**************************************************
>Reported Vote: FishChaser // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro
>Reason for Decision: "I got a better feeling in my chakras from Mharman's songs."
>Reason for Mod Action:
Even while this debate falls into a non-moderated category, there are occasionally exceptions.
Since neither debater mentions chakras, and AFAIK likewise with their songs, the vote ends up feeling like one cast without regard for the debate itself.
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.
**************************************************
My thoughts are much the same. Can doesn't mean should.
I'm sure con already covered it, but each food type has a definition. Leave a smoothie in the blender too long as it ceases to be a smoothie, but is converted to soup.
I personally advise against suicide. I don't know you, but most problems pass with time. You could move away to Alaska working seasonal gigs for example, and establish a new life without the current people (assuming they're part of the problem).
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Barney // 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:
For any non-moderator the vote would be fine. As a moderator, I'd grade it as at worst borderline.
The problem becomes that I keep second guessing it, and in light of that I've realized that paid too much attention to factors not presented inside the debate.
The big thing is I generally treated this debate as comedy. In comedy dildos win by a landslide, just because of the image of someone holding one (an image not presented by either debater). This isn't to say pro did not do a good job showing how they can poke someone in the eye in a fight, and keep the family together, but I'm not even sure if I graded the sanitation issues con raised to counter them.
That said, I can revote, and I still /might/, but I have a couple projects to focus on this weekend and have to complete them first before I lose myself in this debate.
**************************************************
#1
Reason:
I'm pretty close to the fence on this one. They talked past each other more than I would have liked, with pro being the worse offender. Plus by a good margin I prefer con's structure. I'd have liked more details in the setup, as maybe one more round.
To me the pan obviously beats the kettle.
It's taking me a bit to put my finger on it, but the dildo comes ahead of the textbook largely for feeling that it's valuable within one's life, whereas the text book is treated as something to be gotten rid of quickly with no focus on uses if kept (and both paths could be explored in the same debate; just not assuming both at once). And there was this weirdness of the desire to get rid of the book to acquire a dildo and kettle (that intuitively says it's better to have those things than a textbook).
---
Singular or plural: Singular
I initially thought pro was over reacting when talking about scope, but cross checking the resolution he's got a valid point that it's singular items instead of groups of them.
"Not all of them and one of every variety" goes against the grain of a few of his points, such as some dildos vibrate, but I get it. It's not the selective best for each possible situation, were this a video game then it'd just one potentially randomized set for a roguelike dungeon.
Con argues we should look more at the types of people who would have these items (someone with a book is most likely someone who will earn more money), but that feels just outside the direct scope. This is implicitly backed by his own arguments about cleaning difficulties and potential partners might not be into tea/coffee/pegging (we don't assume they have the perfect partner and special cleaning supplies).
Earnings: Textbook
Con argues schoolbooks are better because education is good for earnings, and is able to hold some ground that there's good value in even a single one. While it's argued items should be sold to buy the items of the other side, that feels like a needless kritik which concludes with (pan + kettle + dildo) > (kettle + dildo), which feels outside the spirit and scope of the debate.
Pro argues at least 3 are needed to actually pass those classes, which doesn't undermine the ~$55 value, but it defends well against the assumed better lifetime earning potential.
NOTE: Students tend to have debt, which pro should have used as a backup to his scope arguments.
Defense: Pan
Surprised it took until the final round before the rarity of these situations was mentioned.
Kettles can be used for physical fitness if no other tools are available, and that makes you far better at defending yourself (seems unlikely for the average person, even while it's a cool historical note). They also risk burning yourself if hot, but can be an unpredictable and unexpected improvised weapon to be wielded in a variety of wars (handle, power cord, used with a towel, etc,).
A dildo can poke a robber in the eye, block a knife swing, or even shield yourself from guns... Useful, but none of it implies actually winning such a fight (the shock factor of it would have worked)
The pan on the other hand is properly suited as a weapon, such that an old man could fend off a crocodile (I'd have preferred less focus on this one example). Honestly, a lot of it boils down (pun intended) to the simple likelihood of successful use without hurting yourself.
