**************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Removed (borderline)
>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:
While the concession is in question, the the rest of the vote is fine due to the debate description specifying a special rule which voters may factor into their votes.
The vote was borderline. By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient.
**************************************************
I don't remember him from DDO, so I'd say shortly after this site started. The earliest negative interaction I can find is in a thread discussing how the site itself could handle forfeitures.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1655-auto-loss-for-forfeits?page=1&post_number=17
Regarding BoP
I'd say by nature of the setup pro has primary BoP. However, the setup states shared BoP, which mandates con do more than pure refutations.
Further, while the resolution does not have any softening qualifiers (most likely), it likewise lacks absolutes (definitely).
Pro's case seems to largely be that the ban on discussions actually does the very harm it is supposed to be trying to prevent.
I do like con's bullet point breakdown of pro's case. Pro goes overboard with the rejection of it, as the Canada thing seemed to be a fair misinterpretation of the facts as they were laid out (Canada was mentioned first).
If someone does this and it's a strawman, the best course of action is to correct it to how you would like your case summarized.
So going in, I expect minimums from each side
...
Just got a notification that I have an argument due. I'll have to get back to the rereading and voting later.
People can forfeit and still have a more convincing argument; in fact that’s much of why a consuct allotment is available. An argument can be concise, and more convincing (especially when it bothers to be on topic). And again, the only reason you are winning this debate is that I voted to give it some attention. Without me, this debate would have remained unvoted and forgotten. If you are opposed to people voting on your debates, nominate a judge who has pre-agreed not to vote.
-> “ You haven't even bothered to mention a single one of my arguments.”
So you never mentioned how Islam should be compared to the level of authoritarianism of the west rather than just authoritarian or not? You never mentioned rape? You never mentioned anything to the effect of ‘ Allah>Everyone else’?
-> “ Instead you attribute things to me which I haven't said.”
What did I accuse you of saying which you did not?
Con has a great point that it’s really hard to prove intent, regardless of the results.
That said, I’ll need to read this again before I vote. Some of it really did t hold my attention, and the formatting of those images got messed up for me.
How old are you? You’re pulling g kindergarten tactics of ‘no they were off topic.’
And when I’m back on a computer instead of a cell phone, I’ll happily debate Islam with you. It being pretty much the only religion that forces itself as a government seals the outcome with only a minimum of effort. Heck, your own case on this one included at least one accidental concession of the whole topic.
It seriously feels like you’re offended anyone actually took the time to read the debate. This isn’t a safe space free from reading and criticism, this is a site for ideas to be challenged for their weaknesses.
I’m sure pro will win, but I got reading this before realizing it was a double forfeiture, so gave what is most likely only actual vote weighing arguments. The single vote will further get momentum for people to vote (as already evident by your own).
First it was one, then a clone of it with an extra round… it just kinda spiraled with being able to hold pro’s arguments in my head and see the different ways people tried to refute them. I will not be making a habit of this.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to con
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: PREZ-HILTON // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 2 to pro, 3 to con
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
For a debate like this, so long as the majority of the points go to the non-forfeiting side, the vote is automatically ok.
**************************************************
So regarding the definition issue...
I tell you I've got an elephant in the garage, you investigate and find no signs of such a large mammal in my garage; so conclude you've disproved that elephant.
It would be absurd for me either to insist you have not disproven elephants altogether, or that I didn't say /which/ garage. Were I to argue it's in another garage, I at that point should be able to indicate one containing said elephant to disprove the refutation or else the elephant will remain disproven. If I show one containing a hippo, while it's got much in common, it's still not an elephant.
I’m happy to discuss any other parts of this debate, along with the broader topic.
A major point I will make in favor of social media journalism is not having to align with the interests of the advertisers. Fox News for example will not merely lean a news story to fit their bid, they’ll pretend it never happened. If you want to be a reporter on the 10 o’clock news you’ve got to play ball. Online news outlets gives us the example of Project Veritos (spelling?) showing a return to investigative journalism instead of merely being mouthpieces for the commercials.
Pro’s R2 contained some problems. Most notably pointing out that many governments control their news networks, which inherently makes social media a vital resource for those affected. I also would not call the definitions uncontested, given that they were directly contested (even while I’m not buying it, it was there). A strength of his case this round was focus on Covid, which could have been nicely linked to the bad governments point with Russia’s fake news farms and such.
Played way too defensively. Main stream media also engaging in circle jerks, could have been a highlight with clips of stupid mainstream news people.
