Please tone it down, or at least target someone like me with thick skin (we could even argue over which of us is the bigger idiot… FYI, I’m 6’3… I’m so dumb that I’m using imperial units (long live the queen!), I don’t know the conversion rates, but I’m pretty sure I’m more big than the average bad analogy typed at 50 WPM)
> Nonetheless, his arguments where still highly intelligent but they did not have the same effect that they would have had if Barney kept a cooler composure throughout.
If you believed pro's arguments that I was emotional and therefore wrong, I really can't fault that line of persuasion since it worked (to be clear, out of the debate I do not fault it; inside the debate I literally prefaced everything with a defense against that likely line of attack).
For future reference, my arguments almost always include a healthy dose of wit. Such as my one Hall of Fame winning debate:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/866-fetuses-as-a-replacement-for-the-usd
Obviously thank you a hundred times over for getting through that, and a hundred more for putting the work into such a thoughtful vote.
Here were some thoughts I had at different points in it...
R1 con:
Seriously, I did not expect so much of this to actually be something pro would want to focus on.
6:00
I'm entertained by the voice selection. Curious how close to that guys actual voice this is. Regardless, wicked program.
10:40
Yup, I introduced the points from a place of arrogance. I did make them (somewhat) warranted with sources.
12:00
My remark on Madison was to decrease nitpicking. The quote from him stood by itself regardless of what anyone may or may not raise about him.
14:00
Glad you enjoyed the contention just before the 13th got going, and also glad you immediately opted against taking it all seriously (I’d be worried if anyone did). And yup, pathos appeals are one of the weapons in my arsonal… Anyways, that paragraph was a satirical shell around a key theme to the debate, which also served as lead-in for the next point.
15:45
Incel is probably a more nuanced term than I realized. I used it for variety. I should have said Men's Rights Activists.
18:30
The logic indeed can be applied to taxation. Atlas Shrugged was largely an exploration of that idea (by a brilliant idiot who wants to bore us all to death… That reminds me of a fun debate I had with one of my philosophy professors on if Rand was an Egoist or not. Their argument was something like yes because the heroes are all about how they shouldn’t have to work for the common good; whereas I argued no because the villains were the embodiment of the Egoist ideals for wanting to just mooch off the contributors).
And I really was hoping for social contract theory. Interesting discussions can happen in that space.
R2 pro:
20:15
I really did not expect such an offense at hyperbole against objectively evil SOBs. That of course influenced my course going forward.
22:40
Not rude against pro, and also 100% truthful with sources to back it up.
23:00
Glad you saw it, and saw it right away… Those were not even meant as big red herrings, I even prefaced the argument with what was important.
Oh that little typo you had for a moment of “abortion is slavery” I have literally heard that from pro-lifers. 🤯
28:20
That was one of pro’s best moments (not that I’d give credit during the debate, instead of pulling the Karen card).
34:40
That was not one of pro’s best moments.
R2 Con:
38:00
Fair! It
38:40
Glad you understood that I was having some fun with that.
Admittedly, I’ve only read the opinions of the justices (the full thing is over 100 pages), and intuitively assume that since it is raised in the context of him trying to have his VP killed, they meant it to apply to that (even if another court takes over from here). But yes, it was an intentional oversimplification to poison the well against the three justices in question.
44:30
This stumped me for a good minute, then I broke out literally laughing aloud!
49:30
I’m getting lost in that thought experiment. I believe conjoined twins have tested the law on killing another sentient being to be free of them (you may not), but I don’t think any slavery angle has been legally used in any cases with merit.
—
R3 Pro:
52:50
Likewise, this will be the last time I take part in such a lengthy debate.
53:49
Outside the debate I wholly agree that it’s not inherently bad that they have religion. But I do stand by it being problematic when it’s required.
57:50
Yo momma so fat, that when she ‘fell out of the sky’ no one thought she was an angel, they thought she was the next extinction event!
1:05:25
1:07:08
Respect.
1:08:45
Knowing how this turns out, it’s good to see someone agreeing with the side they ultimately through strength of arguments votes against.
R3 con:
…
R4:
…
Conclusions:
1:13:25
I appreciate what that vote was trying to do. It’s actually a good place in the development of a voter to consider where sides surpassed each other.