Cooking: Pan
It can pretty much cook anything. The kettle can likewise do a lot, but there's nothing it can cook that a pan cannot (even if suboptimal for boiling water).
Cleaning: Kettle
A kettle assists with cleaning nearly everything; it can even potentially be paired up with the dildo /somehow/.
Relations: Dildo
While the pan can cook a nice meal, the dildo apparently holds families together etc. Con accused pro's claim of making up for a micropenis to be from personal experience, and then acted as if he had depended a source; which is not the same thing. Also not sure why a man being gay would be a problem, not that a men pleasuring themselves makes them gay; but I did understand the point of highlighting insecurities.
A big mistake con makes is even at the end he treats the assumption of finding partners for the dildo as a likely occurrence "PRO wants us to live as broke coffeine and sex addicts"
FYI, by creating this debate you are implicitly suspending certain rules which are there for your protection. Hopefully it will be a clean case so it doesn't matter, but I don't want you going in without being warned.
If I was actively debating, I'd accept. My tactic would be to dismiss the OT and focus on the Christ part.
Of course were I on the other side, there's plenty of examples from the NT.
Either way, rather than spewing out giant confusing paragraphs, use of summaries and links are best. If there's any reenactment videos all the better (like Job in Good Omens, even while that changed the story a bit).
I've argued that much better in other debates. This one was just an introductory line to bait pro into disagreeing, and then I'd launch more.
Anyway, I'd bet money the supreme court has some weird rule along the lines of "well the authors never envisioned blacks would be treated as people, so the 13th amendment cannot be applied to black slaves" (yes, I know that one was written specifically for them, but done so properly to be also applicable to any other; this was hyperbole).
But yes, I do believe it is a crime to enslave (or involuntary servitude) women for use as a life support device for another.
Taking the current system to its stupid but logical conclusion, "where you going dressed like that with two kidneys, a senator needs a kidney."
As for kicking out children... While it drifts outside the scope, Nebraska actually made a law which allowed that (just had to reach a hospital, and you could drop them off without even leaving your name... Babysitting solved!). It of course is a situation where someone who would want to do that, probably shouldn't have been trusted with the care of children to begin with. Here it's worth noting that other states have a 72 hour rule for dropping off an undesired baby after birth). With children there does gets to be an implicit contract by your continual actions before you throw them into a snowstorm or whatever; but such a contract with them does not guarantee anything about what you do with your body; you could poison yourself (over simplifying Plan B), or if you're a real bastard betray them by fucking their mom.
https://youtu.be/NPPyvJN2Mxo?si=uc_GQP0HnhPuDhwH&t=57
I should add that when the trans-Atlantic slave trade was abolished, there was no stipulation that slaves had to keep serving their former masters if they were really really needed. There were probably a few isolated deaths from this among the elderly, who have a harder time caring for themselves.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Barney // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 to con
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Conduct is an optional award as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, such as extreme unsportsmanlike or outright toxic behavior which distracted from the topical debate.
While the off topic rape claims were somewhat distracting from the topic, a moderator is held to a higher standard.
**************************************************
Barney
03.06.2024 11:09AM
Reason:
In short: "All of your arguments are unproven assumptions."
Pro builds a case of incel propaganda (at least it wasn't copy/pasted)
IF true,
THEN sources are easy to find.
Sources would have undermined con, making his kritik weightless.
Con on the other hand kritiks it with an alternative sexuality; and rather than pointing out that it's not really hetero, pro asserts that they go for those little boys because they're so Chad. Which con wisely uses to mock that said chads are "short and weak," which pro flounders at, and somehow doubles down on his off topic rape isn't rape claims.
---
Conduct for overwhelming vileness against half the population of the planet. This was an example of "outright toxic behavior which distracted from the topical debate."
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Savant // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: baggins // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to con
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
While concise, it's already longer than the debate.
