It was entertaining while it lasted. Most of it took place in the comment section to another debate. If wanting to read it, here's a quick reading order...
Me reviewing a votebomb: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1101/comment_links/15187
The votebomb being deleted: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1101/comment_links/15220
And basically this one forward until #365: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1101/comment_links/15413
I really wish I could share some of the stuff he PMed me from various alt accounts he made.
As the #2 judge on this site, feasibility is often (but not exclusively) vital to proposal debates. I would go so far as to call it an unstated part of BoP. However, if both debaters treat something as possible, I follow their arguments and accept the possibility; but if it becomes a debate argument, the confidence of that argument acts as a negative multiplier to the rest.
I remember a classic Imabench debate about if women can do everything a man can do. Bench challenged the feasibility by pointing out women could not whip their dicks out and f. the bus driver. The opponent conceded that women could not do this, thus conceding that it was infeasible for women to do everything a man can do (in my head I thought of ways they could still do this, and probably do it better... but the debaters made their cases, and that was what I had to grade).
Anyway, to quote the style guide (http://tiny.cc/DebateArt):
"A quality opening round must address the Why and How.
> If the Why is missing, they are easily countered by the lack of benefit.
> If the How is missing, they are easily countered with impracticality and limited resources."
On another note, lightly skimming I saw the sources argument (more debates should do this). I only identified one paywall, but that many broken links seems unlikely to stem from website shuffling (pages move, but this many so fast?).
If you've overtaxed yourself, you can concede debates politely (even if not changing your mind), instead of just forfeiting (which creates a bad reputation).
For the audience, would you mind explaining why you believe it was a free win? It's been six months, so you're probably the only person who remembers why you forfeited.
I will say that it would seem reasonable to request a rematch and this former iteration be purged from the site (I've made this suggestion for other debates).
Sorry about that. I'm not one of the moderators. I literally did a word search thought your RFD for "sources," and that was the only part featuring that word.
---RFD (1 of 4)---
Interpreting the resolution:
Nixon > Roosevelt
Gist:
Two great men, but unfortunately the comparison stopped with the negatives of Roosevelt uncontested, and all positives of Nixon unchallenged by any negatives.
1. Civil Rights (1) vs Morals (1)
N. Nixon helped minorities enough to get MLK as a character witness.
R. Roosevelt going to law school and being disabled just doesn’t compare (don’t get me wrong, he was still a badass)
Anti-R. Did not listen to his expert advisers. Engaged in propaganda (didn’t they all?). Racist who sent 122k people to concentration camps, of whom 70k were full citizens; further they were directly robbed by the government and not economically reimbursed.
2. Saved His Political Party (2)
This should have been called unified the nation. The continued presence of any one political organization seems unimportant as people would almost certainly just organize similarly under another banner...
N. In short: He was “a pragmatist who would refuse to let ideology get in the way of progress.”
During the election, he won all but two states, which is quite the appeal to popularity. Even Obama could not unify us that well.
3. Environment (3) vs Environment (4)
N. Creating the EPA is quite the accomplishment. As is the Clean Air Act.
R. Ending the dust bowl seems like a divine intervention.
---RFD (2 of 4)---
4. Economics (4) vs Economics (2)
N. “reduced the deficit by over 70%” is amazing. Getting us off the gold standard is a ballsy move I cannot imagine modern presidents pulling off were it still in place.
R. Getting our money back into banks where it can enjoy the multiplier effect of spending (something not spelled out in the debate, but still worth mentioning for refinement of future arguments), is beyond words. Ending child labor and having a minimum wage, are also amazing (I believe N. raised the minimum wage, so neat to see how one followed in the footsteps of the other).
Anti-R. Child labor was already low (mostly rural, where they were often working family farms...), stuff about blacks (it’s dropped so pro gets it, but I feel the need to point out this not being a good interpretation o the data, even if utilized well as an argument). Ended up causing more unemployment worsening the great depression.
---RFD (3 of 4)---
5. Foreign Policy (5) vs Foreign Policy (2) and Superpower (5)
The superpower sounds good, but it is foreign policy worded for impact.
N. Ended one of our worst wars, got trade with the second world resumed, etc.
R. Got us into a necessary war, and presumably shaped the founding of the U.N. as a tool for the USA.
Anti-R. Speaking of WWII on the moral point, it came up that he rejected 1k Jewish refugees fleeing the holocaust, sending them back where many died. Plus empowered Russia with covering up some of their warcrimes, making them an increased threat to the USA. ... Pro continued by linking him to causing Pearl Harbor (on NPR I’ve listened to some stuff about them trying to declare war just before the attack, but us intentionally delaying their declaration to play victim... Not excusing their actions, just pointing out a funny historical detail about our role). And on the superpower note (I hoped this was coming), the simple fact that we did not have fighting on our soil causing our comparative economic strength, to which whomever happens to be president at the time does not get credit.
Arguments: pro
See above review of key points. Honestly, I felt that just on the strengths Nixon would win this, but his negatives are within living memory so may have cost him worse in R3 (I can’t imagine what would compare to the concentration camps, but something could have been argued as worse).
Sources: tied
I really dislike when things are posted outside the debate. I strongly suggest highlighting the intent to do that within the debate description... Actually I really suggest just increasing the character limit to hold them (and probably using a few less to get the gist across...).
S&G: tied
Both were fine.
Conduct: pro
Two rounds forfeited, vs the source issue... Had con raised the character limit violation, I would leave this tied, as is I’ll discount one of the forfeits, but that leaves a forfeit standing.
In case anyone is curious, here's a snapshot of my RFD draft at the end of R2...
1 Civil Rights (1) vs Morals (1)
N. Nixon helped minorities enough to get MLK as a character witness.
R. Roosevelt going to law school and being disabled just doesn’t compare (don’t get me wrong, he was still a badass)
2 Saved His Political Party (2) vs
This should have been called unified the nation. The continued presence of any one political organization seems pretty unimportant as people would just organize similarly under another banner...
N. In short: He was “a pragmatist who would refuse to let ideology get in the way of progress.”
During the election, he won all but two states, which is quite the appeal to popularity. Even Obama could not unify us that well.
R.
3 Environment (3) vs Environment (4)
N. Creating the EPA is quite the accomplishment. As is the Clean Air Act.
R. Ending the dust bowl seems like a divine intervention.
4 Economics (4) vs Economics (2)
N. “reduced the deficit by over 70%” is amazing. Getting us off the gold standard is a ballsy move I cannot imagine modern presidents pulling off were it still in place.
R. Getting our money back into banks where it can enjoy the multiplier effect of spending (something not spelled out in the debate, but still worth mentioning for refinement of future arguments), is beyond words. Ending child labor and having a minimum wage, are also amazing (I believe N. raised the minimum wage, so neat to see how one followed in the footsteps of the other).