And I agree with your advice to pro for how to beat me next time.
In an early issue of X-Force Kane gets into a fight with Deadpool. Kane knows Deadpool is tougher than him, but he also knows that Deadpool’s most deadly power is his mouth. So he bit down, ignored everything Deadpool said, and just kept focused on hitting him.
I’d say the big reason is the messiah hadn’t been born yet…hard to write books anbout… even while there were prophecies.
As for poly vs mono… it’s a way they used to say they’re different, but it was also stupid from a language standpoint. Angels exist, if you believe this you’re probably a polytheist. Yes, there’s a high god, but that doesn’t equate to denial of the power of the angels (or any other supernatural beings besides God).
Actually, I can name one religion which might truly be monotheistic… Pastafarianism!
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: LogicalDebater01 // Mod action: Not Removed (borderline)
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: conduct to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was borderline. By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient.
We've never considered weights of emojis compared to forfeiting, and they can vary so very much... I don't foresee it becoming a common enough occurrence to impact any debate outcomes.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Owen_T // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: conduct to con
>Reason for Decision: "American debater forfeiture"
>Reason for Mod Action:
Any unexcused forfeited round merits an automatic conduct loss, but arguments must still be voted on or justified as a tie. Repeated forfeitures waives the need to consider arguments (you still may, but by the choice of one side to miss at least 40% of the debate, the requirement ceases. And yes, this does apply to Choose Winner, which otherwise would not allow conduct to be the sole determinant).
Should either side forfeit every round or every round after their initial arguments (waiving is not an argument), the debate is considered a Full Forfeiture, and any majority votes against the absent side are not moderated (a vote may still be cast in their favor of the absentee, but is eligible for moderation to verify that it is justified via the normal voting standards).
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#forfeitures
**************************************************
I'd prefer it if abortion did not occur (barring exceptional circumstances; those I'd also prefer did not occur, but we have to deal with the fact that they do).
I view it as generally a wrong, so I would personally not get an abortion. However...
1. Pineapple on pizza is far more often viewed as wrong, and nothing about it merits legal enforcement.
2. Abortion cannot be a pure wrong, because God is good, and God carried out literally countless abortions (not even talking about miscarriages).
Actually a really complex question to answer, and much of what I began to type touched on topics from the debate (remind me after voting ends and I'll answer in depth).
One thing I can say is that I really think the whole issue gets looked at quite backwards. I don't understand how we can have forced births and not forced vasectomies.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: njk25 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: arguments and sources to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Arguments are on the low side of borderline, but passable. Still, I'd add more detail there, such as a contention that went well and/or bad.
Sources are the glaring hole. Even if only one side used them, some impact they achieved must be listed.
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).
**************************************************
njk25
07.21.2024 05:13AM
#4
Reason:
Overall after going through all the arguments, i strongly support pro's since-
Pro explained his view, in a much more scientific way, whereas con was more focused on the emotional, and experiential part, but that fails to account for the fact that pro's argument was that these experiences, could be an illusion
Furthermore con implies that consciousness, is some sort of supernatural phenomenon, which somehow makes humans special, from the rest of the universe to which I completely disagree with.
In summary I think since our bodies are made of materials, whose reactions and interactions between are completely deterministic, our thoughts and actions are deterministic too, which means free will is just an illusion
> pretty obvious. when caseyrisk said "I think it was pretty clear from the outset that this was intended to be a humorous debate and not meant to be taken seriously. Despite this, Con, perhaps trying to game the system, took it dead seriously. If someone goes into a serious debate and tries to turn it purely into a comedy/troll one without making any serious arguments, I don't think that should be rewarded. I think the converse is also true - trying to turn a comedic debate into a completely logical/rational one should not be rewarded either. In my eyes, the win can only go to Pro.” rubbish.
Not normally a moderated vote, but piggybacking someone elses falls short of even the lowered standards for this, as does counter vote bombs... Just vote on the debate, and ignore the other votes as best you can.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: njk25 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
This vote really reads like an argument allotment, without any weighting of the arguments.