It did add opinions not found within the debate (such as the source being unreliable), but this doesn't outweigh that it used the analysis offered from both debaters to reach its conclusion.
**************************************************
Basically arguments may be awarded for a very slight lead, but all other points require some noteworthy magnitude to be reached.
Back in the day there were too many padded votes, which people pretty quickly agreed were BS. The rule has to over compensate a bit, but the only way to get rid of obviously padded votes is to have a rule which can target them, and it has to be applied to other votes which figuratively fit through the same hole.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: 7000series // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: arguments and sources to con.
>Reason for Decision: "PRO's argument did not directly support PRO's claim."
>Reason for Mod Action:
I agree, but 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: RationalMadman // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: Sources and arguments to pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
I instantly find any argument longer than the case it's favoring, to be suspect. That said, I'd leave that award to another moderator to review if not for the glaring problem of sources.
The source award is invalid, as pro was required to at least minimally analyze what he presented.
"Things not to award sources for (barring for exceptional cases):
*A lead of only a couple sources, even if only one side had any. While quantity isn’t the standard, there is a minimal threshold for consideration.
*Source spam without relevant analysis by the presenter. Sources are awarded for quality, not mere quantity."
**************************************************
#2
Reason:
'Anyone' is a different term to 'everyone'. Only Pro used a source.
Con just says not everyone, Pro didn't say everyone, he said anyone. Even if we go with the idea that anyone who is not Christian does mean everyone who is not Christian, 'on the path' doesn't mean has arrived at the destination.
What Pro does prove is not what Barney says or what Con says, it's not a small subset Pro is focusing on but a lot/majority of atheists. It suggests that they are all on that path and majority are wililngly walking down it.
Con's reply "So he loses instantly, even before I bring up other religions like Islam and Judaism that also walk the path of trying to avoid sin and who avoidf sodomy"
It is a sin in Christianity to worship any idol other than the Christian God, for starters and Islam especially has the reverse policy meaning there's a sin there alone.
Con's other reply "He even conceedes that some atheists do not walk, but avoid and condemn, the path of sodomy." Doesn't realise that 'sin and sodomy' can mean that if one is on the path of sin by happens to condemn sodomy, they still are matching Pro's definition. Also this is a lie, I am not sure where Con sees this in Pro's constructive at all. This is not there.
Con lies about concession but this is not really enough to give a conduct mark since Pro is using another source's words as his constructive.
All who are atheistic to the Christian god, could be taken to be on the path of sin by default as it's a sin in Christianity to be against the Christian God. However, Pro's argument is only about atheists, that's true. So the question is why does 'anyone' being on the path mean Pro has to prove 'everyone' has gone all the way down the path.
The default position is actually that you're on the path since Con hasn't stated what path they're on instead or clarified why they aren't on it. Pro has also not clarified what constituted the path, so both are making errors. However, Pro made a case as to why an atheist is on the path, Con's literal statement is that he doesn't want to bring up Islam and Judaism and that it's just a fact that not everyone is on the path. If Con doesn't want to bring it up, I will accept that and not buy into that sneaky way of going abou tthings because if Con did bring them up, Con would fail due to the sin of worshipping false idols.
This all doesn't make sense to me. Both sides don't clarify what 'anyone' refers to or what the path constitutes. Thus, since only Pro explores how some non-Christians walk that path, I assume Con is merely lying about the others not being on it, since Con has done absolutely zero constructive explanation.
> "Quran came from Allah's ass. Allah is a pig. Quran came from pig's ass. Those who read Quran read from pig's ass."
Wait, isn't Allah yo momma's name?
/joke
I'm cleaning up the reports backlog. I hate to agree with Best.Korea on anything, but insults against public figures are allowed.
That said, I'm really surprised no one turned his insults around into a Yo Momma joke. At least LogicalDebater turned a bit of it around into a Grammar Nazi joke.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Best.Korea // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 0
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
There are three types of tied votes:
(1) Ones which allot zero points. They have no meaningful impact on the debate outcome, and are thus only moderated if warranted for other reasons.