The definition thing is painful. There’s times when nuance in a definition is a deterministic to the outcome but this is reaching too far. Pokémon Go would be a news source under this definition and the attempts to apply it like that. I don’t know if pro catches this but when an attempt to define things this broadly it would be social media against every non-online interaction.
It seems to me the spirit intended at the onset of this debate was social media news >= mainstream media news.
Rings of Power makes for some interesting news stories but is not in itself news even while it technically contains information distributed by an organization.
Just finished reading R1. Pro is clearly ahead at that point, due to the Fox News circle jerk effect being leveraged against social media; in addition to the majority of cons points being far outside the scope.
To me the angel in revolution was disputed quite well with the whole shaping thing. If you dig a watering hole, have you created the water or just moved it around?
Limiting reports so that they take more than two clicks per report does enough.
While a forfeited and conceded debate is unimportant, there’s plenty of things which are; to include things which do not get logged like spambots hitting the forum (we delete and ban without any red tape).
Thank you for the debate!
While this wasn't either of our best offerings, it was nice to go head to head with you.
It's looking like no one here believes the resolution to be true.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Removed (borderline)
>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:
While the concession is in question, the the rest of the vote is fine due to the debate description specifying a special rule which voters may factor into their votes.
The vote was borderline. By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient.
**************************************************
-> When did this beef between y’all start?
I don't remember him from DDO, so I'd say shortly after this site started. The earliest negative interaction I can find is in a thread discussing how the site itself could handle forfeitures.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1655-auto-loss-for-forfeits?page=1&post_number=17
Oh, and thank you for voting!
Thank you for voting.
Regarding BoP
I'd say by nature of the setup pro has primary BoP. However, the setup states shared BoP, which mandates con do more than pure refutations.
Further, while the resolution does not have any softening qualifiers (most likely), it likewise lacks absolutes (definitely).
Pro's case seems to largely be that the ban on discussions actually does the very harm it is supposed to be trying to prevent.
I do like con's bullet point breakdown of pro's case. Pro goes overboard with the rejection of it, as the Canada thing seemed to be a fair misinterpretation of the facts as they were laid out (Canada was mentioned first).
If someone does this and it's a strawman, the best course of action is to correct it to how you would like your case summarized.
So going in, I expect minimums from each side
...
Just got a notification that I have an argument due. I'll have to get back to the rereading and voting later.
He might be so “based” to be black pill.
I advise adding some basics into the description, to avoid it all having to be explained inside the debate.
For a topic like this, I’d say BoP rests more strongly with con. Peace is a default state we can assume until evidence of the contrary is presented.
I had to Google Sneako to find out if he was or was not a Smurf.
I initially misread the resolution as well.
A good point of comparison would be how neighboring countries without said loans are doing.
Voters may opt to honor rules in the description, so those votes are fine.
That you think your arguments did not contain mention of the west, already shows that I’m more familiar with what you posted than you are.
People can forfeit and still have a more convincing argument; in fact that’s much of why a consuct allotment is available. An argument can be concise, and more convincing (especially when it bothers to be on topic). And again, the only reason you are winning this debate is that I voted to give it some attention. Without me, this debate would have remained unvoted and forgotten. If you are opposed to people voting on your debates, nominate a judge who has pre-agreed not to vote.
-> “ You haven't even bothered to mention a single one of my arguments.”
So you never mentioned how Islam should be compared to the level of authoritarianism of the west rather than just authoritarian or not? You never mentioned rape? You never mentioned anything to the effect of ‘ Allah>Everyone else’?
-> “ Instead you attribute things to me which I haven't said.”
What did I accuse you of saying which you did not?
Con has a great point that it’s really hard to prove intent, regardless of the results.
That said, I’ll need to read this again before I vote. Some of it really did t hold my attention, and the formatting of those images got messed up for me.
How old are you? You’re pulling g kindergarten tactics of ‘no they were off topic.’
And when I’m back on a computer instead of a cell phone, I’ll happily debate Islam with you. It being pretty much the only religion that forces itself as a government seals the outcome with only a minimum of effort. Heck, your own case on this one included at least one accidental concession of the whole topic.
It seriously feels like you’re offended anyone actually took the time to read the debate. This isn’t a safe space free from reading and criticism, this is a site for ideas to be challenged for their weaknesses.
Con dropped a lot, as did you.
Not to mention how bizarrely off topic most of your case was.
I’m sure pro will win, but I got reading this before realizing it was a double forfeiture, so gave what is most likely only actual vote weighing arguments. The single vote will further get momentum for people to vote (as already evident by your own).