5 Foreign Policy (5) vs Foreign Policy (2) and Superpower (5)
The superpower sounds good, but it is foreign policy worded for impact.
N. Ended one of our worst wars, got trade with the second world resumed, etc.
R. Got us into a necessary war, and presumably shaped the founding of the U.N. as a tool for the USA.
As stated in the removal notice, Dis' vote may be recast without refinement if merely by not assigning source points.
I highly advise if giving more than argument points, to single out the other areas with headings for quick review (makes it easy for the admin, and easy to double check yourself in case you forget something). I have taken to ending my debates with hand feeding voters samples of sources (at least if I believe I earned the point)...
For review, what was not enough to award sources:
>Because the U.S. healthcare system is not currently nationalized it is hard to say how much a nationalized system would cost without performing some sort of in-depth study on the topic. This is what I expected to find when pro said he had sources backing up his claim but since this number appears to be simply pulled out of thin this point is to be disregarded.
What was enough (actually overkill... but compare both sides, and name at least one specific source):
>Sources: Con
>So con repeatedly used a specific source which I am highly biased against. While I assumed I would be leaving this tied due to my bias against con, his source execution ended up overwhelming the strength of the bias.
>Both used a ton of sources, pro stabbed himself in the foot by just throwing them at the end of the rounds, which prevents judges from quickly checking details within them while reading the arguments. This becomes even more important when there’s raw numbers within them.
>Con gained some ground by catching pro misrepresenting details from a source. I’d still leave it tied there, but...
>The source on increased deaths in Canada was incredible, particularly how it was quoted within the debate to prove points.
>Also see: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1101/comment_links/15214
In case anyone was reading the off topic comments for entertainment, King_8 continued it with an emotional outpouring about it on another debate (https://www.debateart.com/debates/1137/comment_links/15624):
"They apparently think that I have some alt account voting in my favor which simply isn't true. No concrete proof, just assumptions. He's just my friend and he counted Franklin's vote but Ragnar spread lies about me to bsh1. So dont pay attention to any of that. That has nothing to do with me. People just love to push my buttons on here and be problematic because they are unhappy with their selves. So now because of that, I'm being banned. All because of Ragnar. I don't mind though because these bias mods never come to my aid when unfair things that does not go with CoC happens to me. Don't care because I planned on quitting this site. I don't deal with people like this. Sorry for the inappropriate behavior, thanks for the debate."
If his word is to be believed (not tracking down the individual denials, but https://www.debateart.com/debates/1101?open_tab=comments), it was neither a friend or his nor an alt account; thus it was most likely his mother whom is his role model teaching him to pull things like this when he loses.
If you want to get good at this topic, try arguing from the other side. Once you learn why the other side has valid conviction, it's easy to find the holes in their case.
Sorry for that distraction from your debate. I should not have engaged, but he should be gone now...
Wylted:
I fully agree with you on "It is better to not be undefeated as silly as that sounds."
Pink:
I suspect the reason Wylted did so well was your opening comments pissed him off, encouraging him to put in extra effort. It can be a useful tactic against the weak willed, as exemplified by me recently getting someone confused as to which of their alt accounts they posted something...
You're welcome. I don't normally vote on these as I'm an elitist jerk who insists they are not real debates... However, countering lame attempts to cheat and penalizing conduct still apply.
Your analogy would work had someone bumped into you or looked at you the wrong way and you responded by punching them in the face. Remember, your retaliation is 7 points worse than the damage done on a 7 point scale. And you say that's how your mother raised you... Someone hurts your precious feelings and you respond with violence.
>"Pink retaliated vote against you in some of your debates, so you know he's full of shit. Yet and still you are taking up for his inexcusable behavior." ... "I complained because of bullsh*t votes people gave me. Not people being 'better voters than me'"
As seen, a user who shares your name who you are now denying association with (the first quote) made the complaint about Pink's superior voting habits not being complained about (reminder, his retaliation was to cast fair votes).
>"I'm not asking to get coddled at all."
See: half your messages in here.
>"I've had plenty role-models in my life besides my mother. I'm also an adult so I'm not some kid. ... Don't ever disrespect me"
Then act like an adult instead an of overgrown brat. Don't whine about how "bias/unfair treatment" as an excuse to commit objectively worse things, then play whataboutism pretending you should have impunity to do whatever you want as if your parents failed to teach you discipline and responsibility for your failings. You complain that other people are not offended by other people being better voters than you. Oh and quit the site because people don't coddle you, but fail to ever leave because you want to complain some more about not getting coddled. ... Need I go on? This is not evidence of your mother being "a great role model," you've cast quite the opposite picture of her.
>"Rap battles don't have to be so formal."
You're right that they don't, but as long as they stay informal they are unmoderated. Solutions to your exact problem have been offered, but instead of using them or moving on, you cast 7point vote bombs in retaliation for 0 point mild nuisances... Another thing you could do is use the built in Judicial decision voting system; moderators will still not be involved, but since they're fake news or whatever you probably would prefer to not have them.
I guess you're not leaving after all. I was not replying because we already said our goodbyes...
To the most important points: No, I meant exactly what I wrote. As someone with intellectual integrity, this is usually the case. ... Also you desperately need better role-models in your life.
As for your problem of wanting troll debates to be judged like real debates: Have you considered making them real debates? It could be along the lines of 'Resolution: King_8 is a better rapper than opponent. R1 and R2 are raps, R3 onward is normative arguments about which raps were superior by the following standards... Note: This is not a troll debate or a rap battle, it is a debate about raping ability.'
To repeat myself: "Did you miss ... The lack of any damage done by voting ties? Or the lack of any relevance towards the shit vote in question on this debate?"
>"it should be taken seriously and be at the same standards as other debates"
If you believed this, you would have complained about the vote (https://www.debateart.com/debates/1049/vote_links/2559) for failing to meet the rigorous standards expected of votes on real debates. For starters, it lacked comparative analyse on each of the categories voted, which is one of the basic requirements when voting on real debates.
>"crazy..."
Before you continue on this site, you should really read the following two pages:
1. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346
2. https://www.debateart.com/rules
>"bias and unfair treatment."
Do you really expect a line like that to gain you anything from people who aren't your parents? Maybe we'll say 'that poor baby. Everyone stop what you'rte doing, a baby needs pity!' But it's highly unlikely.
>"GameLord is my alternate account?"
Nice strawperson. As seen "no zero sense unless the vote bomb countered was from a personal friend or alt account." Which the trends suggest "personal friend," but still leave the primary possibility of "zero sense."