(2) Ones which cancel themselves out. While the category assignments may serve as feedback to the debaters, there is no still meaningful impact for moderation consider. These are in essence the same as the previous type.
(3) Votes which leave arguments tied, but assign other categories. While these need not meet the sufficiency standards for an argument vote, they must still evaluate arguments enough to justify no clear winner. There is however an exception for repeated forfeitures allowing conduct only with no further explanation.
**************************************************
And great topic, as it is very much debatable… To me it’d really boil down to if it’s the same person or not, but to a lot of people it’s solely about human DNA regardless of if a brain is attached.
Were this in the forums, I'd have to lock the thread.
There's only a small window in which you may delete your own vote. That said, if you ask any moderator for assistance, we'll be happy to help.
Do I need to send an ambulance to check on you, given that you may have just over strained yourself coming up with such an /oh so original/ insult?
If this remains unvoted in say a week, someone remind me and I'll break the tie.
Started reading this, and I'm instantly reminded of an old SNL skit starring Tom Brady: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxuUkYiaUc8
Any sources you wish to add?
> "You deleted my vote because you're a corrupt mod with anti-favoritism towards me and not because of the vote itself."
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-dont-even-know-who-you-are
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: FishChaser // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro
>Reason for Decision: "I got a better feeling in my chakras from Mharman's songs."
>Reason for Mod Action:
Even while this debate falls into a non-moderated category, there are occasionally exceptions.
Since neither debater mentions chakras, and AFAIK likewise with their songs, the vote ends up feeling like one cast without regard for the debate itself.
In essence, this vote was just too vague... This can be avoided in future by just commenting on the core contention (and the main counterpoint or the lack thereof), listing a single source you found important (if voting sources), saying what conduct violation distracted you (if voting conduct)... You need not write a thesis, but some minimal level of detail is required to verify knowledge of what you're grading.
**************************************************
The resolution and BoP statements are slightly misaligned.
My thoughts are much the same. Can doesn't mean should.
I'm sure con already covered it, but each food type has a definition. Leave a smoothie in the blender too long as it ceases to be a smoothie, but is converted to soup.
FYI, as a friendly reminder, you're down to less than three hours to post your argument.
/projection, gaslighting
Things can also be engaging, but require real effort if judging them.
Be forewarned: I am preparing an insult so good, that you'll be seeing red!
I had meant to vote on this, and it looks like a run read; but too much going on right now.
I personally advise against suicide. I don't know you, but most problems pass with time. You could move away to Alaska working seasonal gigs for example, and establish a new life without the current people (assuming they're part of the problem).
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Barney // 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:
For any non-moderator the vote would be fine. As a moderator, I'd grade it as at worst borderline.
The problem becomes that I keep second guessing it, and in light of that I've realized that paid too much attention to factors not presented inside the debate.
The big thing is I generally treated this debate as comedy. In comedy dildos win by a landslide, just because of the image of someone holding one (an image not presented by either debater). This isn't to say pro did not do a good job showing how they can poke someone in the eye in a fight, and keep the family together, but I'm not even sure if I graded the sanitation issues con raised to counter them.
That said, I can revote, and I still /might/, but I have a couple projects to focus on this weekend and have to complete them first before I lose myself in this debate.
**************************************************
Barney
02.26.2024 01:05AM
#1
Reason:
I'm pretty close to the fence on this one. They talked past each other more than I would have liked, with pro being the worse offender. Plus by a good margin I prefer con's structure. I'd have liked more details in the setup, as maybe one more round.
To me the pan obviously beats the kettle.
It's taking me a bit to put my finger on it, but the dildo comes ahead of the textbook largely for feeling that it's valuable within one's life, whereas the text book is treated as something to be gotten rid of quickly with no focus on uses if kept (and both paths could be explored in the same debate; just not assuming both at once). And there was this weirdness of the desire to get rid of the book to acquire a dildo and kettle (that intuitively says it's better to have those things than a textbook).
---
Singular or plural: Singular
I initially thought pro was over reacting when talking about scope, but cross checking the resolution he's got a valid point that it's singular items instead of groups of them.
