I fully admit this was a very close debate. It was while giving the debate an extra read through that I identified the conduct issue as separate from arguments.
Ouch ouch ouch! ... Sorry, it's just after a light skimming of Pro's R1, and knowing the type of debater Con is, this is going to be painful to watch.
A word of advice for Pro: Next time start a debate on just one of your lines of reasoning. That way you go in depth on it, and avoid risk of anyone pointing out that 'Even If True...'
WisdomofAges, stvitus, and Alec. The ones you've received notifications about, we discussed, and you complained about their removal ("moderation and vote reports are poor."). But in case you are serious rather than pretending to be this deluded to make Muslims look bad, challenge me to a debate.
"I already explained that the debate was about the doctrines of the religion not the behavior..."
If you think the religion itself is not peaceful, next time have a debate excluding the religion.
...
If your problem is the content of the vote as opposed it not not favoring you, then prove so by quoting your disagreements with the earlier votes. For starters, you are fine with winning for proving how many atrocities against humanity Islam caused in addition to being a comic book farce. I did not read such into your case, but that person whom you did not accuse of not reading the debate clearly found you won on those grounds.
That Rat did not respond to things the way you wanted him do, to you means no response was made at all. I have proven this to be false, but still you insist on complaining.
Why Islam would be treated to exist was addressed in the third paragraph of my vote. Attempts to move the goalpost to a wholly different resolution (one not of the religion of the Muslims), and the back and forth such, are not something I cared to write at length about; and to expect such would be counter to "I did not ask you to repeat every single paragraph in th debate."
...
Your problem seems to not the content of the vote, but that it doesn't favor you. If this is false, you can easily prove so by quoting your disagreements with the earlier votes (hint: you made none). For example, when a vote in your favor read "ISLAM has a proven record of ATROCITIES against humanity....try doing the same with the Hare Krishna....not going to happen...the Koran is another Glorified Comic Book farce."
Your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired. For starters, you don't even know what a rebuttal is, as exemplified with "it was Con who used them to make his case after I mentioned them." When you make something part of your case, and the person rebuts it (even if they put greater importance on it), that is the literal definition of a rebuttal. For example, when you pulled a quote from one of Rat's sources which weakened it, that was not you making the original point but you rebutting it.
Once more, that you want the debate to be judged with Islam not as a religion, is an argument inside the debate which I simply did not buy. That you want something and don't always get it, is a normal part of life.
I got to say, I did not expect your R2 prediction to hold so strongly: "If I then would prove that Sharia law regimes and the followers of Islam are non-peaceful, he either agrees with me and says it's 'good and justified non-peace like fighting Nazis' or will flip it a third way and say 'neither the followers nor the written word are the real Islam, real Islam is something else that you can't touch or attack or call non-peaceful."
"I made a clear distinction between muslims and Islam several times." To repeat myself: Your case was dependent upon Islam not existing as a practiced religion. I did not buy this argument. In fact your own definition (unless you think Muslims are fictional) of it implies it does exist: "the religious faith of Muslims." If you wanted the debate to be about a hypothetical non-practiced religion, that limitation should have been agreed upon by you and your opponent prior to the start of the debate.
"The first 3 were part of Con's positive case" ... That you introduced each of these is easily proven with a simple CTRL+F, disproving your own claim "Con had no rebuttal to any of my points." I really should not know the content of your debate better than you.
Your evidence someone did not read the debate is them making dozens of references to it, to include penalizing conduct for BS in the final round... Compared to votes that you stated no disagreement with, this becomes a very fine example of pure absurdity.
Do you have any idea how nonsensical you are being? You want the debate on "the religious faith of Muslims" to be judged ignoring the existence of actual Muslims. Your opponent's final paragraph one round is discussing BoP, and you begin the next round complaining about how he did not address BoP. You're even going so far as to insult your own case, claiming that you catching a weak piece of his evidence did not happen because a vote made mention of it.
"Con had no rebuttal to any of my points" ... As seen in my vote (unless you think you did not introduce any of these to the debate), the very definition of the word peace, Nazis, 4:90, peace and pacifism, etc.
Given that you are disagreeing with easily verifiable facts of your own debate, I see little point in engaging with you further on this.
It is not my job to repeat every single paragraph from the debate.
I do congratulate you on the very nice strawperson while complaining about a strawperson. If the only piece of Rat's evidence mentioned was the 4:34, then my vote certainly did not include the words "Moe caught a pretty damning line in one of Rat's sources" or references to you both bringing up the historical evidence of the Nazis, etc.
Your case was dependent upon Islam not existing as a practiced religion. I did not buy this argument. In fact your own definition (unless you think Muslims are fictional) of it implies it does exist: "the religious faith of Muslims." If you wanted the debate to be about a hypothetical non-practiced religion, that limitation should have been agreed upon by you and your opponent prior to the start of the debate.
I am uncertain what that was I just attempted to read... And dammit, it's winner selection, so I can't skip to a conduct point deduction for pro not showing up.
Under the COC to award sources you must:
"The key to sufficiently ground awarding sources points is an emphasis on quality, not quantity. This means that the voter needs to explain how the sources were relevant to the debate. This requires that the voter explain how the sources impacted the debate, directly assessing the strength of at least one source, and explaining how it either strengthened or weakened the argument it was utilized for. Even if one side does not present a source, the voter must at least establish the relevance of the other side's sources. There must be some comparative analysis between both debaters’ sources."
Think of it this way, you don't award anything because you want to, but because the debaters left it feeling dishonest to leave it out of your vote. S&G for example. when one side is non-legible "Bob's spelling was so awful, it made it difficult to understand what case he was trying to make... Plus every paragraph he confused they're there and their." For Sources you might have "Joe used sources to undermine Jane's case, Nasa.gov showing that he Earth is not flat was of particular impact to the arguments. I am unsure why Jane thought PizzaHut.com was a sufficient counter to that."
