I don't think I'll get around to voting on this one, as I am not enough of a fan of the film series to stay engaged with the borderline scattershot arguments (there were good points in there, but from what I read it felt like there wasn't a clear trajectory)
That said, here are the thoughts I wrote down as I started to read it...
Creators:
While the description addresses it already, pro immediately opens with an attack against dogmatic loyalty to their narrative. I am not sure what them being trans has to do with anything, but honestly this debate couldn't be held in a meaningful fashion if we did not entertain that the writers could be wrong.
This also reminds me of an issue at Marvel Comics: https://debate.miraheze.org/wiki/Was_Cyclops_Right%3F#Marvel_Is_God
The philosophy of Matrix:
Risks scope creep, but interesting. AS would be the one if there is only one (an over simplification, I am not trying to write paragraphs on each element).
Birthplace:
The description really could have done with whatever the prophecy is... But if it's key that the one is born in the matrix, then AS seems a closer match by that standard.
More religious talk:
I know those movies borrow from theology, but it pretty well invites dismissal to go so straight into that in the opening round (as much as it should be foreshadowed). Points like what hairstyle a character has, IMO miss the point of the debate and distract from it. This area gets mistaken for a Gish Gallop (I will add that trying to refine the resolution into one with the same meaning, seemed fruitless); but I do not consider it to be one, merely one that drifted off into too many side issues.
A set of The One:
Con does well comparing this to The Read Pirate Roberts, as a series of The One, which likewise matches what's said in the movies, even if they are shown to all have his face (incidentally, I don't think the MTV parody was unfair: https://youtu.be/HeSrJO4ISwo?si=9o1R0LbUEDVd6RII&t=353).
Trinity:
Con lands a very good point with The Oracle insisting the Trinity will fall in love with The One.
"Neo"
Con's point about the name was however weak, as it's going back to the authors being a bit uninspired.
FYI, the resolution could be better. "Can" is really ambiguous, since anything can happen (such as R. Kelly filmed himself raping an underage girl, and the jury believed his lawyer that it was possible she was the devil so acquitted him). "Most likely" is far better.
Here's how I would rewrite this resolution:
"Meowbah would most likely beat Allah or Jesus Christ in a fight. Ameow. Inshallah."
The quick report button is a privilege, which you lost when you chose to spam reports against comment made by anyone you dislike. You may have thought this makes the reports more important, but it hides important ones under the backlog. In the past this has literally caused bad votes to not be deleted in time (once the timer ends, we cannot delete them).
You still have the right to make manual reports. This is done much as you already have, tag one or more moderators, let them know what you are reporting and most importantly why.
In this case, when I revoted I preemptively reported it on your behalf, as you are sure to report anything which doesn't favor you.
--- Original RFD ---
I'm going to do the unconventional route on an analogy: Pro argues Kylo Ren is the greatest Sith Lord of all time, way better than Darth anything... Bases his case around episodes 1-6 having never been filmed, so there were no previous Sith Lords, in fact Vader was made up in the 4th century! And then con basically points to Kylo Ren being Darth Vader's emo grandson, along with the episode number 7 being the 7th in the series (albeit, owned by Disney, so a rather obvious regurgitation of previous content).
Moving on to R2, pro insists con must prove the Kylo Ren didn't appear in episode 7, and that Mickey Mouse is illiterate so couldn't have possibly copied any concepts from the previous films... Con is politice about this, but to continue changing out material into the analogy, he reminds us that one need not have read/watched StarWars to have heard of Luke Skywalker.
...
Change StarWars to Abrahamic religions, and the above summarizes the debate. Getting deeper is like digging up and beating the skeleton of a horse, with such extra highlights as pro attempting to move the goalposts by complaining that just because con used sources to prove that Allah is plagiarized from Yahweh, doesn't mean con has proven Allah is a hoax.
Had pro not based his entire case around Allah being the first Abrahamic religion, this could warrant deeper analysis, but he bet the farm on con not knowing really basic history.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: tigerlord // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro
>Reason for Decision: Everything con said is irrelevant to the resolution and whatever he said against islam is not backed by evidence so no credibility at all.
Instead pro remain asking him to present the argument about resolution which con failed. Even pro remain sentimental just like con to not substantiate facts but he was on topic and tried to make some arguments but con on the other hand failed completely. That is why vote goes to pro. As it's one point criteria so the decision is more easy. If it would have been multiple criteria then the decision would have been very difficult. Both sides did it poorly.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
This vote essentially treated the debate as a foregone conclusion (which would be fine had one side simply not attempted to argue anything; but at a glance that is not the case); about the only redeeming trait on it is acknowledging weakness from the favored side (even while still coddling them via voting for them just for being on the preferred side of the issue, without being able to explain anything good about their argument).
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: pierree // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to con
>Reason for Decision: The Con was very solid with the arguments, the conduct and the Legibility and pro tried so hard to be able to beat him but pro's arguments weren't solid at all and lacks in civic common sense and respect. Case closed.
>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.
This is very slightly short of borderline, so is closer to a mistake correction. Further, pro did forfeit much of the debate, so a vote based on that would not be judged.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: jonrohith // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded:
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
As you have noted elsewhere, you believe your right to free speech is protected... While you may say whatever you wish in the comment section, assigning points via a vote is an earned privilege not a right.
While I do see improvement in some of your other votes, this recent one was a true vote bomb, assigning 7 points against all rhyme and reason. The essay written by ChatGPT does not help, as it implies intentional disrespect for the debaters.
Per the advice of the another moderator, you are no longer able to cast votes. After three weeks you may request restored access, but if opting to do such you should able able to state (in your own words) how you will improve your voting to comply with the local rules... In the interim, you may of course post comments on any debates you wish, to include how you would vote (which it effetely is if you wish it to be so, merely without risk of continued erroneous point allotments).
In the realm of formal debating, where structured argumentation meets rhetorical skill, the final judgment often rests on a single powerful process: the vote. Whether it’s a panel of adjudicators, a lone judge, or an informed audience, the decision to declare a winner hinges on a well-defined set of criteria and voting mechanisms. Unlike political elections, where votes reflect personal preferences or ideologies, voting in debates is rooted in logic, structure, delivery, and evidence.