Where are your complaints about his vote bomb in your favor? See vote: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1120/vote_links/2711
It is a vote which was intended to harm the outcome of the debate, thus creating real damage. That you say it had nothing to do with you, while mimicking your behaviors, does give weight (not conclusive weight) to the third possibility that he's an alt account.
As for Pink's votes... The places to discuss those in depth are where he cast the votes. I will however say of him related to this debate that he retaliated my voting against him by voting on some of my debates (I objectively won those debates, and as an adult that was how he voted).
---RFD (1 of 6) ... Incidentally, each post can hold up to 2000 characters. ---
Interpreting the resolution:
This debate changed titles again and again, but this final one they settled on looks vague enough to get the general intent across. Pro wins if the debate shows an increase in Socialism type polices (X) would have greater benefit than harm (Y), con otherwise (not Y).
Gist:
Con misrepresents pro’s case by acting like it’s an all or nothing deal, and we intuitively know what pro meant, but pro does not sufficiently refute this (he argues that absolute socialism isn’t the socialism he’s arguing in favor of, but that misses that an increase in socialism is taking steps toward absolute socialism... It’s a slippery slope fallacy, but an incredibly well executed one). I’m quite surprised to not see any mention of the bell curve for gains and losses. Con also makes very good use of syllogism to prove that socialism hurts more than it gains.
1. Q&A
Pro believes that con’s political beliefs determine if more socialism would be good or bad, con insists this is off topic... I am going to agree with con here, as much as a debate could be had on if libertarian beliefs contain socialist policies or whatever, here it’s just fodder for tu quoque fallacies. ... And they happen way later in the debate and keep coming back: “logically inconsistent and sort of hypocritical” +1000 maybe 2000? Characters more I am just skipping.
2.1 Universal Healthcare
Affordability: The end of pro’s R1 on this was weird, since con did not raise the challenge on that, nothing can be “debunked.” Anyway, pro shows a small cost decrease. Con briefly addresses this inside one of his points, unduly twisting pro’s words into that cost decrease being the creation of the cost (off topic: reminds me of AOC vs Amazon), pro then moves the goalpost by claiming different numbers than earlier (a disappearing $0.35 trillion is a lot), while not damning, it lowers the credibility of the argument.
Univ.: Pro claims longer life expectancy (and cites a support point for the affordability angle, which really should have been under the affordability heading).
Quality: Some apples to oranges comparisons,
2.2 Universal Healthcare continued later...
Life Expectancy (fat): Con, your source on diet says 36.2%, which rounds to 36%, not 37%. As I corrected pro, “while not damning, it lowers the credibility of the argument.” ... Anyway this ended up being a good contention just on entertainment value (note to all debaters: give us judges a reason to continue!). ... “This is a very common argument made and is a very horrible one to make.” This is a pet peeve of mine, but don’t complain about how horrible something is, just show it. A lot of replies here fell flat due to the source giving the index, and pro citing Germany as a counter example which does not even make it onto the top ten...
Deaths: Best use of a source I have seen in a long time. Con brings up more deaths would happen due to wait times, as apparently happened in Canada. He also mentions an alternate plan, which I’m not the biggest fan of (imaginary worlds where shit works out that way...), but other potential voters will no doubt eat up. Pro counters that Canada is not a good example, but as they’re culturally the best match for us I do not buy that; more so since this did not change the numbers (even while lowering the confidence; that leads to a lower expected increased mortality rate, not the absence of one as was asserted back in R1). ... So got to say it, pro could have gained some ground here with inverting the meaning of the death rate, as we’d have a lower carrying cost and higher average quality of life with these people dead (awful I know, but this would be logically valid and consistent with statistical arguments raised by con).
3. lower standard of living
P1: I rather like this opening, as it makes the judges feel involved via their common knowledge of places like Venezuela... It then dragged on and on, repeatedly with a sole source making itself highly vulnerable (all the eggs in one basket). Con’s counter was decent but needed to be expanded and perhaps cite examples from the source for the socialist well to do counties. On his trade comment, he hints at the best argument he could make (that there’s a golden level of socialist policies which would be better, before tipping into tyranny) but does not actually make the point. Con next drops the point claiming “statistics to back this poor hypothesis up which don’t need to be debunked since I already proved the hypothesis to be wrong” missing the fact that they feed each other; if the evidence is true (or unchallenged) then I have little reason to doubt the conclusion drawn by the evidence, even if there was some small challenge to said conclusion. “If we actually delve into these countries it appears they aren’t [socialistic]” an example here would have been fantastic.
P2: This would have benefited from subheadings to clarify that the contention had not shifted with each... Also, sources would have been good here, but the assertions (such as the negative aspect of the FDA) were strong, but pro did a good counter to this bit with “please elaborate on how these regulations are specifically hurting businesses.” The main counter on this area again depended on counties, but con did a very good job naming examples which could then be easily cross referenced within the sources, pro basically just asserted that it’s wrong. On the healthcare plan, it really should have been stand alone and direct rebuttal to pro, rather than buried in here and somewhat easy to overlook as a directed reply.
C1: It follows.
4. Definition supplement
Since they are not conflicting, I haven’t a clue why this is a point of contention.
5. Lens (this was part of a later reply to healthcare, but it’s important...)
“It is quite possible for a socialist type policy to have benefits in the sector of society it is applied to, but still be bad for society as a whole.” This right here should have been the opening to the debate.
6. Nickolas Cage
This was so entertaining it deserves an extra highlight: “Number of drownings in a swimming pool per year is directly correlated with the amount of films Nicolas Cage has starred in.”
7. The VA
Pro could have made some good gains here, as con raises “Socialized medicine already exists in America in the form of the VA” which is actually a good system. Of course, with this claim unchallenged by pro, con successfully bolsters case with it.
---
Arguments: con
See above review of key points. Overall the healthcare point was a near tie, but quality of life point goes firmly to con; pro intentionally not refuting the evidence on it is what did him in.
Sources: Con
So con repeatedly used a specific source which I am highly biased against. While I assumed I would be leaving this tied due to my bias against con, his source execution ended up overwhelming the strength of the bias.
Both used a ton of sources, pro stabbed himself in the foot by just throwing them at the end of the rounds, which prevents judges from quickly checking details within them while reading the arguments. This becomes even more important when there’s raw numbers within them.
Con gained some ground by catching pro misrepresenting details from a source. I’d still leave it tied there, but...
The source on increased deaths in Canada was incredible, particularly how it was quoted within the debate to prove points.
Also see: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1101/comment_links/15214
S&G: tied
At the very least reuse existing organizational headings if they’ve been introduced... Also to quote my guide: “Whatever style you use, be consistent within any single debate.”