"Not all of them and one of every variety" goes against the grain of a few of his points, such as some dildos vibrate, but I get it. It's not the selective best for each possible situation, were this a video game then it'd just one potentially randomized set for a roguelike dungeon.
Con argues we should look more at the types of people who would have these items (someone with a book is most likely someone who will earn more money), but that feels just outside the direct scope. This is implicitly backed by his own arguments about cleaning difficulties and potential partners might not be into tea/coffee/pegging (we don't assume they have the perfect partner and special cleaning supplies).
Earnings: Textbook
Con argues schoolbooks are better because education is good for earnings, and is able to hold some ground that there's good value in even a single one. While it's argued items should be sold to buy the items of the other side, that feels like a needless kritik which concludes with (pan + kettle + dildo) > (kettle + dildo), which feels outside the spirit and scope of the debate.
Pro argues at least 3 are needed to actually pass those classes, which doesn't undermine the ~$55 value, but it defends well against the assumed better lifetime earning potential.
NOTE: Students tend to have debt, which pro should have used as a backup to his scope arguments.
Defense: Pan
Surprised it took until the final round before the rarity of these situations was mentioned.
Kettles can be used for physical fitness if no other tools are available, and that makes you far better at defending yourself (seems unlikely for the average person, even while it's a cool historical note). They also risk burning yourself if hot, but can be an unpredictable and unexpected improvised weapon to be wielded in a variety of wars (handle, power cord, used with a towel, etc,).
A dildo can poke a robber in the eye, block a knife swing, or even shield yourself from guns... Useful, but none of it implies actually winning such a fight (the shock factor of it would have worked)
The pan on the other hand is properly suited as a weapon, such that an old man could fend off a crocodile (I'd have preferred less focus on this one example). Honestly, a lot of it boils down (pun intended) to the simple likelihood of successful use without hurting yourself.
Cooking: Pan
It can pretty much cook anything. The kettle can likewise do a lot, but there's nothing it can cook that a pan cannot (even if suboptimal for boiling water).
Cleaning: Kettle
A kettle assists with cleaning nearly everything; it can even potentially be paired up with the dildo /somehow/.
Relations: Dildo
While the pan can cook a nice meal, the dildo apparently holds families together etc. Con accused pro's claim of making up for a micropenis to be from personal experience, and then acted as if he had depended a source; which is not the same thing. Also not sure why a man being gay would be a problem, not that a men pleasuring themselves makes them gay; but I did understand the point of highlighting insecurities.
A big mistake con makes is even at the end he treats the assumption of finding partners for the dildo as a likely occurrence "PRO wants us to live as broke coffeine and sex addicts"
FYI, by creating this debate you are implicitly suspending certain rules which are there for your protection. Hopefully it will be a clean case so it doesn't matter, but I don't want you going in without being warned.
Good points!
Fun topic, especially since it can go either way.
If I was actively debating, I'd accept. My tactic would be to dismiss the OT and focus on the Christ part.
Of course were I on the other side, there's plenty of examples from the NT.
Either way, rather than spewing out giant confusing paragraphs, use of summaries and links are best. If there's any reenactment videos all the better (like Job in Good Omens, even while that changed the story a bit).
I've argued that much better in other debates. This one was just an introductory line to bait pro into disagreeing, and then I'd launch more.
Anyway, I'd bet money the supreme court has some weird rule along the lines of "well the authors never envisioned blacks would be treated as people, so the 13th amendment cannot be applied to black slaves" (yes, I know that one was written specifically for them, but done so properly to be also applicable to any other; this was hyperbole).
But yes, I do believe it is a crime to enslave (or involuntary servitude) women for use as a life support device for another.
Taking the current system to its stupid but logical conclusion, "where you going dressed like that with two kidneys, a senator needs a kidney."