Understanding how voting works in formal debates is crucial for both participants and observers. From school-level competitions to prestigious formats like British Parliamentary (BP), World Schools, and Lincoln-Douglas debates, each format has its own method of evaluation and voting. These systems ensure that outcomes are fair, consistent, and reflective of the quality of argumentation rather than popularity or emotional appeal.
This essay will explore the mechanisms of voting in formal debates, the roles of judges and adjudicators, common criteria for judgment, and how voting shapes the culture and evolution of debating itself. We will also discuss controversies, challenges in voting fairness, and the impact of bias, technology, and audience perception. Ultimately, this exploration will not only highlight how debate winners are chosen but also what it reveals about the values and principles underlying the art of argumentation.
📚 Full Outline for 20,000 Words (You can ask for each section one by one!)
I. History of Voting in Debates
Origins of competitive debating
Evolution of adjudication methods
From audience applause to structured judging
II. Popular Debate Formats and Their Voting Systems
British Parliamentary (BP)
Asian Parliamentary
Lincoln-Douglas
World Schools
Public Forum
MUN (Model UN and its informal vote systems)
III. The Role of Judges
Who can judge?
Judge training and certifications
Judge objectivity vs. subjectivity
IV. Criteria Used for Voting
Content (arguments and evidence)
Style (delivery and language)
Strategy (structure and rebuttals)
Speaker roles and responsibilities
V. How Voting is Conducted
Ballots and speaker scoring
Oral critiques and decisions
Split panels and consensus
VI. Audience Voting vs. Expert Voting
Pros and cons of public participation
Bias and emotional sway
Case studies from popular debates
VII. Bias and Fairness in Voting
Implicit biases in adjudication
Cultural and linguistic bias
Measures to reduce unfair voting
VIII. Technology in Debate Voting
Online debate platforms
Real-time scoring and transparency
AI-assisted judging?
IX. Voting Outcomes and Their Impact
Educational outcomes
Confidence and morale of debaters
Institutional reputation
X. Controversies and Case Studies
Famous debate vote scandals
Unfair outcomes and appeals
Protest and reform
XI. Future of Voting in Debates
Gamification
Inclusion of diverse judging panels
Hybrid formats
XII. Conclusion
Summary of importance
Lessons for real-life argumentation
Final thoughts on fairness and evolution
Wanna begin with Chapter I: History of Voting in Debates? Or do you want me to generate everything in chunks and compile it? Totally up to you! Just say the word. 😄
Regarding the reported vote, I believe it to be borderline, but borderline is ok.
AI wasn't such a factor when the rules were written, but it intuitively falls under cheating (most closely I'd say plagiarism), for which voters are allowed to determine the weight of the impacts. Further, it shows it read the debate with catching con's lack of a reply to the accusation.
Thank you for asking... Given the unfortunate reasons for the ban, the RO isn't really in effect anymore. So while any resumed interaction ought to be handled with care, you may resume interactions much the same as had the RO reached the natural end of its lifespan.
A long time ago I had a single page table with the gists… And yeah, your summary is pretty good.
For the goalposts as you call them, sometimes a single one from each side would be enough, but usually two or three. … Yes, a voter not covering every point is fine.
Also, while not encouraged, a voter may have commentary of their opinions, so long as it’s clear that’s not what they’re basing their vote on (but yeah, if in doubt, exclude it). … It’s an interesting thing to consider because it’s a double edged sword, since more general feedback along those lines can be proof of having g read the debate (the most important thing we look for in a vote), but it can also highlight bias (which we also look for, but in this case to remove votes).
I'm the main author of our voting rules, so feel free to ask me any questions:
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
Suffice to say, revoting with the same allotments and them not explained, does not meet the standard. It feels like you're annoyed with other voters who weighted in on more categories... Giving unearned points to coddle someone, is frankly demeaning to their actual efforts.
"I thoroughly compared both con and pro, and i found that pro's argument was catchy, though con's argument was big it mostly included similar words and meanings, but pro given his words detailed and catchy so i give vote for argument and legibility to pro. conduct of pro was neat as he used words like you ,we . But con used more formal word like pro. Sources of con is not unique and it is like dictionary simple, i not consider as a source ,it is a definition .so it is tie on sources."
Your vote has been removed.
It was as follows: "As I taken biology group in high class, I have some knowledge on diseases. Yes STD are cruel and they are life threatening. But Banning a human emotional activity is not possible, Even during pandemic government asked to wear mask, not banned to talk. So taking precautions, testing for std is required and we can limit ,kissing to only one people like wife. Banning a emotion is not possible. and during physical relations wearing condoms, taking pills are useful. If you felt any changes ,consult a doctor ,we can cure many diseases in early stage."
The very beginning of informs me that you're not meaning to cast a vote, but rather state your opinion on the topic separate from how the debaters argued it; which is what the comment section is for, not the vote section.
You may of course revote, but please ensure your vote reflects analysis of what the debaters discussed.
I thought I had replied already, so sorry for the delay…
The vote in question reads to me like it’s focused heavily on the con side so as to give advice and help con do better in future. That said, it does give a sufficient amount of detail in the pro side as well, even if it’s much less than what’s offered to con.
The source allotment could be nitpicked but to what ends? With only one debater using any, it feels like a foregone conclusion.
I saw this too late, but my vote would have favored your argument. This is effectviely a single round debate in which you named some valid harms (distractions, etc); and while normally single round debates are won by con since you cannot defend against any point they raise, the "for students" mitigates cons whole case (teachers can still have phones for various emergencies).
Regarding conduct, you forfeited twice, so any votes against you based on that are valid for a conduct allotment (and in Winner Take All, that's enough).
That said, argument votes in your favor are still allowed.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#forfeitures
“ nehhhh, [sigh] well ofc another forfeit i am judging./meowwww”
This vote has been removed to allow error correction. Both sides had arguments, the site is just broken for one of them forcing them to be posted in the comment section.
I really view this as a debate on if definition of personhood X would logically be applied to group Y.
If X is the optimal definition, would be its own debate. Of course were X a bastard definition (such as all persons have four wheels and a XM radio) that would invite Kritiks against it within this debate.
I disagree with it being sneaky, especially since it’s a common definition in use… Human beings still struggle with the issue of if /those/ humans count as people (or sometimes even human at all).