Conduct: Con
Pro, never open a debate with Ad Hominems (even when they seem warranted). They were not that bad, but they needlessly distract from the topic.
“ Well that means these countries aren’t socialist “ <- Putting things inside quotation makes if the person did not say them is very much unacceptable.
“intentionally misrepresenting the point and he/she should be docked a conduct point.” Poor arguments are not poor conduct.
“...a result of my long torturous bout with depression. If anyone deserves a conduct point. It’s me.” You have my sympathy, but conduct is not given for pity (the proximity of the request is the problem here).
Got to thank con for pointing out he authorized the character count violation (sources posted elsewhere), I otherwise would have included it as a deduction against conduct and sources.
If there was any doubt, the questions contention sealed the deal, as pro was explicitly warned on this multiple times but still did the off topic attacks.
Thank you for conceding that "you're too delusional to be worth interacting with."
>> "My basis for being a coward in terms of debating requires the person to actually create a debate."
That you define bravery as cowardice is strong evidence your parents and teachers have failed you. For that you have my sympathy.
>>"Your failure to show your side"
As any not functionally-illiterate person can see, it starts with me correcting Death in #17 (whom drops out, which by any sane person's standards means just that he did not continue the discussion...). Within that post I explained my position that it is wrong to insult someone by calling them cowardly for an act of bravery. This is literally showing my side, which you comedically consider to be the mark of "failure to show [my] side."
So now that voting is closed, I'll share some of my honest opinions on this topic... Firstly the bible both teaches that, and teaches against it (it contradicts).
The old testament foretold the coming messiah, and outlined some of the things he would do. Bare in mind, the old testament is basically the Jewish bible (yes they've got a few more books than the Christian old testament, but paraphrasing is for simplicity). For Jesus to be the Jewish messiah, he would need to live up to those things. As every Christian knows, he did not.
The new testament starts with the heavy focus on Jesus, who is the Christian messiah (people later confused that with God, which indeed started so as to mock Caesar). The big problem became that as recruitment tactics they started writing in stuff like changing his birth to a miracle (the Greeks were big on that...), which right there actually prevents him from being of the right blood line to be the Jewish messiah. It's why there's a weird disconnect early in Matthew (it's called that, but it was not actually a single author; it was different scrolls assembled under that theme). There's other things, such as his lack of violence (the messiah was supposed to have a violet uprising to free his people), and rebuilding the temple (there ends up being a few potential messiah's throughout history who basically set that as their main goal to try to prove divinity; one of them had the awesome nickname "The Hammer").
Jesus was of course a historical person, to which I don't actually care if he had superpowers. Who he was, what he did (not to mention how he did it), and finally what he inspired are the important things people discussing him should care about; as opposed things which have nothing to do with his personality such as if he the last son of Krypton.
Please point out this magical place where I conceded? Not continuing a discussion and conceding are worlds apart.
You and Death seem to believe those apparently cowardly users who dare to begin engaging in debates should be insulted for it. I disagree. You have a comprehension problem with analogies, which made me drop out of the discussion.
Nothing is stopping you or Death from opening your own debates on this topic you're criticizing. I don't think you are cowards for not, but by your own standards you're more cowardly than the instigator of this debate; and if you're being logical consistent should insult each other for said failing.
Nice rhetoric. The problem is that it's a distinction with a demonstrated difference, as seen: "at least he's debating."
There's many users (whom I shall not name), who hide in the forums and comment sections, refusing to ever engage in actual debates. Were this a physical sport such as boxing, he would be stepping into the ring and risking getting his head beat in; that he is not confident enough in his abilities to wager money on the fight, in no way implies he's a coward, in fact him stepping into the ring at all proves a commendable degree of bravery.
How is unrated cowardly? It shows lower confidence, but at least he's debating. I admit to preferring rated (just a feeling I can't put into words), but if the primary goal is the debate, there's no reason to insult the absence of point rewards.
You were trying to write a science thesis in that debate, it called for a lot of characters, and is quite unlikely to be fully read by anyone.
Do you know the terms Argumentum Ad Nauseam and Gish Gallop? If either of you approach 10k on a simple premise like this, one or both of those is probably being committed.
After just skimming R1, I feel the immediate need to give advice on sourcing...
Pro: Connect your sources to the places they are used, either as links inside your arguments, or as URLs (or numbers tied to a list at the end) right after. ... Where you bolded the names of sources would be a perfect place to put the links.
The entirety of https://www.washingtonpost.com/ is not a valid source. You've been debating long enough that you've probably faced someone saying 'Google it' as their evidence, while you're not this bad, it's the same type of blunder to not be repeated.
Another thing, some users will disagree with me on this, but I suggest being up front when recycling your own arguments.
Con: I usually say use less sources, but in this case more is a good thing. You're a bit of a one trick pony, using a website that outright takes pride in their bias... A small variety of websites, may technically be a band wagon appeal, but adds an air of credibility. Plus their name is just awful.
I will probably voting on this. Just bare in mind there's a massively different time investment involved in little things that that or FF votes, and properly weighting a debate like this one.
Unrated is just unrated, as in no effect to debater scores. You're currently #9 on the leader-boards, you could win or lose 100 unrated debates, but remain in the same spot.
Moderation is determined by the type of debate, in particular regards to the resolution. Debates are moderated unless they fall into the wide umbrella of Troll Debates (of which actual troll debates sometimes do not qualify as troll debates...).
Did you miss the part where those debates are not moderated? The lack of any damage done by voting ties? Or the lack of any relevance towards the shit vote in question on this debate?
Quick review of the votes complained about in the vote...
First of all, 'battles' are considered troll debates, thus not moderated.
Second, even were it real debates, it would not excuse the vote bomb in question.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1049/vote_links/2721
Just a counter vote bomb. Complaining of this one, makes no zero sense unless the vote bomb countered was from a personal friend or alt account.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1113/vote_links/2725
A tied vote. I can agree that it is childish, but it's a no harm done situation.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1120/vote_links/2711
A tied vote... And better, King_8's friend or alt account voted in King_8's favor as a counter to it (So good at math! No one's better at math!).
It was entertaining while it lasted. Most of it took place in the comment section to another debate. If wanting to read it, here's a quick reading order...
Me reviewing a votebomb: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1101/comment_links/15187
The votebomb being deleted: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1101/comment_links/15220
And basically this one forward until #365: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1101/comment_links/15413
I really wish I could share some of the stuff he PMed me from various alt accounts he made.
As the #2 judge on this site, feasibility is often (but not exclusively) vital to proposal debates. I would go so far as to call it an unstated part of BoP. However, if both debaters treat something as possible, I follow their arguments and accept the possibility; but if it becomes a debate argument, the confidence of that argument acts as a negative multiplier to the rest.
