said to consult or ask me / fauxlaw before removing his vote second time , but you removed without asking us.
Why on earth would you be asked to clarify your writing of a vote cast by someone else?
> Clearly, I believed that jonrohith exceeded a minimum requirement, considering the volume of the citations given,
As has repeatedly been explained, three or more is the standard to begin considering sources (exceptions are allowed, but they need to be explained). That he insists outside the debate it was actually three, has no reliance on the content presented inside the debate which is what judges are supposed to grade.
> Those two citations consisted of much more than singular quotations of single sentences, which most references to sources amount to and are considered acceptable voting criteria.
You were given every opportunity to refine your vote to meet the standards for source allotments (or to withdraw giving bonus points for that), but you chose not to.
> I entirely disagree with a non-scoring range.
Irrelevant. While the rules for judging may be changed, until they are changed they are enforced as is. You (or anyone else) is more than welcome to initiate a referendum to refine the rules.
Honestly, I think much of why we donāt want sources given lightly, is that theyāre significantly over valued in the current setup.
We probably need a better term than tied range, maybe non-scoring range? Like admitting someone was better, and not giving them extra points for it because itās not by enough.
Because of recent developments we might be able to get the code changed. Iāve started a thread for this discussion:
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/12859-categorical-votes-optimal-points
These debates have a built in oddity:
Soundness of such a thing really can't be proven, only validity. A high level of validity, well above the base level to be sure, but still validity.
Of course to attack the soundness, the validity is the best target.
But if the setup says "valid" then it's like going for a cheap win, and will be mocked for it.
It's almost like we need a to differentiate between lowercase and uppercase Validity and Soundness.
Anyways, I'll plan on voting.
Also,
https://debate.miraheze.org/wiki/Validity_vs._Soundness
Ironically, had you given that analysis for sources in either of your votes they would have stood (likely with a "borderline" tag, but still stood). When you revoted, it was a blink and you miss it level of refinement; not enough to justify that those sources were so great to invoke the "barring for exceptional cases" clause.
As for your view that the "Things not to award sources for" section is misleading, I'd be glad to see your proposed refinements to avoid anyone else misunderstanding them.
Itās pretty clear that you donāt know what cheating is.
David, whiteflame, and I all reviewed the reported votes. We removed any which fell short of the standard, and advised improvements. Said improvements did not include switching sides, nor to magically vote for David, whiteflame, or myself (that would have been cheating).
Had RM hacked the site to delete votes against him, that too would have been cheating. But no, the removals were performed by David and I.
As far as I know there was no vote petitioning via PMs.
So all the obvious ways to cheat are ruled out. What method of cheating are you suggesting occurred?
ā¦
And since voting is closed, I can now say this without risk of influencing votes to be against you: the resolution calls for the goalposts of ānot on basis of forfeitureā and you conceded that you should be given points explicitly on the basis of forfeitures! Do you have any clue how damning that is to your case? And itās not like you misspoke, since you did not report votes which gave you those points.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 6 to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Same as before: https://www.debateart.com/debates/6207/comments/65158
The voting policy section on source allotments may be viewed at: https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#sources
To quote instead of paraphrase the rule: "Things not to award sources for (barring for exceptional cases): ... A lead of only a couple sources, even if only one side had any. While quantity isnāt the standard, there is a minimal threshold for consideration."
Ergo, this debate does not have a significant enough use of sources for sources to be awarded.
**************************************************
---fauxlaw's second vote---
As worded by the instigator [Pro], the Resolution may have better served the Pro BoP had he phrased the Resolution exactly as worded in his Round [R] 1 : "Debate must be voted on basis of arguments, not on [the] basis of forfeiture, alone." This is a sound argument because of the addition of a single word; "alone." because many votes are cast by members, including Mods, who should know better considering the current working in voting rules concerning the incident of forfeiture. Even with multiple-criteria designated debates, requiring voting on four specific criteria [argument, sourcing, legibility, conduct] the vote is rendered as a win by one opponent for the forfeiture of the other opponent. There is question among the members and moods if this is appropriate voted consequence. Nevertheless, the added "alone" makes for a significant argument point that is never truly defeated. Further, Pro weakens his argument by closing R1 with two questions posed to Con. Posing a question on a point of potential argument is much better made as an argument to which Con is obligated to successfully rebut to defeat it. An open-ended question does not accomplish that. At best the question will receive an open-ended answer, which may or may not fail as a rebuttal.
Due to Con's forfeiture of Round 1 by response - which is perceived by this voter as an intended vehicle to argue the point of a clouded forfeiture voting rule, and perhaps instigated by Pro's ill-advised questions, still fails the strict definition of a proper argument. Further there is no provided source to substantiate the strategy as a merit of argument, but certainly fails the sourcing requirement. Since Pro offered no source either for R1, it's a moot point.āØPro begins and ends R2 with a repeat of his BoP, but that's all.