Looks like I'm first up to bat. Interesting pitches from both teams, and the only way this is goings to be a successful vote for me is to find a sensible logic in a participant's argument. I can do that. Let's get rid of the negatives: neither participant made any effort to substantiate their arguments by any credible sourcing although both made mention of supporting data. If the data exists, the Debate rules of DA stipulate they should be employed as part of argument. I know there are studies and white papers and such supporting both arguments. I have seen them and read them, so they are accessible and citable. Just mentioning they exist without making use of them is lazy and irresponsible for this site and this debate. No win on this feature for either side. Cite your sources. period.
Both conducted themselves well. Tie
Both used legible language. Tie
So, it comes down to argument. One of Con's arguments was that 80% percent of teens watch porn anyway, and that it is a feature of society virtually impossible to enforce its ban. Another argument oic that 90% successful enforcement is necessary to the cost/benefit ratio.I have seen studies on both issues on a variety of other topics, and this one,, and they are able to be cited, but they are presented, instead, as personal opinion without citation, so I cannot buy the argument on that assurance, alone. Sorry.
While acknowledging that enforcement of any ban would be difficult, Pro makes an argument that enforcement of behavior is not the purpose of a ban, but just setting an expected standard. That, too, is presented, as said, without back-up data, but it is a more sensible argument in any case. That is the factual result of any law of society: 100% prevention of an unwanted behavioral result is never expected, but then, we do not know how many ships are saved by a lighthouse in dangerous waters, the stat is only those that fail, anyway. Con's argument is a more successful argument, because arguing that a lighthouse is not enforced, and therefore should not exist will guarantee failure.
Con wins on argument.
My impression is pro would like people to have to click a box to verify they are 17 or up when accessing porn sites, and con would like it to be 16 and up.
Neither is arguing for anyone of any age to be able to participate in porn, nor for the legalization of porn featuring them, nor for anyone to intentionally show them porn. (Or so I would assume, I haven’t read either case)
It’s an uncomfortable topic to be sure, but I doubt it violates any laws.
No real suggestion. More of just an observation of self evident quality in this debate.
If I didn’t have so much going on I’d try to vote, but I’m heavily distracted by other matters. But again, what I’ve skimmed from both sides is really good (honestly, if either was weak then I could knock out a vote without fear of misapplying my analysis).
An example is on abortion debates there used to be Yes Men who jumped into the voting section to fluff whomever argued against abortion, regardless of all content in the debate…
That said, mild manipulation of bias without relying upon it, can be helpful. Sticking with the abortion example, either side in such a debate is usually better off sticking to known terminology… I’m pretty sure I deeply offended some people by identifying true pro-abortion politicians (pedophile “conservative” politicians trying to get teenage girls pregnant to up the number of abortions, so that they could then complain about it), which is a hill I’ll die on, but was also an inadvertent Red Herring against myself (for some precise abortion topics it would not be, but for most it’s missing the point).
Wyited switched accounts a long time ago, Most likely you typed W Y L, instead of W Y I when trying to tag him.
Anyways, you've got basically a day to post a response in the argument tab. You of course not limited to the ones I mentioned. You could even try to a racism Kritik (I don't advise this one, as it usually relies on the audience being Yes Men).
To save you a few headaches, try to imagine the possibility that Wyited is trolling with the intention of bringing attention to issues.
Hopefully you won't forfeit the remaining rounds...
Your basic paths to victory are:
1. The boring and expected approach, saying it's all explainable therefore "somehow" doesn't exist.
2. Absolute refutation, which is to say undermine each contention of pro's case.
3. Run a Semantics Kritik! The definition clearly states "an unfair advantage" but if you can show that it's perfectly fair by virtue of the divine bloodline of King Arthur (or whatever other white supremacist idol), then whites do not have an unfair advantage, thus not privlidge... Heck, you could take this a step further and show how disadvantages most white people are, being so very special in a way that only eugenics leaders like Trump recognize, and yet not all are born into the top 1% of wealth on the planet.
The last one is both joking, but would be a genuine tactic Wylted could pull off easily were the sides reversed.
ChatGPT is wonky. I am gradually getting it trained up, but it’s got leagues to go.
I wouldn’t trust an AI to vote on any complex debate. The single refinement I made for it on this one (which took multiple tries) was telling it that Shane.Roy was not a participant in this debate.
One of the first debate reviews I had it do, it turned out to have decided cons arguments were no good so wrote new better ones. Harmless in a review and easy to correct, but detrimental in a vote.
A better topic would be that it should take less debates to unlock said privileges... A bit on the nose, but more defensible as a legit debate which occurred (not that we're being sticklers for it these days, just try to be fair to both sides when you vote).
I tried having ChatGPT do a breakdown on this debate (it's not what I used when voting, I ended up scanning more). But here is the breakdown it provided...