I remember a classic Imabench debate about if women can do everything a man can do. Bench challenged the feasibility by pointing out women could not whip their dicks out and f. the bus driver. The opponent conceded that women could not do this, thus conceding that it was infeasible for women to do everything a man can do (in my head I thought of ways they could still do this, and probably do it better... but the debaters made their cases, and that was what I had to grade).
Anyway, to quote the style guide (http://tiny.cc/DebateArt):
"A quality opening round must address the Why and How.
> If the Why is missing, they are easily countered by the lack of benefit.
> If the How is missing, they are easily countered with impracticality and limited resources."
On another note, lightly skimming I saw the sources argument (more debates should do this). I only identified one paywall, but that many broken links seems unlikely to stem from website shuffling (pages move, but this many so fast?).
If you've overtaxed yourself, you can concede debates politely (even if not changing your mind), instead of just forfeiting (which creates a bad reputation).
What was your coded message, and why did you not offer any arguments?
For the audience, would you mind explaining why you believe it was a free win? It's been six months, so you're probably the only person who remembers why you forfeited.
I will say that it would seem reasonable to request a rematch and this former iteration be purged from the site (I've made this suggestion for other debates).
That is a fascinating opinion, given that you haven't read the arguments.
Sorry about that. I'm not one of the moderators. I literally did a word search thought your RFD for "sources," and that was the only part featuring that word.
---RFD (1 of 4)---
Interpreting the resolution:
Nixon > Roosevelt
Gist:
Two great men, but unfortunately the comparison stopped with the negatives of Roosevelt uncontested, and all positives of Nixon unchallenged by any negatives.
1. Civil Rights (1) vs Morals (1)
N. Nixon helped minorities enough to get MLK as a character witness.
R. Roosevelt going to law school and being disabled just doesn’t compare (don’t get me wrong, he was still a badass)
Anti-R. Did not listen to his expert advisers. Engaged in propaganda (didn’t they all?). Racist who sent 122k people to concentration camps, of whom 70k were full citizens; further they were directly robbed by the government and not economically reimbursed.
2. Saved His Political Party (2)
This should have been called unified the nation. The continued presence of any one political organization seems unimportant as people would almost certainly just organize similarly under another banner...
N. In short: He was “a pragmatist who would refuse to let ideology get in the way of progress.”
During the election, he won all but two states, which is quite the appeal to popularity. Even Obama could not unify us that well.
3. Environment (3) vs Environment (4)
N. Creating the EPA is quite the accomplishment. As is the Clean Air Act.
R. Ending the dust bowl seems like a divine intervention.
---RFD (2 of 4)---
4. Economics (4) vs Economics (2)
N. “reduced the deficit by over 70%” is amazing. Getting us off the gold standard is a ballsy move I cannot imagine modern presidents pulling off were it still in place.
R. Getting our money back into banks where it can enjoy the multiplier effect of spending (something not spelled out in the debate, but still worth mentioning for refinement of future arguments), is beyond words. Ending child labor and having a minimum wage, are also amazing (I believe N. raised the minimum wage, so neat to see how one followed in the footsteps of the other).
Anti-R. Child labor was already low (mostly rural, where they were often working family farms...), stuff about blacks (it’s dropped so pro gets it, but I feel the need to point out this not being a good interpretation o the data, even if utilized well as an argument). Ended up causing more unemployment worsening the great depression.
---RFD (3 of 4)---
5. Foreign Policy (5) vs Foreign Policy (2) and Superpower (5)
The superpower sounds good, but it is foreign policy worded for impact.
N. Ended one of our worst wars, got trade with the second world resumed, etc.
R. Got us into a necessary war, and presumably shaped the founding of the U.N. as a tool for the USA.
Anti-R. Speaking of WWII on the moral point, it came up that he rejected 1k Jewish refugees fleeing the holocaust, sending them back where many died. Plus empowered Russia with covering up some of their warcrimes, making them an increased threat to the USA. ... Pro continued by linking him to causing Pearl Harbor (on NPR I’ve listened to some stuff about them trying to declare war just before the attack, but us intentionally delaying their declaration to play victim... Not excusing their actions, just pointing out a funny historical detail about our role). And on the superpower note (I hoped this was coming), the simple fact that we did not have fighting on our soil causing our comparative economic strength, to which whomever happens to be president at the time does not get credit.
---RFD (4 of 4)---
---
Arguments: pro
See above review of key points. Honestly, I felt that just on the strengths Nixon would win this, but his negatives are within living memory so may have cost him worse in R3 (I can’t imagine what would compare to the concentration camps, but something could have been argued as worse).
Sources: tied
I really dislike when things are posted outside the debate. I strongly suggest highlighting the intent to do that within the debate description... Actually I really suggest just increasing the character limit to hold them (and probably using a few less to get the gist across...).
S&G: tied
Both were fine.
Conduct: pro
Two rounds forfeited, vs the source issue... Had con raised the character limit violation, I would leave this tied, as is I’ll discount one of the forfeits, but that leaves a forfeit standing.
In case anyone is curious, here's a snapshot of my RFD draft at the end of R2...
1 Civil Rights (1) vs Morals (1)
N. Nixon helped minorities enough to get MLK as a character witness.
R. Roosevelt going to law school and being disabled just doesn’t compare (don’t get me wrong, he was still a badass)
2 Saved His Political Party (2) vs
This should have been called unified the nation. The continued presence of any one political organization seems pretty unimportant as people would just organize similarly under another banner...
N. In short: He was “a pragmatist who would refuse to let ideology get in the way of progress.”
During the election, he won all but two states, which is quite the appeal to popularity. Even Obama could not unify us that well.
R.
3 Environment (3) vs Environment (4)
N. Creating the EPA is quite the accomplishment. As is the Clean Air Act.
R. Ending the dust bowl seems like a divine intervention.
4 Economics (4) vs Economics (2)
N. “reduced the deficit by over 70%” is amazing. Getting us off the gold standard is a ballsy move I cannot imagine modern presidents pulling off were it still in place.
R. Getting our money back into banks where it can enjoy the multiplier effect of spending (something not spelled out in the debate, but still worth mentioning for refinement of future arguments), is beyond words. Ending child labor and having a minimum wage, are also amazing (I believe N. raised the minimum wage, so neat to see how one followed in the footsteps of the other).
5 Foreign Policy (5) vs Foreign Policy (2) and Superpower (5)
The superpower sounds good, but it is foreign policy worded for impact.