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: SocraticGregarian96 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 7 to con
>Reason for Decision: "cons arguments were longer, more fact-based and empirical, with trustworthy sources. Pro also resortes to baseless insults such as homophobe and bigot."
>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: SocraticGregarian96 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 2 to con, 3 to pro
>Reason for Decision: "Pro had better argument but con was better at conveying the arguement."
>Reason for Mod Action:
Got to say I respect that the vote attempts to be fair with use of multiple categories. They each need detail, and might not be warranted even if the debate or part of it leans in their favor.
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: SocraticGregarian96 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to con
>Reason for Decision: "Pros argument is absurd."
>Reason for Mod Action:
While that vote is quite accurate, doesn't tell us anything about the debate we didn't know from just the title (most likely a comedy debate, which are intentionally absurd and need not be punished for that)
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: Casey // Mod action: Not Removed (non-moderated debate)
>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:
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
Also for this type of debate, it was a good detailed vote.
**************************************************
The website outage threw off my schedule. And tonight I had to take care of a couple things… However. I have not forgotten this debate. Got most of my next round written, I shouldn’t have any difficulties finishing it in the morning.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Moozer325// Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: arguments and sources to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
This vote is only a little below the threshold, and I appreciate the thought put into it.
The core problem can be extrapolated from what is the point of the debate? You need not list every minor contention, but certainly the core one.
Sources should only be awarded if impressive enough that you'd want to talk about one or two of them (at least naming them and how they applied to part of an argument)
**************************************************
Con missed the point of the debate. Con provided counter points that didn’t work in the context of the argument and Pro also refuted most of Con’s arguments
Sources:
Pro provided more sources, much better sources, and more sources that were directly relevant to the debate resolution.
Legibility:
Neither side had a significant lack of legibility, so it’s a tie.
Conduct:
Ideally I would award this point to Pro, but the voting guide specifically says that if you are to award a point it must be for excessive breaking of conduct, and Pro was only slightly better at conduct than Con.
Removed the following vote by user request.
It is conduct only to con.
It also piggybacks another vote (two or more votes could have the same reasoning, but should still point to it individually with each voters words to describe the matter).
I cannot promise they'll never be removed, but intuitively I support single point protest votes.
---
Owen_T
07.07.2024 09:07PM
I agree with Baggins completely. American debater was, in my opinion, completely justified to drop out of this debate.
https://southpark.cc.com/video-clips/444m6e/south-park-stu-dent-ath-o-leets
Was correctly labeled, but should have been on the source list (not getting it there, is how another also got called 11)
https://www.npr.org/2022/08/18/1111344810/abortion-ban-states-social-safety-net-health-outcomes
Should have been 12, with its reference updated to match.
If you had to pick just one, it would be this one (as the other was just witticism from Trey Parker and Matt Stone).
I'm getting tired, but got most of a vote prepped... I am of course curious if Wyited can take back the initiative in the final round.
Ones rights end where they interfere with another, simple but solid opening.
"my argument is, they get what they deserve."
*facepalm*
---
Pew research, great source; 7 point lead from it... Quite significant, but sure, maybe not overwhelming as stated.
The NPR one was less effective. It begs the question of if it's the same on the other side, which would just cancel out the impacts.
Pathos appeal of think of the children is a bad one when I see it, but most voters will be moved.
Wyited wants to ban midgets, he talks for roughly an hour about just that... Thankfully it was a very short hour at like four minutes, and most of it was disguised talking about the topic.
---
Con pushes back on the Pew research, with astutely valid points (I'm a data scientist, so the actual numbers have shined through this whole time).
The women voting for Biden bit is another case of taking things a bit too far (granted, one should during a debate). It's another data point to build a picture; but it of course does not override all others. And yes, indeed the cause could be misunderstood. And yup, Pew is a better source, even if not the only.
Regarding our earlier conversation, this vote falls less into the problem areas of voting based on outside content. It's a conduct only protest vote, not trying to have any impact on the outcome. If reported it'll be deleted, but then you could just make it your own vote with your own description and interpretation of the facts of the debate and revote with that (regardless of it they're similar to another vote; especially on a debate like this there really won't be that much variance).