== Debate Title ==
'''For children, time spent in school in most cases should be limited to 2 hours a day'''
==== Arguments Initiated by Pro (TheGreatSunGod) ====
* '''Contention''' (➕): '''School causes chronic sleep deprivation in children.'''<br>{{Q|Chronic sleep deprivation is rampant among children. The cause is primarily the demands of school.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 1}}
:* '''Rebuttal''' (➖): '''Sleep deprivation is not necessarily due to school; students can still sleep 8 hours.'''<br>{{Q|They only need 8 hours of sleep, so if they sleep from 9pm-5am, it will not result in chronic sleep deprivation.|TheRizzler, Round 2}}
::* '''Defense''' (➕): '''8 hours is insufficient for children.'''<br>{{Q|The average amount of sleep required for a 13-year-old is 9.25 hours.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 2}}
:::* '''Rebuttal''' (➖): '''Most students do get enough sleep.'''<br>''NO DIRECT QUOTE IDENTIFIED''
::::* '''Defense''' (➕): '''Most of these studies are flawed or untrue.'''<br>''NO DIRECT QUOTE IDENTIFIED''
* '''Contention''' (➕): '''Children retain very little from long school days.'''<br>{{Q|A 2015 study of high school students found that students only retained 20% of what they were taught.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 1}}
:* '''Rebuttal''' (➖): '''Some students can retain a lot with good methods.'''<br>{{Q|The effectiveness of memory is up to the student and the techniques they use.|TheRizzler, Round 2}}
::* '''Defense''' (➕): '''Children don't all have access to ideal study environments.'''<br>{{Q|That's not an excuse. The average student doesn't retain much; you can't expect perfection.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 2}}
* '''Contention''' (➕): '''Reduced school time promotes better mental health.'''<br>{{Q|Shorter school time could lead to students being more relaxed and less depressed.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 1}}
:* '''Rebuttal''' (➖): '''School time is necessary structure.'''<br>{{Q|Structure and discipline are necessary, especially for kids who can't get it at home.|TheRizzler, Round 2}}
::* '''Defense''' (➕): '''Structure doesn’t have to come from school.'''<br>{{Q|You can give children structure in other ways, such as planned activities.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 2}}
* '''Contention''' (➕): '''Bullying and peer pressure are amplified in long school days.'''<br>{{Q|If kids only go to school for 2 hours, there's less time to be bullied.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 1}}
:* '''Rebuttal''' (➖): '''Bullying occurs regardless of hours.'''<br>{{Q|If they get bullied, it will happen regardless of how long they're there.|TheRizzler, Round 2}}
::* '''Defense''' (➕): '''Less time reduces exposure.'''<br>{{Q|Less time around bullies means fewer opportunities to be bullied.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 2}}
* '''Contention''' (➕): '''Children would be happier if their time was better respected.'''<br>{{Q|Respecting children’s time is respecting them as people.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 1}}
:* '''Rebuttal''' (➖): '''Children lack maturity to make such decisions.'''<br>{{Q|You're arguing that we should let children decide what's best for them.|TheRizzler, Round 2}}
::* '''Defense''' (➕): '''Autonomy helps development.'''<br>{{Q|Giving children some choice and freedom helps them grow.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 2}}
* '''Contention''' (➖): '''A 2-hour school day is insufficient to teach all necessary subjects.'''<br>{{Q|With only 2 hours of school, you would not be able to cover reading, math, history, science, etc.|TheRizzler, Round 1}}
:* '''Rebuttal''' (➕): '''Learning can happen outside school.'''<br>{{Q|You don’t need 8 hours of school to learn math.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 2}}
::* '''Defense''' (➖): '''Many students won’t learn outside school.'''<br>{{Q|You say they could do it at home, but many wouldn’t.|TheRizzler, Round 2}}
:::* '''Rebuttal''' (➕): '''Parents and technology can support at-home learning.'''<br>{{Q|If you have involved parents or even just good software, students can thrive.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 2}}
::::* '''Defense''' (➖): '''Not all families have access to those resources.'''<br>{{Q|This assumes privilege. Many students don’t have that kind of support.|TheRizzler, Round 2}}
* '''Contention''' (➖): '''The 2-hour proposal lacks practicality.'''<br>{{Q|This would be an unworkable shift in how education is done.|TheRizzler, Round 1}}
:* '''Rebuttal''' (➕): '''Other countries succeed with short hours.'''<br>{{Q|Finland has shorter school hours and still ranks high in education.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 1}}
::* '''Defense''' (➖): '''Cultural and structural differences make comparisons invalid.'''<br>{{Q|Finland has a different society, economy, and values. It’s not an easy comparison.|TheRizzler, Round 2}}
== Result ==
The voting period is still open, and the result is currently tied. This page presents a tiered breakdown of the full debate to aid readers and potential voters in assessing the strength of the arguments on both sides.
=== Evaluation Summary ===
* '''Logical Clarity''': Slight edge to '''Con''' for pragmatic framing and consistent rebuttals.
* '''Use of Evidence''': Relatively even; '''Pro''' offers some studies, while '''Con''' uses common-sense rebuttals.
* '''Debate Structure''': '''Con''' consistently responds to and frames issues across rounds.
* '''Rhetorical Framing''': '''Pro''' appeals to reform and autonomy; '''Con''' focuses on feasibility and equity.
'''Recommended Vote''':
* Vote '''Pro''' if you prioritize idealism, student-centered reform, or philosophical values.
* Vote '''Con''' if you value pragmatic feasibility, systemic equity, and rebuttal discipline.
Under traditional criteria (burden of proof, refutation, impact): '''Con''' holds a slight edge overall.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: bronskibeat // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 6 t o 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.
To cast a sufficient vote, for each category awarded, a voter must explicitly perform the following tasks:
(1) Provide specific references to each side’s utilization within the said category.
(2) Weigh the impacts against each other, including if any precluded others.
(3) Explain the decision within the greater context of the debate.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#casting-votes
**************************************************
bronskibeat
04.23.2025 10:17AM
Reason:
This was an interesting debate, and I enjoyed reading what both parties had to offer. Con has a unique style that can be difficult to follow at times, but their core arguments were clearly expressed. Con's arguments could have also used more sourcing. Ultimately, Con's arguments were a bit all over the place, and could stand against further scrutiny.
Pro offered very thorough, well-sourced, and strong arguments. Rebutted Con's arguments successfully point by point while offering consistent citations.
Someone remind me at the end, and I’ll make a wiki page in this, in large part to put the arguments into proper order.
Oh and Lancealot, not required by any means, but to make things easier on readers, the link to pro’s R1 is https://www.debateart.com/debates/6075/comments/63600
The forum would be better for this.
As a debate, it implies 1v1, and someone having a better way than whatever you offer.
In the forum, it can have any number of participants.
American culture can be many things. Even hurting our image to many countries, strengthens it to others.
Don't get me wrong, he's a jackass, but the defining the issues can take nuance in order to have a meaningful debate.
I don't think I'll get around to voting on this one, as I am not enough of a fan of the film series to stay engaged with the borderline scattershot arguments (there were good points in there, but from what I read it felt like there wasn't a clear trajectory)
That said, here are the thoughts I wrote down as I started to read it...
Creators:
While the description addresses it already, pro immediately opens with an attack against dogmatic loyalty to their narrative. I am not sure what them being trans has to do with anything, but honestly this debate couldn't be held in a meaningful fashion if we did not entertain that the writers could be wrong.
This also reminds me of an issue at Marvel Comics: https://debate.miraheze.org/wiki/Was_Cyclops_Right%3F#Marvel_Is_God
The philosophy of Matrix:
Risks scope creep, but interesting. AS would be the one if there is only one (an over simplification, I am not trying to write paragraphs on each element).