Con's R2 begins by defining forfeit, but uses a contractual legal definition having naught to do with this siteās debate protocol, and is therefore a useless argument. Con's R2 continues by sourcing the DA debate voting rules relative to forfeiture that, by its clouded discussion, appears to, and in practiced citing does result in a potential win for the fofeiter by loophole, as Pro later argues. But Con's R2 rebuttal does not display the strength to overwhelm Pro's R1 argument that forfeiture, alone, is not a valid argument and should be a loser, at least of conduct point.āØCon's R2 ends with an ill-advised question of his own which would also have served him better stated as an argument rather than an open-ended question; ill-advised for the same reason as given to Pro.
Pro's R3 begins by an accusation that Pro asked voters to not penalize Con for his R1 forfeit, but Proās rebuttal that he did not ask voters to vote that way, but asked Con the direct question about voting on forfeitures. Pro invited such an accusation because any statements made in a debate are presumed to be addressed to the eventual voters, in a edition to the opponent, which is one reason why asking direct questions to the opponent may be construed to be posed to voters, but the ruse by Con is too transparent by the accusation, and falls flat. Pro's R3 then offers cited examples of debates which purposefully corrupt use of forfeiture for ulterior reasons, further showing the flaws in the current rules of voting on forfeitures, alone. Pro finished R3 with a convoluted answer to Con's R2 question, but it was not worded clearly, but clearly enough for what follows...āØCon's R3 declares, based upon Pro's R3 answer to Con's R2 question, "Pro concedes the debate," and concludes with some descriptive justification. However, DA voting rules relative to concession say "If either side explicitly conceded the debate... [consequences discussed] ...This is invalid if the concession was not explicit" There is no "explicit" concession by Pro, and the rule declarers it cannot be called a concession if not explicitly expressed. It was not.
Therefore, the Vote;āØ
Argument: Successful R1, R2 arguments by Pro. Po wins argumentāØ
Sources: Po offered better and more connected sources, such as offered in R3, to support his BoP as noted above. By contrast, Conās only source was a dictionary definition of forfeit, but a definiton not related to a debate action of forfeit. Pro wins Sourcing
āØLegibility: Pro's R3 was a bit clouded, but Con's R2 was entirely illegible by forfeit. TieāØ
Conduct: Both Con's R1 forfeit, and R3 concession accusation, lose point.āØPro wins conduct
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: vi_777 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 to pro, 1 to con
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
If there was more time, I'd probably do a little back and forth with basic questions about the debate to estimate bias and to allow implicit expansions of the vote such, but we we do not have the luxury to both do that and give you the opportunity to vote again should removal be necessary.
I'll also say that the vote is right on the line of borderline (flawed but acceptable) or slightly less, so please don't feel anything bad, this is more of a couching moment than anything.
I'm going to use some boilerplates for parts of this (wish I could color code or something)...
In essence, this vote was just too vague... This can be avoided in future by just commenting on the core contention from each side (and the main counterpoint or the lack thereof), listing a single source you found important (if voting sources), saying what conduct violation distracted you (if voting conduct)... You need not write a thesis, but some minimal level of detail is required to verify knowledge of what you're grading. ... To this, legibility is unexplained (and frankly, as neither committed any crimes against English, is almost guaranteed to deserve to be tied)
Arguments must always be reviewed even if left a tie (in which case less detail is required, but some reason for said tie based on the debate content must still be comprehensible within the vote).
Arguments go to the side that, within the context of the debate rounds, successfully affirms (vote pro) or negates (vote con) the resolution. Ties are possible, particularly with pre-agreed competing claims, but in most cases failing to affirm the resolution means pro loses by default.
Weighing entails analyzing the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments and their impacts against another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole. ... That last part is a touch of a problem for your vote, while it's not true that you made no mention of the contender's case, it was basically complete dismissal for an accused fallacy (which is sometimes enough, but his case had enough depth that something more should have been mentioned... perhaps how his side to the loopholes argument turned out or didn't turn out? There's more options that would work, that's just one I'd be curious to read).
Due to the above on arguments, I am sorry to say, but...
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 6 to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Arguments and conduct are finely measured for judgement, but not so much for sources.
Sources are optional and if awarded require a strong quality lead. Sources go to the side that better supported their case with relevant outside evidence and/or analysis thereof. If both sides have done their research due diligence, these points are usually tied.
A side with unreliable sources may be penalized, but the voter must specify why the sources were unreliable enough to diminish their own case (such as if the other side called attention to the flaws, thereby engaging with sources in a more effective manner with impacts to arguments; thereby flipping the source and harming the opposing argument).
Things not to award sources for (barring for exceptional cases):
ā¢ Common knowledgeā¦ E.g., that Wikipedia says JFK was the president of a country, which is unlikely to enhance any impacts (unless the other side is denying that).
ā¢ The subject of the debateā¦ E.g., in a biblical debate, preferring one sideās analysis of the bible itself already speaks directly to the argument points, not exceptional sourcing.
ā¢ A lead of only a couple sources, even if only one side had any. While quantity isnāt the standard, there is a minimal threshold for consideration.
ā¢ Source spam without relevant analysis by the presenter. Sources are awarded for quality, not mere quantity.
ā¢ The voterās own research on the topic.
**************************************************
---vi_777's original vote---
Proās Victory:
Clear stance: Pro consistently argued that debates must be judged on argument quality, not just forfeitures.