A vote may reference the existence of other votes, but should never feel that those other votes are the reason for the allotments assigned.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#based-on-outside-content
This should intuitively be true due to fairness. Each debater should be finding just the other debater; if someone else makes a great point against either, it's firmly outside the field of battle, so it may be noted, but should not shift any weighing.
The points are random in my mind for lack of analysis (which I'm sure were in the other vote).
Your vote falls short of the standards. Primarily for being a piggy-backed vote, but also for such issues as seemingly random point assignments. Were the debate ongoing, the vote would be removed.
Reason:
Pro presented tangible written arguments that were coherent and traceable. Although videos may not be against the rules officially, they lack reliability for judging a debate or presenting a case. Indeed, they might be deemed plagiarism as Con is relying on others' arguments instead of formulating their own. Ultimately, videos might serve as sources, but they do not constitute arguments in themselves. Consequently, I award all votes to Pro, including for legibility, since Con contributed minimally to the debate.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: TheUnderdog // 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:
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.
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.
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).
**************************************************
You’re being dense.
Please tone it down, or at least target someone like me with thick skin (we could even argue over which of us is the bigger idiot… FYI, I’m 6’3… I’m so dumb that I’m using imperial units (long live the queen!), I don’t know the conversion rates, but I’m pretty sure I’m more big than the average bad analogy typed at 50 WPM)
> Nonetheless, his arguments where still highly intelligent but they did not have the same effect that they would have had if Barney kept a cooler composure throughout.
If you believed pro's arguments that I was emotional and therefore wrong, I really can't fault that line of persuasion since it worked (to be clear, out of the debate I do not fault it; inside the debate I literally prefaced everything with a defense against that likely line of attack).
For future reference, my arguments almost always include a healthy dose of wit. Such as my one Hall of Fame winning debate:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/866-fetuses-as-a-replacement-for-the-usd
Obviously thank you a hundred times over for getting through that, and a hundred more for putting the work into such a thoughtful vote.
Here were some thoughts I had at different points in it...
R1 con:
Seriously, I did not expect so much of this to actually be something pro would want to focus on.
6:00
I'm entertained by the voice selection. Curious how close to that guys actual voice this is. Regardless, wicked program.
10:40
Yup, I introduced the points from a place of arrogance. I did make them (somewhat) warranted with sources.
12:00
My remark on Madison was to decrease nitpicking. The quote from him stood by itself regardless of what anyone may or may not raise about him.
14:00
Glad you enjoyed the contention just before the 13th got going, and also glad you immediately opted against taking it all seriously (I’d be worried if anyone did). And yup, pathos appeals are one of the weapons in my arsonal… Anyways, that paragraph was a satirical shell around a key theme to the debate, which also served as lead-in for the next point.
15:45
Incel is probably a more nuanced term than I realized. I used it for variety. I should have said Men's Rights Activists.
18:30
The logic indeed can be applied to taxation. Atlas Shrugged was largely an exploration of that idea (by a brilliant idiot who wants to bore us all to death… That reminds me of a fun debate I had with one of my philosophy professors on if Rand was an Egoist or not. Their argument was something like yes because the heroes are all about how they shouldn’t have to work for the common good; whereas I argued no because the villains were the embodiment of the Egoist ideals for wanting to just mooch off the contributors).
And I really was hoping for social contract theory. Interesting discussions can happen in that space.
R2 pro:
20:15
I really did not expect such an offense at hyperbole against objectively evil SOBs. That of course influenced my course going forward.
22:40
Not rude against pro, and also 100% truthful with sources to back it up.
23:00
Glad you saw it, and saw it right away… Those were not even meant as big red herrings, I even prefaced the argument with what was important.
Oh that little typo you had for a moment of “abortion is slavery” I have literally heard that from pro-lifers. 🤯
28:20
That was one of pro’s best moments (not that I’d give credit during the debate, instead of pulling the Karen card).
34:40
That was not one of pro’s best moments.
R2 Con:
38:00
Fair! It
38:40
Glad you understood that I was having some fun with that.
Admittedly, I’ve only read the opinions of the justices (the full thing is over 100 pages), and intuitively assume that since it is raised in the context of him trying to have his VP killed, they meant it to apply to that (even if another court takes over from here). But yes, it was an intentional oversimplification to poison the well against the three justices in question.