Birthplace:
The description really could have done with whatever the prophecy is... But if it's key that the one is born in the matrix, then AS seems a closer match by that standard.
More religious talk:
I know those movies borrow from theology, but it pretty well invites dismissal to go so straight into that in the opening round (as much as it should be foreshadowed). Points like what hairstyle a character has, IMO miss the point of the debate and distract from it. This area gets mistaken for a Gish Gallop (I will add that trying to refine the resolution into one with the same meaning, seemed fruitless); but I do not consider it to be one, merely one that drifted off into too many side issues.
A set of The One:
Con does well comparing this to The Read Pirate Roberts, as a series of The One, which likewise matches what's said in the movies, even if they are shown to all have his face (incidentally, I don't think the MTV parody was unfair: https://youtu.be/HeSrJO4ISwo?si=9o1R0LbUEDVd6RII&t=353).
Trinity:
Con lands a very good point with The Oracle insisting the Trinity will fall in love with The One.
"Neo"
Con's point about the name was however weak, as it's going back to the authors being a bit uninspired.
Do not try and bend the voter. That's impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth. There is no voter.
FYI, the resolution could be better. "Can" is really ambiguous, since anything can happen (such as R. Kelly filmed himself raping an underage girl, and the jury believed his lawyer that it was possible she was the devil so acquitted him). "Most likely" is far better.
Here's how I would rewrite this resolution:
"Meowbah would most likely beat Allah or Jesus Christ in a fight. Ameow. Inshallah."
Dear Mr. Slave,
The quick report button is a privilege, which you lost when you chose to spam reports against comment made by anyone you dislike. You may have thought this makes the reports more important, but it hides important ones under the backlog. In the past this has literally caused bad votes to not be deleted in time (once the timer ends, we cannot delete them).
You still have the right to make manual reports. This is done much as you already have, tag one or more moderators, let them know what you are reporting and most importantly why.
In this case, when I revoted I preemptively reported it on your behalf, as you are sure to report anything which doesn't favor you.
--- Original RFD ---
I'm going to do the unconventional route on an analogy: Pro argues Kylo Ren is the greatest Sith Lord of all time, way better than Darth anything... Bases his case around episodes 1-6 having never been filmed, so there were no previous Sith Lords, in fact Vader was made up in the 4th century! And then con basically points to Kylo Ren being Darth Vader's emo grandson, along with the episode number 7 being the 7th in the series (albeit, owned by Disney, so a rather obvious regurgitation of previous content).
Moving on to R2, pro insists con must prove the Kylo Ren didn't appear in episode 7, and that Mickey Mouse is illiterate so couldn't have possibly copied any concepts from the previous films... Con is politice about this, but to continue changing out material into the analogy, he reminds us that one need not have read/watched StarWars to have heard of Luke Skywalker.
...
Change StarWars to Abrahamic religions, and the above summarizes the debate. Getting deeper is like digging up and beating the skeleton of a horse, with such extra highlights as pro attempting to move the goalposts by complaining that just because con used sources to prove that Allah is plagiarized from Yahweh, doesn't mean con has proven Allah is a hoax.
Had pro not based his entire case around Allah being the first Abrahamic religion, this could warrant deeper analysis, but he bet the farm on con not knowing really basic history.
I confess, during this debate I totally cheated! That's why neither pro nor con defeated me during it.
FSM is way more logical... Not to say God isn't logical, just not as logical.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: tigerlord // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro
>Reason for Decision: Everything con said is irrelevant to the resolution and whatever he said against islam is not backed by evidence so no credibility at all.
Instead pro remain asking him to present the argument about resolution which con failed. Even pro remain sentimental just like con to not substantiate facts but he was on topic and tried to make some arguments but con on the other hand failed completely. That is why vote goes to pro. As it's one point criteria so the decision is more easy. If it would have been multiple criteria then the decision would have been very difficult. Both sides did it poorly.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
This vote essentially treated the debate as a foregone conclusion (which would be fine had one side simply not attempted to argue anything; but at a glance that is not the case); about the only redeeming trait on it is acknowledging weakness from the favored side (even while still coddling them via voting for them just for being on the preferred side of the issue, without being able to explain anything good about their argument).
**************************************************
Your vote is fine. I was reflecting on your report of Jon's vote made in comment #1.
And I agree that it is not automatic cheating.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: pierree // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to con
>Reason for Decision: The Con was very solid with the arguments, the conduct and the Legibility and pro tried so hard to be able to beat him but pro's arguments weren't solid at all and lacks in civic common sense and respect. Case closed.
>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.
This is very slightly short of borderline, so is closer to a mistake correction. Further, pro did forfeit much of the debate, so a vote based on that would not be judged.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: jonrohith // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded:
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
As you have noted elsewhere, you believe your right to free speech is protected... While you may say whatever you wish in the comment section, assigning points via a vote is an earned privilege not a right.
While I do see improvement in some of your other votes, this recent one was a true vote bomb, assigning 7 points against all rhyme and reason. The essay written by ChatGPT does not help, as it implies intentional disrespect for the debaters.
Per the advice of the another moderator, you are no longer able to cast votes. After three weeks you may request restored access, but if opting to do such you should able able to state (in your own words) how you will improve your voting to comply with the local rules... In the interim, you may of course post comments on any debates you wish, to include how you would vote (which it effetely is if you wish it to be so, merely without risk of continued erroneous point allotments).
**************************************************
In the realm of formal debating, where structured argumentation meets rhetorical skill, the final judgment often rests on a single powerful process: the vote. Whether it’s a panel of adjudicators, a lone judge, or an informed audience, the decision to declare a winner hinges on a well-defined set of criteria and voting mechanisms. Unlike political elections, where votes reflect personal preferences or ideologies, voting in debates is rooted in logic, structure, delivery, and evidence.
Understanding how voting works in formal debates is crucial for both participants and observers. From school-level competitions to prestigious formats like British Parliamentary (BP), World Schools, and Lincoln-Douglas debates, each format has its own method of evaluation and voting. These systems ensure that outcomes are fair, consistent, and reflective of the quality of argumentation rather than popularity or emotional appeal.
This essay will explore the mechanisms of voting in formal debates, the roles of judges and adjudicators, common criteria for judgment, and how voting shapes the culture and evolution of debating itself. We will also discuss controversies, challenges in voting fairness, and the impact of bias, technology, and audience perception. Ultimately, this exploration will not only highlight how debate winners are chosen but also what it reveals about the values and principles underlying the art of argumentation.