As for kicking out children... While it drifts outside the scope, Nebraska actually made a law which allowed that (just had to reach a hospital, and you could drop them off without even leaving your name... Babysitting solved!). It of course is a situation where someone who would want to do that, probably shouldn't have been trusted with the care of children to begin with. Here it's worth noting that other states have a 72 hour rule for dropping off an undesired baby after birth). With children there does gets to be an implicit contract by your continual actions before you throw them into a snowstorm or whatever; but such a contract with them does not guarantee anything about what you do with your body; you could poison yourself (over simplifying Plan B), or if you're a real bastard betray them by fucking their mom.
https://youtu.be/NPPyvJN2Mxo?si=uc_GQP0HnhPuDhwH&t=57
I should add that when the trans-Atlantic slave trade was abolished, there was no stipulation that slaves had to keep serving their former masters if they were really really needed. There were probably a few isolated deaths from this among the elderly, who have a harder time caring for themselves.
generally not. I’d personally treat this one as a concession.
True heterosexual men don't need to make a big deal about it, we do things like being lumberjacks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FshU58nI0Ts
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Barney // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 to con
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Conduct is an optional award as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, such as extreme unsportsmanlike or outright toxic behavior which distracted from the topical debate.
While the off topic rape claims were somewhat distracting from the topic, a moderator is held to a higher standard.
**************************************************
Barney
03.06.2024 11:09AM
Reason:
In short: "All of your arguments are unproven assumptions."
Pro builds a case of incel propaganda (at least it wasn't copy/pasted)
IF true,
THEN sources are easy to find.
Sources would have undermined con, making his kritik weightless.
Con on the other hand kritiks it with an alternative sexuality; and rather than pointing out that it's not really hetero, pro asserts that they go for those little boys because they're so Chad. Which con wisely uses to mock that said chads are "short and weak," which pro flounders at, and somehow doubles down on his off topic rape isn't rape claims.
---
Conduct for overwhelming vileness against half the population of the planet. This was an example of "outright toxic behavior which distracted from the topical debate."
Fair enough.
Watch American History X, and apply the lessons to your situation.
Has misogyny improved your life at all?
A fun related topic would be Star Trek teleporters, which incinerate someone (hopefully painlessly), and at a later time recreates them elsewhere.
Admittedly, I am biased in favor of people who write arguments.
Technically a callout debate, but BK seems cool with it.
Exactly that. For the most part, we have vote handling standardized.
Of course more details may be added to the report, and my decision can be appealed to other moderators.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Savant // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: baggins // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to con
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
While concise, it's already longer than the debate.
It did add opinions not found within the debate (such as the source being unreliable), but this doesn't outweigh that it used the analysis offered from both debaters to reach its conclusion.
**************************************************
One sufficiently large nuke will fracture the planet, killing all... No aircraft carriers necessary!
Technically true, but too many vote traders and idiots abused it. ‘My friend said Google it, so they win sources’ as an example.
Basically arguments may be awarded for a very slight lead, but all other points require some noteworthy magnitude to be reached.
Back in the day there were too many padded votes, which people pretty quickly agreed were BS. The rule has to over compensate a bit, but the only way to get rid of obviously padded votes is to have a rule which can target them, and it has to be applied to other votes which figuratively fit through the same hole.
This debate oddly somewhat mirrors a recent one I had about Star Trek: Prodigy over Facebook.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: 7000series // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: arguments and sources to con.
>Reason for Decision: "PRO's argument did not directly support PRO's claim."
>Reason for Mod Action:
I agree, but 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: RationalMadman // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: Sources and arguments to pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
I instantly find any argument longer than the case it's favoring, to be suspect. That said, I'd leave that award to another moderator to review if not for the glaring problem of sources.
The source award is invalid, as pro was required to at least minimally analyze what he presented.
from:
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#sources
"Things not to award sources for (barring for exceptional cases):
*A lead of only a couple sources, even if only one side had any. While quantity isn’t the standard, there is a minimal threshold for consideration.
*Source spam without relevant analysis by the presenter. Sources are awarded for quality, not mere quantity."