N. Ended one of our worst wars, got trade with the second world resumed, etc.
R. Got us into a necessary war, and presumably shaped the founding of the U.N. as a tool for the USA.
As stated in the removal notice, Dis' vote may be recast without refinement if merely by not assigning source points.
I highly advise if giving more than argument points, to single out the other areas with headings for quick review (makes it easy for the admin, and easy to double check yourself in case you forget something). I have taken to ending my debates with hand feeding voters samples of sources (at least if I believe I earned the point)...
For review, what was not enough to award sources:
>Because the U.S. healthcare system is not currently nationalized it is hard to say how much a nationalized system would cost without performing some sort of in-depth study on the topic. This is what I expected to find when pro said he had sources backing up his claim but since this number appears to be simply pulled out of thin this point is to be disregarded.
What was enough (actually overkill... but compare both sides, and name at least one specific source):
>Sources: Con
>So con repeatedly used a specific source which I am highly biased against. While I assumed I would be leaving this tied due to my bias against con, his source execution ended up overwhelming the strength of the bias.
>Both used a ton of sources, pro stabbed himself in the foot by just throwing them at the end of the rounds, which prevents judges from quickly checking details within them while reading the arguments. This becomes even more important when there’s raw numbers within them.
>Con gained some ground by catching pro misrepresenting details from a source. I’d still leave it tied there, but...
>The source on increased deaths in Canada was incredible, particularly how it was quoted within the debate to prove points.
>Also see: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1101/comment_links/15214
Trent, Udit's behavior thus far is classic slave account.
If that is the case and it was a simple misunderstanding, talk things over with the admins. They can explain things and delete this debate.
Would you mind clarify your point in relation to this debate?
In case anyone was reading the off topic comments for entertainment, King_8 continued it with an emotional outpouring about it on another debate (https://www.debateart.com/debates/1137/comment_links/15624):
"They apparently think that I have some alt account voting in my favor which simply isn't true. No concrete proof, just assumptions. He's just my friend and he counted Franklin's vote but Ragnar spread lies about me to bsh1. So dont pay attention to any of that. That has nothing to do with me. People just love to push my buttons on here and be problematic because they are unhappy with their selves. So now because of that, I'm being banned. All because of Ragnar. I don't mind though because these bias mods never come to my aid when unfair things that does not go with CoC happens to me. Don't care because I planned on quitting this site. I don't deal with people like this. Sorry for the inappropriate behavior, thanks for the debate."
Fitting that I say this on a rap battle...
If his word is to be believed (not tracking down the individual denials, but https://www.debateart.com/debates/1101?open_tab=comments), it was neither a friend or his nor an alt account; thus it was most likely his mother whom is his role model teaching him to pull things like this when he loses.
Thanks for the debate.
If you want to get good at this topic, try arguing from the other side. Once you learn why the other side has valid conviction, it's easy to find the holes in their case.
An objective waste of time, as it's DDO.
Sorry for that distraction from your debate. I should not have engaged, but he should be gone now...
Wylted:
I fully agree with you on "It is better to not be undefeated as silly as that sounds."
Pink:
I suspect the reason Wylted did so well was your opening comments pissed him off, encouraging him to put in extra effort. It can be a useful tactic against the weak willed, as exemplified by me recently getting someone confused as to which of their alt accounts they posted something...
You're welcome. I don't normally vote on these as I'm an elitist jerk who insists they are not real debates... However, countering lame attempts to cheat and penalizing conduct still apply.
Your analogy would work had someone bumped into you or looked at you the wrong way and you responded by punching them in the face. Remember, your retaliation is 7 points worse than the damage done on a 7 point scale. And you say that's how your mother raised you... Someone hurts your precious feelings and you respond with violence.
>"Pink retaliated vote against you in some of your debates, so you know he's full of shit. Yet and still you are taking up for his inexcusable behavior." ... "I complained because of bullsh*t votes people gave me. Not people being 'better voters than me'"
As seen, a user who shares your name who you are now denying association with (the first quote) made the complaint about Pink's superior voting habits not being complained about (reminder, his retaliation was to cast fair votes).
>"I'm not asking to get coddled at all."
See: half your messages in here.
>"I've had plenty role-models in my life besides my mother. I'm also an adult so I'm not some kid. ... Don't ever disrespect me"
Then act like an adult instead an of overgrown brat. Don't whine about how "bias/unfair treatment" as an excuse to commit objectively worse things, then play whataboutism pretending you should have impunity to do whatever you want as if your parents failed to teach you discipline and responsibility for your failings. You complain that other people are not offended by other people being better voters than you. Oh and quit the site because people don't coddle you, but fail to ever leave because you want to complain some more about not getting coddled. ... Need I go on? This is not evidence of your mother being "a great role model," you've cast quite the opposite picture of her.
>"Rap battles don't have to be so formal."
You're right that they don't, but as long as they stay informal they are unmoderated. Solutions to your exact problem have been offered, but instead of using them or moving on, you cast 7point vote bombs in retaliation for 0 point mild nuisances... Another thing you could do is use the built in Judicial decision voting system; moderators will still not be involved, but since they're fake news or whatever you probably would prefer to not have them.
I guess you're not leaving after all. I was not replying because we already said our goodbyes...
To the most important points: No, I meant exactly what I wrote. As someone with intellectual integrity, this is usually the case. ... Also you desperately need better role-models in your life.
As for your problem of wanting troll debates to be judged like real debates: Have you considered making them real debates? It could be along the lines of 'Resolution: King_8 is a better rapper than opponent. R1 and R2 are raps, R3 onward is normative arguments about which raps were superior by the following standards... Note: This is not a troll debate or a rap battle, it is a debate about raping ability.'
That is a very high character limit...
To repeat myself: "Did you miss ... The lack of any damage done by voting ties? Or the lack of any relevance towards the shit vote in question on this debate?"
>"it should be taken seriously and be at the same standards as other debates"
If you believed this, you would have complained about the vote (https://www.debateart.com/debates/1049/vote_links/2559) for failing to meet the rigorous standards expected of votes on real debates. For starters, it lacked comparative analyse on each of the categories voted, which is one of the basic requirements when voting on real debates.
>"crazy..."
Before you continue on this site, you should really read the following two pages:
1. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346
2. https://www.debateart.com/rules
>"bias and unfair treatment."
Do you really expect a line like that to gain you anything from people who aren't your parents? Maybe we'll say 'that poor baby. Everyone stop what you'rte doing, a baby needs pity!' But it's highly unlikely.
>"GameLord is my alternate account?"
Nice strawperson. As seen "no zero sense unless the vote bomb countered was from a personal friend or alt account." Which the trends suggest "personal friend," but still leave the primary possibility of "zero sense."