📚 Full Outline for 20,000 Words (You can ask for each section one by one!)
I. History of Voting in Debates
Origins of competitive debating
Evolution of adjudication methods
From audience applause to structured judging
II. Popular Debate Formats and Their Voting Systems
British Parliamentary (BP)
Asian Parliamentary
Lincoln-Douglas
World Schools
Public Forum
MUN (Model UN and its informal vote systems)
III. The Role of Judges
Who can judge?
Judge training and certifications
Judge objectivity vs. subjectivity
IV. Criteria Used for Voting
Content (arguments and evidence)
Style (delivery and language)
Strategy (structure and rebuttals)
Speaker roles and responsibilities
V. How Voting is Conducted
Ballots and speaker scoring
Oral critiques and decisions
Split panels and consensus
VI. Audience Voting vs. Expert Voting
Pros and cons of public participation
Bias and emotional sway
Case studies from popular debates
VII. Bias and Fairness in Voting
Implicit biases in adjudication
Cultural and linguistic bias
Measures to reduce unfair voting
VIII. Technology in Debate Voting
Online debate platforms
Real-time scoring and transparency
AI-assisted judging?
IX. Voting Outcomes and Their Impact
Educational outcomes
Confidence and morale of debaters
Institutional reputation
X. Controversies and Case Studies
Famous debate vote scandals
Unfair outcomes and appeals
Protest and reform
XI. Future of Voting in Debates
Gamification
Inclusion of diverse judging panels
Hybrid formats
XII. Conclusion
Summary of importance
Lessons for real-life argumentation
Final thoughts on fairness and evolution
Wanna begin with Chapter I: History of Voting in Debates? Or do you want me to generate everything in chunks and compile it? Totally up to you! Just say the word. 😄
Regarding the reported vote, I believe it to be borderline, but borderline is ok.
AI wasn't such a factor when the rules were written, but it intuitively falls under cheating (most closely I'd say plagiarism), for which voters are allowed to determine the weight of the impacts. Further, it shows it read the debate with catching con's lack of a reply to the accusation.
For a nothing debate like this, every vote (including yours) meets or exceeds the voting standard.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
Thank you for asking... Given the unfortunate reasons for the ban, the RO isn't really in effect anymore. So while any resumed interaction ought to be handled with care, you may resume interactions much the same as had the RO reached the natural end of its lifespan.
A long time ago I had a single page table with the gists… And yeah, your summary is pretty good.
For the goalposts as you call them, sometimes a single one from each side would be enough, but usually two or three. … Yes, a voter not covering every point is fine.
Also, while not encouraged, a voter may have commentary of their opinions, so long as it’s clear that’s not what they’re basing their vote on (but yeah, if in doubt, exclude it). … It’s an interesting thing to consider because it’s a double edged sword, since more general feedback along those lines can be proof of having g read the debate (the most important thing we look for in a vote), but it can also highlight bias (which we also look for, but in this case to remove votes).
"It should be a tie , so i vote for con"
Removed which you already seem to support.
Well said!
I'm the main author of our voting rules, so feel free to ask me any questions:
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
Suffice to say, revoting with the same allotments and them not explained, does not meet the standard. It feels like you're annoyed with other voters who weighted in on more categories... Giving unearned points to coddle someone, is frankly demeaning to their actual efforts.
"I thoroughly compared both con and pro, and i found that pro's argument was catchy, though con's argument was big it mostly included similar words and meanings, but pro given his words detailed and catchy so i give vote for argument and legibility to pro. conduct of pro was neat as he used words like you ,we . But con used more formal word like pro. Sources of con is not unique and it is like dictionary simple, i not consider as a source ,it is a definition .so it is tie on sources."
Your vote has been removed.
It was as follows: "As I taken biology group in high class, I have some knowledge on diseases. Yes STD are cruel and they are life threatening. But Banning a human emotional activity is not possible, Even during pandemic government asked to wear mask, not banned to talk. So taking precautions, testing for std is required and we can limit ,kissing to only one people like wife. Banning a emotion is not possible. and during physical relations wearing condoms, taking pills are useful. If you felt any changes ,consult a doctor ,we can cure many diseases in early stage."
The very beginning of informs me that you're not meaning to cast a vote, but rather state your opinion on the topic separate from how the debaters argued it; which is what the comment section is for, not the vote section.
You may of course revote, but please ensure your vote reflects analysis of what the debaters discussed.
I thought I had replied already, so sorry for the delay…
The vote in question reads to me like it’s focused heavily on the con side so as to give advice and help con do better in future. That said, it does give a sufficient amount of detail in the pro side as well, even if it’s much less than what’s offered to con.
The source allotment could be nitpicked but to what ends? With only one debater using any, it feels like a foregone conclusion.
Done
I saw this too late, but my vote would have favored your argument. This is effectviely a single round debate in which you named some valid harms (distractions, etc); and while normally single round debates are won by con since you cannot defend against any point they raise, the "for students" mitigates cons whole case (teachers can still have phones for various emergencies).
Regarding conduct, you forfeited twice, so any votes against you based on that are valid for a conduct allotment (and in Winner Take All, that's enough).
That said, argument votes in your favor are still allowed.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#forfeitures
It's too late to remove, but in future please have your votes reflect your reading of the debate.
“ nehhhh, [sigh] well ofc another forfeit i am judging./meowwww”
This vote has been removed to allow error correction. Both sides had arguments, the site is just broken for one of them forcing them to be posted in the comment section.
I have retired, but this is tempting... No, I'll let someone else make a mockery of this one (or win it in a boring way, their choice).
Kritiks are launched for any number of reasons. Ultimately, definitions set the goalposts, and people love to move those when they can.
Of course, I much prefer it when debaters work out definition disagreements prior to the debate.
I really view this as a debate on if definition of personhood X would logically be applied to group Y.
If X is the optimal definition, would be its own debate. Of course were X a bastard definition (such as all persons have four wheels and a XM radio) that would invite Kritiks against it within this debate.
I disagree with it being sneaky, especially since it’s a common definition in use… Human beings still struggle with the issue of if /those/ humans count as people (or sometimes even human at all).