44:30
This stumped me for a good minute, then I broke out literally laughing aloud!
49:30
I’m getting lost in that thought experiment. I believe conjoined twins have tested the law on killing another sentient being to be free of them (you may not), but I don’t think any slavery angle has been legally used in any cases with merit.
—
R3 Pro:
52:50
Likewise, this will be the last time I take part in such a lengthy debate.
53:49
Outside the debate I wholly agree that it’s not inherently bad that they have religion. But I do stand by it being problematic when it’s required.
57:50
Yo momma so fat, that when she ‘fell out of the sky’ no one thought she was an angel, they thought she was the next extinction event!
1:05:25
1:07:08
Respect.
1:08:45
Knowing how this turns out, it’s good to see someone agreeing with the side they ultimately through strength of arguments votes against.
R3 con:
…
R4:
…
Conclusions:
1:13:25
I appreciate what that vote was trying to do. It’s actually a good place in the development of a voter to consider where sides surpassed each other.
And I agree with your advice to pro for how to beat me next time.
In an early issue of X-Force Kane gets into a fight with Deadpool. Kane knows Deadpool is tougher than him, but he also knows that Deadpool’s most deadly power is his mouth. So he bit down, ignored everything Deadpool said, and just kept focused on hitting him.
Thank you both for voting!
I’ve met a few Muslims who would disagree. Not sure if any are active or not right now.
I was on the road today and tried to finish reading/listening to this, but signal strength was insufficient.
I’d say the big reason is the messiah hadn’t been born yet…hard to write books anbout… even while there were prophecies.
As for poly vs mono… it’s a way they used to say they’re different, but it was also stupid from a language standpoint. Angels exist, if you believe this you’re probably a polytheist. Yes, there’s a high god, but that doesn’t equate to denial of the power of the angels (or any other supernatural beings besides God).
Actually, I can name one religion which might truly be monotheistic… Pastafarianism!
Since it is and it isn't, this is a good topic.
Good topic.
Considering out
Should be
Considering our
Also you should read Eric by Sir Terry Pratchett
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: LogicalDebater01 // Mod action: Not Removed (borderline)
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: conduct to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was borderline. By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient.
We've never considered weights of emojis compared to forfeiting, and they can vary so very much... I don't foresee it becoming a common enough occurrence to impact any debate outcomes.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Owen_T // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: conduct to con
>Reason for Decision: "American debater forfeiture"
>Reason for Mod Action:
Any unexcused forfeited round merits an automatic conduct loss, but arguments must still be voted on or justified as a tie. Repeated forfeitures waives the need to consider arguments (you still may, but by the choice of one side to miss at least 40% of the debate, the requirement ceases. And yes, this does apply to Choose Winner, which otherwise would not allow conduct to be the sole determinant).
Should either side forfeit every round or every round after their initial arguments (waiving is not an argument), the debate is considered a Full Forfeiture, and any majority votes against the absent side are not moderated (a vote may still be cast in their favor of the absentee, but is eligible for moderation to verify that it is justified via the normal voting standards).
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#forfeitures
**************************************************
I'd prefer it if abortion did not occur (barring exceptional circumstances; those I'd also prefer did not occur, but we have to deal with the fact that they do).
I view it as generally a wrong, so I would personally not get an abortion. However...
1. Pineapple on pizza is far more often viewed as wrong, and nothing about it merits legal enforcement.
2. Abortion cannot be a pure wrong, because God is good, and God carried out literally countless abortions (not even talking about miscarriages).
Actually a really complex question to answer, and much of what I began to type touched on topics from the debate (remind me after voting ends and I'll answer in depth).
One thing I can say is that I really think the whole issue gets looked at quite backwards. I don't understand how we can have forced births and not forced vasectomies.
I should have a little time in the next day or two to finish this up.
I once had someone take that values argument way too far. Glad to see such an argument when it's still within the sensible region.
Also ugly?
All or just some
I suggest pre-defining exceptions (otherwise they invalidate your argument)
Plus when in pregnancy it should be illegal.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: njk25 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: arguments and sources to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Arguments are on the low side of borderline, but passable. Still, I'd add more detail there, such as a contention that went well and/or bad.