**************************************************
RationalMadman
03.03.2024 10:23AM
#2
Reason:
'Anyone' is a different term to 'everyone'. Only Pro used a source.
Con just says not everyone, Pro didn't say everyone, he said anyone. Even if we go with the idea that anyone who is not Christian does mean everyone who is not Christian, 'on the path' doesn't mean has arrived at the destination.
What Pro does prove is not what Barney says or what Con says, it's not a small subset Pro is focusing on but a lot/majority of atheists. It suggests that they are all on that path and majority are wililngly walking down it.
Con's reply "So he loses instantly, even before I bring up other religions like Islam and Judaism that also walk the path of trying to avoid sin and who avoidf sodomy"
It is a sin in Christianity to worship any idol other than the Christian God, for starters and Islam especially has the reverse policy meaning there's a sin there alone.
Con's other reply "He even conceedes that some atheists do not walk, but avoid and condemn, the path of sodomy." Doesn't realise that 'sin and sodomy' can mean that if one is on the path of sin by happens to condemn sodomy, they still are matching Pro's definition. Also this is a lie, I am not sure where Con sees this in Pro's constructive at all. This is not there.
Con lies about concession but this is not really enough to give a conduct mark since Pro is using another source's words as his constructive.
All who are atheistic to the Christian god, could be taken to be on the path of sin by default as it's a sin in Christianity to be against the Christian God. However, Pro's argument is only about atheists, that's true. So the question is why does 'anyone' being on the path mean Pro has to prove 'everyone' has gone all the way down the path.
The default position is actually that you're on the path since Con hasn't stated what path they're on instead or clarified why they aren't on it. Pro has also not clarified what constituted the path, so both are making errors. However, Pro made a case as to why an atheist is on the path, Con's literal statement is that he doesn't want to bring up Islam and Judaism and that it's just a fact that not everyone is on the path. If Con doesn't want to bring it up, I will accept that and not buy into that sneaky way of going abou tthings because if Con did bring them up, Con would fail due to the sin of worshipping false idols.
This all doesn't make sense to me. Both sides don't clarify what 'anyone' refers to or what the path constitutes. Thus, since only Pro explores how some non-Christians walk that path, I assume Con is merely lying about the others not being on it, since Con has done absolutely zero constructive explanation.
For better or worse, we're not overreacting so much anymore. As much as the words are gross.
> "Quran came from Allah's ass. Allah is a pig. Quran came from pig's ass. Those who read Quran read from pig's ass."
Wait, isn't Allah yo momma's name?
/joke
I'm cleaning up the reports backlog. I hate to agree with Best.Korea on anything, but insults against public figures are allowed.
That said, I'm really surprised no one turned his insults around into a Yo Momma joke. At least LogicalDebater turned a bit of it around into a Grammar Nazi joke.
You rest your case?
https://youtu.be/Sf5C24wP5Pk?si=yb9UfxCmahJdPSdO&t=130
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Best.Korea // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 0
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
There are three types of tied votes:
(1) Ones which allot zero points. They have no meaningful impact on the debate outcome, and are thus only moderated if warranted for other reasons.
(2) Ones which cancel themselves out. While the category assignments may serve as feedback to the debaters, there is no still meaningful impact for moderation consider. These are in essence the same as the previous type.
(3) Votes which leave arguments tied, but assign other categories. While these need not meet the sufficiency standards for an argument vote, they must still evaluate arguments enough to justify no clear winner. There is however an exception for repeated forfeitures allowing conduct only with no further explanation.
**************************************************
Any particular reason you reported your own debate?
Yes. I find them to be odd, but odd doesn't make them violate any rules nor the spirit thereof.
Dildo is arguably the most valuable member of society! That said, frying plans are king of the kitchen.
Watch an episode of the TV show Upload.
And great topic, as it is very much debatable… To me it’d really boil down to if it’s the same person or not, but to a lot of people it’s solely about human DNA regardless of if a brain is attached.
Thankfully there’s a couple weeks of voting remaining, so I’ll plan on re-reading the debate when it’s not so late at night.