I’ve debated this before, and it can be a very fun topic. Sadly, it gets long winded, which discourages voters.
Your round is due within 30 minutes
First it was one, then a clone of it with an extra round… it just kinda spiraled with being able to hold pro’s arguments in my head and see the different ways people tried to refute them. I will not be making a habit of this.
Good luck on the rematch.
I advise at least reviewing this useful tool before posting arguments:
http://tiny.cc/DebateArt
Oh is this a rematch to the other one I read earlier?
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to con
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: PREZ-HILTON // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 2 to pro, 3 to con
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
For a debate like this, so long as the majority of the points go to the non-forfeiting side, the vote is automatically ok.
**************************************************
I thought I had voted on this… I’ll get something g together
Feels like both weee arguing the same thing…
@con
Please keep the sources classy... Which is to say PG-13.
And communism is the supreme form of government... We just haven't tried it yet...
You're welcome. This one was pretty informative of someone I have not studied.
I of course think systemic racism is a large problem in the US; but you made TS' case compelling.
So regarding the definition issue...
I tell you I've got an elephant in the garage, you investigate and find no signs of such a large mammal in my garage; so conclude you've disproved that elephant.
It would be absurd for me either to insist you have not disproven elephants altogether, or that I didn't say /which/ garage. Were I to argue it's in another garage, I at that point should be able to indicate one containing said elephant to disprove the refutation or else the elephant will remain disproven. If I show one containing a hippo, while it's got much in common, it's still not an elephant.
Note:
If one side does not give enough of a topical argument to weigh, then there is no need to write a more detailed vote than their lack of a case.
Debates with the same name, I lost track of this one. I’ll get to it soonish
I’m happy to discuss any other parts of this debate, along with the broader topic.
A major point I will make in favor of social media journalism is not having to align with the interests of the advertisers. Fox News for example will not merely lean a news story to fit their bid, they’ll pretend it never happened. If you want to be a reporter on the 10 o’clock news you’ve got to play ball. Online news outlets gives us the example of Project Veritos (spelling?) showing a return to investigative journalism instead of merely being mouthpieces for the commercials.
Con does well with the reminder of the attention seeking terrorists… and problems with mainstream news as well during Covid.
Pro basically extends to close out the debate.
Pro’s R2 contained some problems. Most notably pointing out that many governments control their news networks, which inherently makes social media a vital resource for those affected. I also would not call the definitions uncontested, given that they were directly contested (even while I’m not buying it, it was there). A strength of his case this round was focus on Covid, which could have been nicely linked to the bad governments point with Russia’s fake news farms and such.
Read con’s R2…
Played way too defensively. Main stream media also engaging in circle jerks, could have been a highlight with clips of stupid mainstream news people.
The definition thing is painful. There’s times when nuance in a definition is a deterministic to the outcome but this is reaching too far. Pokémon Go would be a news source under this definition and the attempts to apply it like that. I don’t know if pro catches this but when an attempt to define things this broadly it would be social media against every non-online interaction.
It seems to me the spirit intended at the onset of this debate was social media news >= mainstream media news.
Rings of Power makes for some interesting news stories but is not in itself news even while it technically contains information distributed by an organization.
Just finished reading R1. Pro is clearly ahead at that point, due to the Fox News circle jerk effect being leveraged against social media; in addition to the majority of cons points being far outside the scope.
I’ll delay posting my round until Friday. And if Michael gets functionality restored in time, I’ll also gladly change this to unrated if you’d like.
If you get a chance, please review whiteflame’s vote in this debate. Both he and I are ineligible due to conflicts of interest.
To me the angel in revolution was disputed quite well with the whole shaping thing. If you dig a watering hole, have you created the water or just moved it around?
Wylted had too many bad moments to count; but people grow and change.
As Prez he’s got my respect.
Regarding the moderation chat, it’s really informal these days. To such ends, at least to me he’s got an equal voice to anyone else.
Friendly reminder that your opening argument is due.
Limiting reports so that they take more than two clicks per report does enough.
While a forfeited and conceded debate is unimportant, there’s plenty of things which are; to include things which do not get logged like spambots hitting the forum (we delete and ban without any red tape).
For starters, Genesis 1 was leveraged with inductive logic to show them existing without God having necessarily created them.
I’ll try to knock out at least some feedback today. Would you both like the tags updated?
Pretty sure an abortion is not a flock of crows. 🙃
Two hour argument time… victory is all but assured to whomever happens to login with that time.
Actual slavery hasn’t gone away.