Sources are the glaring hole. Even if only one side used them, some impact they achieved must be listed.
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).
**************************************************
njk25
07.21.2024 05:13AM
#4
Reason:
Overall after going through all the arguments, i strongly support pro's since-
Pro explained his view, in a much more scientific way, whereas con was more focused on the emotional, and experiential part, but that fails to account for the fact that pro's argument was that these experiences, could be an illusion
Furthermore con implies that consciousness, is some sort of supernatural phenomenon, which somehow makes humans special, from the rest of the universe to which I completely disagree with.
In summary I think since our bodies are made of materials, whose reactions and interactions between are completely deterministic, our thoughts and actions are deterministic too, which means free will is just an illusion
> pretty obvious. when caseyrisk said "I think it was pretty clear from the outset that this was intended to be a humorous debate and not meant to be taken seriously. Despite this, Con, perhaps trying to game the system, took it dead seriously. If someone goes into a serious debate and tries to turn it purely into a comedy/troll one without making any serious arguments, I don't think that should be rewarded. I think the converse is also true - trying to turn a comedic debate into a completely logical/rational one should not be rewarded either. In my eyes, the win can only go to Pro.” rubbish.
Not normally a moderated vote, but piggybacking someone elses falls short of even the lowered standards for this, as does counter vote bombs... Just vote on the debate, and ignore the other votes as best you can.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: njk25 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
This vote really reads like an argument allotment, without any weighting of the arguments.
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.
**************************************************
njk25
07.23.2024 01:31AM
Reason:
Research paper on altruism-
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/41910312_Altruism_Spite_and_Greenbeards
Simulation of the growth of altruism in populations-
https://youtu.be/goePYJ74Ydg?si=JeUSIWl__qpcr1cB
In summary it seems, even though pro makes some commendable arguments, empirical data suggests altruism is indeed possible.
Enjoyed reading the debate!
There’s only two peaceful religions on this planet that I’m aware of. Pastafarians, and Jedi. All the rest engage in wars.
Queue special pleading…
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: SocraticGregarian96 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 7 to con
>Reason for Decision: "cons arguments were longer, more fact-based and empirical, with trustworthy sources. Pro also resortes to baseless insults such as homophobe and bigot."
>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: SocraticGregarian96 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 2 to con, 3 to pro
>Reason for Decision: "Pro had better argument but con was better at conveying the arguement."
>Reason for Mod Action:
Got to say I respect that the vote attempts to be fair with use of multiple categories. They each need detail, and might not be warranted even if the debate or part of it leans in their favor.
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: SocraticGregarian96 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to con
>Reason for Decision: "Pros argument is absurd."
>Reason for Mod Action:
While that vote is quite accurate, doesn't tell us anything about the debate we didn't know from just the title (most likely a comedy debate, which are intentionally absurd and need not be punished for that)
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: Casey // Mod action: Not Removed (non-moderated debate)
>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:
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
Also for this type of debate, it was a good detailed vote.
**************************************************
Please define: "a religion of peace."
The website outage threw off my schedule. And tonight I had to take care of a couple things… However. I have not forgotten this debate. Got most of my next round written, I shouldn’t have any difficulties finishing it in the morning.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Moozer325// Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: arguments and sources to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
This vote is only a little below the threshold, and I appreciate the thought put into it.
The core problem can be extrapolated from what is the point of the debate? You need not list every minor contention, but certainly the core one.
Sources should only be awarded if impressive enough that you'd want to talk about one or two of them (at least naming them and how they applied to part of an argument)
**************************************************
Moozer325
07.18.2024 10:47AM
Arguments:
Con missed the point of the debate. Con provided counter points that didn’t work in the context of the argument and Pro also refuted most of Con’s arguments
Sources:
Pro provided more sources, much better sources, and more sources that were directly relevant to the debate resolution.
Legibility:
Neither side had a significant lack of legibility, so it’s a tie.
Conduct:
Ideally I would award this point to Pro, but the voting guide specifically says that if you are to award a point it must be for excessive breaking of conduct, and Pro was only slightly better at conduct than Con.
Ah you misunderstand mon ami.
You who wears le jupe may be any gender, but le jupe herself will always be feminine.