Where are your complaints about his vote bomb in your favor? See vote: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1120/vote_links/2711
It is a vote which was intended to harm the outcome of the debate, thus creating real damage. That you say it had nothing to do with you, while mimicking your behaviors, does give weight (not conclusive weight) to the third possibility that he's an alt account.
As for Pink's votes... The places to discuss those in depth are where he cast the votes. I will however say of him related to this debate that he retaliated my voting against him by voting on some of my debates (I objectively won those debates, and as an adult that was how he voted).
Good luck where-ever you go.
Thanks for voting!
I made a categorical error on my vote, would you mind deleting it so that I can correct that?
---RFD (1 of 6) ... Incidentally, each post can hold up to 2000 characters. ---
Interpreting the resolution:
This debate changed titles again and again, but this final one they settled on looks vague enough to get the general intent across. Pro wins if the debate shows an increase in Socialism type polices (X) would have greater benefit than harm (Y), con otherwise (not Y).
Gist:
Con misrepresents pro’s case by acting like it’s an all or nothing deal, and we intuitively know what pro meant, but pro does not sufficiently refute this (he argues that absolute socialism isn’t the socialism he’s arguing in favor of, but that misses that an increase in socialism is taking steps toward absolute socialism... It’s a slippery slope fallacy, but an incredibly well executed one). I’m quite surprised to not see any mention of the bell curve for gains and losses. Con also makes very good use of syllogism to prove that socialism hurts more than it gains.
1. Q&A
Pro believes that con’s political beliefs determine if more socialism would be good or bad, con insists this is off topic... I am going to agree with con here, as much as a debate could be had on if libertarian beliefs contain socialist policies or whatever, here it’s just fodder for tu quoque fallacies. ... And they happen way later in the debate and keep coming back: “logically inconsistent and sort of hypocritical” +1000 maybe 2000? Characters more I am just skipping.
2.1 Universal Healthcare
Affordability: The end of pro’s R1 on this was weird, since con did not raise the challenge on that, nothing can be “debunked.” Anyway, pro shows a small cost decrease. Con briefly addresses this inside one of his points, unduly twisting pro’s words into that cost decrease being the creation of the cost (off topic: reminds me of AOC vs Amazon), pro then moves the goalpost by claiming different numbers than earlier (a disappearing $0.35 trillion is a lot), while not damning, it lowers the credibility of the argument.
Univ.: Pro claims longer life expectancy (and cites a support point for the affordability angle, which really should have been under the affordability heading).
Quality: Some apples to oranges comparisons,
2.2 Universal Healthcare continued later...
Life Expectancy (fat): Con, your source on diet says 36.2%, which rounds to 36%, not 37%. As I corrected pro, “while not damning, it lowers the credibility of the argument.” ... Anyway this ended up being a good contention just on entertainment value (note to all debaters: give us judges a reason to continue!). ... “This is a very common argument made and is a very horrible one to make.” This is a pet peeve of mine, but don’t complain about how horrible something is, just show it. A lot of replies here fell flat due to the source giving the index, and pro citing Germany as a counter example which does not even make it onto the top ten...
Deaths: Best use of a source I have seen in a long time. Con brings up more deaths would happen due to wait times, as apparently happened in Canada. He also mentions an alternate plan, which I’m not the biggest fan of (imaginary worlds where shit works out that way...), but other potential voters will no doubt eat up. Pro counters that Canada is not a good example, but as they’re culturally the best match for us I do not buy that; more so since this did not change the numbers (even while lowering the confidence; that leads to a lower expected increased mortality rate, not the absence of one as was asserted back in R1). ... So got to say it, pro could have gained some ground here with inverting the meaning of the death rate, as we’d have a lower carrying cost and higher average quality of life with these people dead (awful I know, but this would be logically valid and consistent with statistical arguments raised by con).
3. lower standard of living
P1: I rather like this opening, as it makes the judges feel involved via their common knowledge of places like Venezuela... It then dragged on and on, repeatedly with a sole source making itself highly vulnerable (all the eggs in one basket). Con’s counter was decent but needed to be expanded and perhaps cite examples from the source for the socialist well to do counties. On his trade comment, he hints at the best argument he could make (that there’s a golden level of socialist policies which would be better, before tipping into tyranny) but does not actually make the point. Con next drops the point claiming “statistics to back this poor hypothesis up which don’t need to be debunked since I already proved the hypothesis to be wrong” missing the fact that they feed each other; if the evidence is true (or unchallenged) then I have little reason to doubt the conclusion drawn by the evidence, even if there was some small challenge to said conclusion. “If we actually delve into these countries it appears they aren’t [socialistic]” an example here would have been fantastic.
P2: This would have benefited from subheadings to clarify that the contention had not shifted with each... Also, sources would have been good here, but the assertions (such as the negative aspect of the FDA) were strong, but pro did a good counter to this bit with “please elaborate on how these regulations are specifically hurting businesses.” The main counter on this area again depended on counties, but con did a very good job naming examples which could then be easily cross referenced within the sources, pro basically just asserted that it’s wrong. On the healthcare plan, it really should have been stand alone and direct rebuttal to pro, rather than buried in here and somewhat easy to overlook as a directed reply.
C1: It follows.
4. Definition supplement
Since they are not conflicting, I haven’t a clue why this is a point of contention.
5. Lens (this was part of a later reply to healthcare, but it’s important...)
“It is quite possible for a socialist type policy to have benefits in the sector of society it is applied to, but still be bad for society as a whole.” This right here should have been the opening to the debate.
6. Nickolas Cage
This was so entertaining it deserves an extra highlight: “Number of drownings in a swimming pool per year is directly correlated with the amount of films Nicolas Cage has starred in.”
7. The VA
Pro could have made some good gains here, as con raises “Socialized medicine already exists in America in the form of the VA” which is actually a good system. Of course, with this claim unchallenged by pro, con successfully bolsters case with it.
---
Arguments: con
See above review of key points. Overall the healthcare point was a near tie, but quality of life point goes firmly to con; pro intentionally not refuting the evidence on it is what did him in.
Sources: Con
So con repeatedly used a specific source which I am highly biased against. While I assumed I would be leaving this tied due to my bias against con, his source execution ended up overwhelming the strength of the bias.
Both used a ton of sources, pro stabbed himself in the foot by just throwing them at the end of the rounds, which prevents judges from quickly checking details within them while reading the arguments. This becomes even more important when there’s raw numbers within them.
Con gained some ground by catching pro misrepresenting details from a source. I’d still leave it tied there, but...
The source on increased deaths in Canada was incredible, particularly how it was quoted within the debate to prove points.
Also see: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1101/comment_links/15214
S&G: tied
At the very least reuse existing organizational headings if they’ve been introduced... Also to quote my guide: “Whatever style you use, be consistent within any single debate.”