Detailed examples: He cited cases to prove how unfair wins can occur when forfeits are the main basis of judgment.
Nuanced distinction: He introduced the idea of "indirect forfeiture" (e.g., saying just āokā or giving blank arguments), which broadened the debate.
Conās misread: Con wrongly claimed Pro was saying not to penalize forfeits, but Pro never argued that ā he just emphasized that arguments should outweigh procedural flaws.
Conās Loss:
Forfeited one full round.
Misunderstood Proās position and built part of his rebuttal on a strawman.
In Round 3, Con conceded that forfeits can be penalized ā which Pro never disagreed with. This showed a partial alignment with Proās position.
---Fauxlaw's Original Vote (1 of 2)---
The timing of this debate could not be more fortuitous considering the changes to this site that are forthcoming with transfer of ownership, and the potential modifications of site function following the change. The issue of debate argument and the consequence of one or more rounds forfeited by one or both opponents and how such consequence should affect the voted outcome. The created Resolution by the instigator is the perfect foil, for its two opposing Burdens of Proof [BoP] affect the current rule attitude about the success of presentation of argument as the primary, current carrier of voted point value in a multiple criterion debate, or the singular criterion in a winner selection debate, countered by the effect of the clouded judgment of forfeiture by one or both opponents in whole or in part as the opposing BoP, and as portrayed by possible modification of debate rules and voting protocol.
As worded by the instigator [Pro], the Resolution may have better served the Pro BoP had he phrased the Resolution exactly as worded in his Round [R] 1 : "Debate must be voted on basis of arguments, not on [the] basis of forfeiture, alone." This is a sound argument because of the addition of a single word; "alone." because many votes area cast by members, including Mods, who should no better considering the current working in voting rules concerning the incident of forfeiture. Evewn with multiple-criteria designated debates, requiring voting on four specific criteria [argument, sourcing, legibility, conduct] the vote is rendered as a wion by one opponent for the forfeiture of the other opponent. There is question among the members and moods if this is appropriate voted consequence. Never the less, the added "alone" makes for a significant argument point that is never truly defeated. Further, Pro weakens his argument by closing R1 with two questions posed to Con. Posing a question on a point of potential argument is much better made as an argument to which Con is obligated to successfully rebut to defeat it. An open-ended question does not accomplish that. At best the question will receive an open-ended answer, which may or may not fail as a rebuttal.
---Fauxlaw's Original Vote (2 of 2)---
Due to Con's forfeiture of Round 1 by response - which is perceived by this voter as an intended vehicle to argue the point of a clouded forfeiture voting rule, and perhaps instigated by pro's ill-advised questions, still fails the strict definition of a proper argument. Further there is no provided source tor substantiate the strategy as a merit of argument, but certainly fails the sourcing requirement. Since Pro offered no source either for R1, it's a moot point.
Pro legions and ends R2 with a repeat of his BoP, burr that's all.
Con's R2 begins bay defining forfeit, Burt uses a contractual legal definition hang naught to do with this sites debate protocol, and is therefore a useless argument. Con's R2 continues by sourcing the DA debate voting rules relative to forfeiture that, by its clouded discussion, appears to, and in practiced citing does result in a potential win for the fofeiter by loophole, as Pro later argues. But Con's R2 rebuttal does not display the strength to overwhelm Pro's R1 argument that forfeiture, alone, is not a valid argument and should be a loser.
Con's R2 ends with an ill-advised question of his own which would also have served him better stated as an argument than an open-ended question; ill-advised for the same reason as given to Pro.
Pro's R3 begins by an accusation that Pro asked voters to not penalize Con for his R1 forfeit, but pro rightly reb its that he did not ask voters to v toe that way, but asked Con the direct question about voting on forfeitures. Pro invited such an accusation because any statements made in a debate are presumed to be addressed to the eventual voters, in a edition to the opponent, which is one reason why asking direct questions to the opponent may be construed to be posed to voters, but the ruse by Con is too transparent by the accusation, and falls flat. Pro's R3 then offers cited examples of debates which purposefully corrupt use of forfeiture for ulterior reasons, further showing the flaws in the current ruled of voting on forfeitures, alone. Pro finished R3 with a convoluted answer to Con's R2 question, but it was not worded clearly, but clearly enough for what follows...
Con's R3 declares, based upon pro's RT3 answer to Con's R2 question, "Pro concedes the debate," and concludes with some descriptive justification. However, DA voting rules relative to concession say "If either side explicitly conceded the debate... [consequences discussed] ...This is invalid if the concession was not explicit" There is no "explicit" concession by Pro, and the rule declarers it cannot be called a concession if not explicitrely expressed. It was not.
Therefore, the Vote;
Argument: Successful R1, R2 arguments by Pro. Po wins argument
Sources: pro offered better and mores connected sources tor supports his BoP as noted above. Pro wins Spurcing
Legibility: Pro's R3 was a bit clouded, but Con's R2 was entirely illegible by forfeit. Tie
Conduct: Both Con's R1 forfeit, and R3 concession accusation, lose point.
pro wins conduct
Those would make good lines of reasoning in your case.