Previous vote (removed by request):
Looks like I'm first up to bat. Interesting pitches from both teams, and the only way this is goings to be a successful vote for me is to find a sensible logic in a participant's argument. I can do that. Let's get rid of the negatives: neither participant made any effort to substantiate their arguments by any credible sourcing although both made mention of supporting data. If the data exists, the Debate rules of DA stipulate they should be employed as part of argument. I know there are studies and white papers and such supporting both arguments. I have seen them and read them, so they are accessible and citable. Just mentioning they exist without making use of them is lazy and irresponsible for this site and this debate. No win on this feature for either side. Cite your sources. period.
Both conducted themselves well. Tie
Both used legible language. Tie
So, it comes down to argument. One of Con's arguments was that 80% percent of teens watch porn anyway, and that it is a feature of society virtually impossible to enforce its ban. Another argument oic that 90% successful enforcement is necessary to the cost/benefit ratio.I have seen studies on both issues on a variety of other topics, and this one,, and they are able to be cited, but they are presented, instead, as personal opinion without citation, so I cannot buy the argument on that assurance, alone. Sorry.
While acknowledging that enforcement of any ban would be difficult, Pro makes an argument that enforcement of behavior is not the purpose of a ban, but just setting an expected standard. That, too, is presented, as said, without back-up data, but it is a more sensible argument in any case. That is the factual result of any law of society: 100% prevention of an unwanted behavioral result is never expected, but then, we do not know how many ships are saved by a lighthouse in dangerous waters, the stat is only those that fail, anyway. Con's argument is a more successful argument, because arguing that a lighthouse is not enforced, and therefore should not exist will guarantee failure.
Con wins on argument.
My impression is pro would like people to have to click a box to verify they are 17 or up when accessing porn sites, and con would like it to be 16 and up.
Neither is arguing for anyone of any age to be able to participate in porn, nor for the legalization of porn featuring them, nor for anyone to intentionally show them porn. (Or so I would assume, I haven’t read either case)
It’s an uncomfortable topic to be sure, but I doubt it violates any laws.
Someone remind me in a few days and I should be up for voting.
That said. I wish the terms were defined in the description.
No real suggestion. More of just an observation of self evident quality in this debate.
If I didn’t have so much going on I’d try to vote, but I’m heavily distracted by other matters. But again, what I’ve skimmed from both sides is really good (honestly, if either was weak then I could knock out a vote without fear of misapplying my analysis).
In this context, someone who votes their bias.
An example is on abortion debates there used to be Yes Men who jumped into the voting section to fluff whomever argued against abortion, regardless of all content in the debate…
That said, mild manipulation of bias without relying upon it, can be helpful. Sticking with the abortion example, either side in such a debate is usually better off sticking to known terminology… I’m pretty sure I deeply offended some people by identifying true pro-abortion politicians (pedophile “conservative” politicians trying to get teenage girls pregnant to up the number of abortions, so that they could then complain about it), which is a hill I’ll die on, but was also an inadvertent Red Herring against myself (for some precise abortion topics it would not be, but for most it’s missing the point).
Wyited switched accounts a long time ago, Most likely you typed W Y L, instead of W Y I when trying to tag him.
Anyways, you've got basically a day to post a response in the argument tab. You of course not limited to the ones I mentioned. You could even try to a racism Kritik (I don't advise this one, as it usually relies on the audience being Yes Men).
To save you a few headaches, try to imagine the possibility that Wyited is trolling with the intention of bringing attention to issues.
Hopefully you won't forfeit the remaining rounds...
Your basic paths to victory are:
1. The boring and expected approach, saying it's all explainable therefore "somehow" doesn't exist.
2. Absolute refutation, which is to say undermine each contention of pro's case.
3. Run a Semantics Kritik! The definition clearly states "an unfair advantage" but if you can show that it's perfectly fair by virtue of the divine bloodline of King Arthur (or whatever other white supremacist idol), then whites do not have an unfair advantage, thus not privlidge... Heck, you could take this a step further and show how disadvantages most white people are, being so very special in a way that only eugenics leaders like Trump recognize, and yet not all are born into the top 1% of wealth on the planet.
The last one is both joking, but would be a genuine tactic Wylted could pull off easily were the sides reversed.
ChatGPT is wonky. I am gradually getting it trained up, but it’s got leagues to go.
I wouldn’t trust an AI to vote on any complex debate. The single refinement I made for it on this one (which took multiple tries) was telling it that Shane.Roy was not a participant in this debate.
One of the first debate reviews I had it do, it turned out to have decided cons arguments were no good so wrote new better ones. Harmless in a review and easy to correct, but detrimental in a vote.
In casual conversation, of course... Trying to quantify it, as a clear statistically significant occurrence today, not so easy to do.
That said, it is easy to prove among cat populations, but such has nothing to do with this debate.
You'd be surprised how fast I've gotten at those (at least unrefined ones like that).
A better topic would be that it should take less debates to unlock said privileges... A bit on the nose, but more defensible as a legit debate which occurred (not that we're being sticklers for it these days, just try to be fair to both sides when you vote).
I tried having ChatGPT do a breakdown on this debate (it's not what I used when voting, I ended up scanning more). But here is the breakdown it provided...