The French (and some other cultures) would disagree. But that's not the stupid path I was envisioning.
So many kritiks come to mind from that title...
I don't know, they seem pretty quiet to me... 🔕
But are they sound?
I think of them more as Earth's Gemini.
There's kritiks which could be run, but most likely someone will accept without a plan.
Removed the following vote by user request.
It is conduct only to con.
It also piggybacks another vote (two or more votes could have the same reasoning, but should still point to it individually with each voters words to describe the matter).
I cannot promise they'll never be removed, but intuitively I support single point protest votes.
---
Owen_T
07.07.2024 09:07PM
I agree with Baggins completely. American debater was, in my opinion, completely justified to drop out of this debate.
My apologies for any difficulty.
https://southpark.cc.com/video-clips/444m6e/south-park-stu-dent-ath-o-leets
Was correctly labeled, but should have been on the source list (not getting it there, is how another also got called 11)
https://www.npr.org/2022/08/18/1111344810/abortion-ban-states-social-safety-net-health-outcomes
Should have been 12, with its reference updated to match.
If you had to pick just one, it would be this one (as the other was just witticism from Trey Parker and Matt Stone).
...
Anyways, I hope you're enjoying the debate.
Plus it should be clear which side you’re taking.
I'm getting tired, but got most of a vote prepped... I am of course curious if Wyited can take back the initiative in the final round.
Ones rights end where they interfere with another, simple but solid opening.
"my argument is, they get what they deserve."
*facepalm*
---
Pew research, great source; 7 point lead from it... Quite significant, but sure, maybe not overwhelming as stated.
The NPR one was less effective. It begs the question of if it's the same on the other side, which would just cancel out the impacts.
Pathos appeal of think of the children is a bad one when I see it, but most voters will be moved.
Wyited wants to ban midgets, he talks for roughly an hour about just that... Thankfully it was a very short hour at like four minutes, and most of it was disguised talking about the topic.
---
Con pushes back on the Pew research, with astutely valid points (I'm a data scientist, so the actual numbers have shined through this whole time).
The women voting for Biden bit is another case of taking things a bit too far (granted, one should during a debate). It's another data point to build a picture; but it of course does not override all others. And yes, indeed the cause could be misunderstood. And yup, Pew is a better source, even if not the only.
Regarding our earlier conversation, this vote falls less into the problem areas of voting based on outside content. It's a conduct only protest vote, not trying to have any impact on the outcome. If reported it'll be deleted, but then you could just make it your own vote with your own description and interpretation of the facts of the debate and revote with that (regardless of it they're similar to another vote; especially on a debate like this there really won't be that much variance).
A vote may reference the existence of other votes, but should never feel that those other votes are the reason for the allotments assigned.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#based-on-outside-content
This should intuitively be true due to fairness. Each debater should be finding just the other debater; if someone else makes a great point against either, it's firmly outside the field of battle, so it may be noted, but should not shift any weighing.
The points are random in my mind for lack of analysis (which I'm sure were in the other vote).
FYI,
Your vote falls short of the standards. Primarily for being a piggy-backed vote, but also for such issues as seemingly random point assignments. Were the debate ongoing, the vote would be removed.
Deleted by user request:
Americandebater24
07.07.2024 08:12AM
Reason:
Pro presented tangible written arguments that were coherent and traceable. Although videos may not be against the rules officially, they lack reliability for judging a debate or presenting a case. Indeed, they might be deemed plagiarism as Con is relying on others' arguments instead of formulating their own. Ultimately, videos might serve as sources, but they do not constitute arguments in themselves. Consequently, I award all votes to Pro, including for legibility, since Con contributed minimally to the debate.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: TheUnderdog // 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:
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.
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.
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).
**************************************************
TheUnderdog
07.06.2024 09:38PM
Con's argument: "NPV lets you win with 6% of the popular vote if there are enough candidates whereas electoral college requires a majority."
If there are 30 candidates running for POTUS, then the electoral college won't cause the winner of a state to have a majority vote.
Con just didn't really present well either. It sounds like a filibuster.
The supreme court which he appointed half of declared assassinating your political rivals is A-OKAY!
I advise playing a game of mafia