Conduct: Con
Pro, never open a debate with Ad Hominems (even when they seem warranted). They were not that bad, but they needlessly distract from the topic.
“ Well that means these countries aren’t socialist “ <- Putting things inside quotation makes if the person did not say them is very much unacceptable.
“intentionally misrepresenting the point and he/she should be docked a conduct point.” Poor arguments are not poor conduct.
“...a result of my long torturous bout with depression. If anyone deserves a conduct point. It’s me.” You have my sympathy, but conduct is not given for pity (the proximity of the request is the problem here).
Got to thank con for pointing out he authorized the character count violation (sources posted elsewhere), I otherwise would have included it as a deduction against conduct and sources.
If there was any doubt, the questions contention sealed the deal, as pro was explicitly warned on this multiple times but still did the off topic attacks.
Thank you for conceding that "you're too delusional to be worth interacting with."
>> "My basis for being a coward in terms of debating requires the person to actually create a debate."
That you define bravery as cowardice is strong evidence your parents and teachers have failed you. For that you have my sympathy.
>>"Your failure to show your side"
As any not functionally-illiterate person can see, it starts with me correcting Death in #17 (whom drops out, which by any sane person's standards means just that he did not continue the discussion...). Within that post I explained my position that it is wrong to insult someone by calling them cowardly for an act of bravery. This is literally showing my side, which you comedically consider to be the mark of "failure to show [my] side."
Again, "please point out this magical place where I conceded?"
Since you are now repeatedly insisting it is there, either you can find a quote, or you're too delusional to be worth interacting with.
So now that voting is closed, I'll share some of my honest opinions on this topic... Firstly the bible both teaches that, and teaches against it (it contradicts).
The old testament foretold the coming messiah, and outlined some of the things he would do. Bare in mind, the old testament is basically the Jewish bible (yes they've got a few more books than the Christian old testament, but paraphrasing is for simplicity). For Jesus to be the Jewish messiah, he would need to live up to those things. As every Christian knows, he did not.
The new testament starts with the heavy focus on Jesus, who is the Christian messiah (people later confused that with God, which indeed started so as to mock Caesar). The big problem became that as recruitment tactics they started writing in stuff like changing his birth to a miracle (the Greeks were big on that...), which right there actually prevents him from being of the right blood line to be the Jewish messiah. It's why there's a weird disconnect early in Matthew (it's called that, but it was not actually a single author; it was different scrolls assembled under that theme). There's other things, such as his lack of violence (the messiah was supposed to have a violet uprising to free his people), and rebuilding the temple (there ends up being a few potential messiah's throughout history who basically set that as their main goal to try to prove divinity; one of them had the awesome nickname "The Hammer").
Jesus was of course a historical person, to which I don't actually care if he had superpowers. Who he was, what he did (not to mention how he did it), and finally what he inspired are the important things people discussing him should care about; as opposed things which have nothing to do with his personality such as if he the last son of Krypton.
Please point out this magical place where I conceded? Not continuing a discussion and conceding are worlds apart.
You and Death seem to believe those apparently cowardly users who dare to begin engaging in debates should be insulted for it. I disagree. You have a comprehension problem with analogies, which made me drop out of the discussion.
Nothing is stopping you or Death from opening your own debates on this topic you're criticizing. I don't think you are cowards for not, but by your own standards you're more cowardly than the instigator of this debate; and if you're being logical consistent should insult each other for said failing.
Your problem understanding subtext is not something I care to help you with.
Your end statement gets to the heart of the problem of insulting members for engaging in debates.
Nice rhetoric. The problem is that it's a distinction with a demonstrated difference, as seen: "at least he's debating."
There's many users (whom I shall not name), who hide in the forums and comment sections, refusing to ever engage in actual debates. Were this a physical sport such as boxing, he would be stepping into the ring and risking getting his head beat in; that he is not confident enough in his abilities to wager money on the fight, in no way implies he's a coward, in fact him stepping into the ring at all proves a commendable degree of bravery.
How is unrated cowardly? It shows lower confidence, but at least he's debating. I admit to preferring rated (just a feeling I can't put into words), but if the primary goal is the debate, there's no reason to insult the absence of point rewards.
You were trying to write a science thesis in that debate, it called for a lot of characters, and is quite unlikely to be fully read by anyone.
Do you know the terms Argumentum Ad Nauseam and Gish Gallop? If either of you approach 10k on a simple premise like this, one or both of those is probably being committed.
30,000 characters... that is about 26k too many.
tiny.cc/DebateArt
After just skimming R1, I feel the immediate need to give advice on sourcing...
Pro: Connect your sources to the places they are used, either as links inside your arguments, or as URLs (or numbers tied to a list at the end) right after. ... Where you bolded the names of sources would be a perfect place to put the links.
The entirety of https://www.washingtonpost.com/ is not a valid source. You've been debating long enough that you've probably faced someone saying 'Google it' as their evidence, while you're not this bad, it's the same type of blunder to not be repeated.
Another thing, some users will disagree with me on this, but I suggest being up front when recycling your own arguments.
Con: I usually say use less sources, but in this case more is a good thing. You're a bit of a one trick pony, using a website that outright takes pride in their bias... A small variety of websites, may technically be a band wagon appeal, but adds an air of credibility. Plus their name is just awful.
I will probably voting on this. Just bare in mind there's a massively different time investment involved in little things that that or FF votes, and properly weighting a debate like this one.
Yes. This rule was solidified by a MEEP awhile back.
On a moderated debate, the vote which was countered would have been insufficient anyway.
No.
Unrated is just unrated, as in no effect to debater scores. You're currently #9 on the leader-boards, you could win or lose 100 unrated debates, but remain in the same spot.
Moderation is determined by the type of debate, in particular regards to the resolution. Debates are moderated unless they fall into the wide umbrella of Troll Debates (of which actual troll debates sometimes do not qualify as troll debates...).
Did you miss the part where those debates are not moderated? The lack of any damage done by voting ties? Or the lack of any relevance towards the shit vote in question on this debate?
Quick review of the votes complained about in the vote...
First of all, 'battles' are considered troll debates, thus not moderated.
Second, even were it real debates, it would not excuse the vote bomb in question.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1049/vote_links/2721
Just a counter vote bomb. Complaining of this one, makes no zero sense unless the vote bomb countered was from a personal friend or alt account.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1113/vote_links/2725
A tied vote. I can agree that it is childish, but it's a no harm done situation.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1120/vote_links/2711
A tied vote... And better, King_8's friend or alt account voted in King_8's favor as a counter to it (So good at math! No one's better at math!).