== Debate Title ==
'''For children, time spent in school in most cases should be limited to 2 hours a day'''
== Participants ==
* '''Pro''': TheGreatSunGod
* '''Con''': TheRizzler
== Round-by-Round Breakdown ==
=== Argument Tree ===
==== Arguments Initiated by Pro (TheGreatSunGod) ====
* '''Contention''' (➕): '''School causes chronic sleep deprivation in children.'''<br>{{Q|Chronic sleep deprivation is rampant among children. The cause is primarily the demands of school.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 1}}
:* '''Rebuttal''' (➖): '''Sleep deprivation is not necessarily due to school; students can still sleep 8 hours.'''<br>{{Q|They only need 8 hours of sleep, so if they sleep from 9pm-5am, it will not result in chronic sleep deprivation.|TheRizzler, Round 2}}
::* '''Defense''' (➕): '''8 hours is insufficient for children.'''<br>{{Q|The average amount of sleep required for a 13-year-old is 9.25 hours.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 2}}
:::* '''Rebuttal''' (➖): '''Most students do get enough sleep.'''<br>''NO DIRECT QUOTE IDENTIFIED''
::::* '''Defense''' (➕): '''Most of these studies are flawed or untrue.'''<br>''NO DIRECT QUOTE IDENTIFIED''
* '''Contention''' (➕): '''Children retain very little from long school days.'''<br>{{Q|A 2015 study of high school students found that students only retained 20% of what they were taught.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 1}}
:* '''Rebuttal''' (➖): '''Some students can retain a lot with good methods.'''<br>{{Q|The effectiveness of memory is up to the student and the techniques they use.|TheRizzler, Round 2}}
::* '''Defense''' (➕): '''Children don't all have access to ideal study environments.'''<br>{{Q|That's not an excuse. The average student doesn't retain much; you can't expect perfection.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 2}}
* '''Contention''' (➕): '''Reduced school time promotes better mental health.'''<br>{{Q|Shorter school time could lead to students being more relaxed and less depressed.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 1}}
:* '''Rebuttal''' (➖): '''School time is necessary structure.'''<br>{{Q|Structure and discipline are necessary, especially for kids who can't get it at home.|TheRizzler, Round 2}}
::* '''Defense''' (➕): '''Structure doesn’t have to come from school.'''<br>{{Q|You can give children structure in other ways, such as planned activities.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 2}}
* '''Contention''' (➕): '''Bullying and peer pressure are amplified in long school days.'''<br>{{Q|If kids only go to school for 2 hours, there's less time to be bullied.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 1}}
:* '''Rebuttal''' (➖): '''Bullying occurs regardless of hours.'''<br>{{Q|If they get bullied, it will happen regardless of how long they're there.|TheRizzler, Round 2}}
::* '''Defense''' (➕): '''Less time reduces exposure.'''<br>{{Q|Less time around bullies means fewer opportunities to be bullied.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 2}}
* '''Contention''' (➕): '''Children would be happier if their time was better respected.'''<br>{{Q|Respecting children’s time is respecting them as people.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 1}}
:* '''Rebuttal''' (➖): '''Children lack maturity to make such decisions.'''<br>{{Q|You're arguing that we should let children decide what's best for them.|TheRizzler, Round 2}}
::* '''Defense''' (➕): '''Autonomy helps development.'''<br>{{Q|Giving children some choice and freedom helps them grow.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 2}}
==== Arguments Initiated by Con (TheRizzler) ====
* '''Contention''' (➖): '''A 2-hour school day is insufficient to teach all necessary subjects.'''<br>{{Q|With only 2 hours of school, you would not be able to cover reading, math, history, science, etc.|TheRizzler, Round 1}}
:* '''Rebuttal''' (➕): '''Learning can happen outside school.'''<br>{{Q|You don’t need 8 hours of school to learn math.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 2}}
::* '''Defense''' (➖): '''Many students won’t learn outside school.'''<br>{{Q|You say they could do it at home, but many wouldn’t.|TheRizzler, Round 2}}
:::* '''Rebuttal''' (➕): '''Parents and technology can support at-home learning.'''<br>{{Q|If you have involved parents or even just good software, students can thrive.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 2}}
::::* '''Defense''' (➖): '''Not all families have access to those resources.'''<br>{{Q|This assumes privilege. Many students don’t have that kind of support.|TheRizzler, Round 2}}
* '''Contention''' (➖): '''The 2-hour proposal lacks practicality.'''<br>{{Q|This would be an unworkable shift in how education is done.|TheRizzler, Round 1}}
:* '''Rebuttal''' (➕): '''Other countries succeed with short hours.'''<br>{{Q|Finland has shorter school hours and still ranks high in education.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 1}}
::* '''Defense''' (➖): '''Cultural and structural differences make comparisons invalid.'''<br>{{Q|Finland has a different society, economy, and values. It’s not an easy comparison.|TheRizzler, Round 2}}
== Result ==
The voting period is still open, and the result is currently tied. This page presents a tiered breakdown of the full debate to aid readers and potential voters in assessing the strength of the arguments on both sides.
=== Evaluation Summary ===
* '''Logical Clarity''': Slight edge to '''Con''' for pragmatic framing and consistent rebuttals.
* '''Use of Evidence''': Relatively even; '''Pro''' offers some studies, while '''Con''' uses common-sense rebuttals.
* '''Debate Structure''': '''Con''' consistently responds to and frames issues across rounds.
* '''Rhetorical Framing''': '''Pro''' appeals to reform and autonomy; '''Con''' focuses on feasibility and equity.
'''Recommended Vote''':
* Vote '''Pro''' if you prioritize idealism, student-centered reform, or philosophical values.
* Vote '''Con''' if you value pragmatic feasibility, systemic equity, and rebuttal discipline.
Under traditional criteria (burden of proof, refutation, impact): '''Con''' holds a slight edge overall.
[[Category:Debates]]
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: bronskibeat // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 6 t o 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.
To cast a sufficient vote, for each category awarded, a voter must explicitly perform the following tasks:
(1) Provide specific references to each side’s utilization within the said category.
(2) Weigh the impacts against each other, including if any precluded others.
(3) Explain the decision within the greater context of the debate.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#casting-votes
**************************************************
bronskibeat
04.23.2025 10:17AM
Reason:
This was an interesting debate, and I enjoyed reading what both parties had to offer. Con has a unique style that can be difficult to follow at times, but their core arguments were clearly expressed. Con's arguments could have also used more sourcing. Ultimately, Con's arguments were a bit all over the place, and could stand against further scrutiny.
Pro offered very thorough, well-sourced, and strong arguments. Rebutted Con's arguments successfully point by point while offering consistent citations.
Someone remind me at the end, and I’ll make a wiki page in this, in large part to put the arguments into proper order.
Oh and Lancealot, not required by any means, but to make things easier on readers, the link to pro’s R1 is https://www.debateart.com/debates/6075/comments/63600
Fair point. It reminds me of common definitions of what rights should be (effectively limited just by when their abuse infringes upon others).
Aside from bots, there are other things that require intervention. A married couple with a nude profile picture for example (yes, this happened).
In case it hasn’t been said, they’re there to limit the number of unqualified white men given jobs over better qualified diverse people.
There are also incentives, such as veterans get discriminated against so the government gives incentives to hire them.
A rare recovery in this topic!