Not casting a formal vote, as I do not feel motivated enough to do a lengthy analysis of each point...
In short, I'd say pro wins: The value offered is easy to weight (as he showed it in raw dollars). Whereas con's counter plan was more about instilling a feeling that some people ought to be killed, never-mind the extra innocent people who would be killed long before their DNA can be tested. Plus the reinvestment required by the counter plan, are not guaranteed.
The least moving point to me was Hitler, given that WWII war criminals fall outside the scope of the local US legal system. I was very curious to read up on con's offered repeat killers, but the sources were not well organized (the cluster dump at the end, doesn't tell me which one will have information on anyone unless their name is in the URL).
I usually without reading arguments until debates are finished, but you calling focus on the resolution silly got my attention...
Had the word been proof, the con side would be very very difficult. Instead she took the hard one, basically trying to argue against raw evidence...
As per your off topic case, I wonder why you did not simply start a debate on that topic instead of hijacking this one? I actually enjoyed the read, particularly the callbacks to that rather epic debate. I'll be sure to cast a real vote with feedback, not a mere "forfeiture."
I definitely would have accepted this challenge, largely due to my sense of organization...
Which is not to say I agree with the specific rules cited. Things like not forfeiting and not cheating go without saying.
However, bloody well agreeing to shared definitions before the debate starts, helps to have a clean debate instead of one about semantics.
Regarding if the comment section is the debate to be voted on... I don't want to simply call Someone Else an idiot, but I will say they are highly misinformed. I can say they are misinformed, because I am a valid authority on the subject (information in my profile)
Imagine if someone says nothing inside the debate, then spends weeks whining in the comment section begging people to vote for them (this has happened numerous times). When judging the debate, would you logically follow the debate setup rules (such as a character limit, timing of the rounds etcetera)? Or would you dismiss the debate structure to vote based on anything else? Imagine if this were a physical competition, we do not credit the extra miles someone runs outside of a marathon.
You could for example have first hand information that Muhammad preached against peace, yet would that be fair to bring up as justification for a vote on this debate? While you could mention it as a side note, the ballot is to reflect the competition between them inside the arena.
RM, of course none of those three were. Why it's a double edged sword is that your opponent could name three similar men who happened to be Muslim (I will not do his research for him by listing examples).
Alec, I have no clue how you could twist that so badly. Plus comments (while related) are not the debate. Some people try to prove themselves right after debates end, but it doesn't count. Nor would arguments from anyone other than the debaters... I will however say that you could cast non-scoring votes, so as to get practice. Your biggest problem right now is wanting to commit what looks like revenge voting.
How do you each prefer to be referred? And do either of you object to a vote from me? If objections exist (be it due to my voting style, or more likely military service in Iraq), I will assign no points.
I have not read it all yet, but I am finding it engaging enough to continue (save for certain things which should have been handled prior to the start).
...
I will say right now I liked the reference to "Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and Nelson Mandela." As much as it is a rather obvious double edged sword. In any case, showing ways a religion can be considered "of peace," avoids attempted K's to the topic by saying 'religion cannot be of peace,' and gives a nice potential area for contrasting evidence.
For a little entertainment, Iraq used to report having 100% voter turnout. SNL did a nice summery of how democracy worked there: https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/election-night-coverage/2869239
R1 to pro.
R2 to con (I did not care for the vocals in pro's choice).
R3 to con (Christmas cats put it over).
R4 tied.
R5 to con (liked the dark feel of that choice a little more).
However, not casting a vote as I don't view this as a debate per se...
Thanks for the vote, and I really like your one sentence summary of this debate: "On balance, here, the argument falls down to pro saying there is no evidence, so no sides should be taken - con says that there is evidence, so the middle ground is logically invalid."
Next time instead of reporting every vote that isn't in your favor, how about take part in the debate to give some possible reason why a vote could be cast in your favor?
It's a nice hypothetical you present, but ultimately lacking in meaning.
Were they the same person, it would be on him to clarify (make a post to the original that he has changed his name...) and request a reevaluation. As of this moment, there is absolutely nothing to suggest they are the same person; plus he chose to present the arguments in the form of plagiarism, it would be an outright disrespect to his intellectual integrity to judge him otherwise.
That is aside from the obvious sloppy copy/paste job. That it's broken infers lack of access to the original writing (fresh copy/paste from the original writing, as opposed to how it was displayed on a random website, would lack the preponderance of errors).
Thanks for sharing that video. I do wish this debate had been that entertaining.
I fully admit this was a very close debate. It was while giving the debate an extra read through that I identified the conduct issue as separate from arguments.
Ouch ouch ouch! ... Sorry, it's just after a light skimming of Pro's R1, and knowing the type of debater Con is, this is going to be painful to watch.
A word of advice for Pro: Next time start a debate on just one of your lines of reasoning. That way you go in depth on it, and avoid risk of anyone pointing out that 'Even If True...'
Neato!
"What earlier votes? You are the first vote."
WisdomofAges, stvitus, and Alec. The ones you've received notifications about, we discussed, and you complained about their removal ("moderation and vote reports are poor."). But in case you are serious rather than pretending to be this deluded to make Muslims look bad, challenge me to a debate.
"I already explained that the debate was about the doctrines of the religion not the behavior..."
If you think the religion itself is not peaceful, next time have a debate excluding the religion.
...
If your problem is the content of the vote as opposed it not not favoring you, then prove so by quoting your disagreements with the earlier votes. For starters, you are fine with winning for proving how many atrocities against humanity Islam caused in addition to being a comic book farce. I did not read such into your case, but that person whom you did not accuse of not reading the debate clearly found you won on those grounds.
That Rat did not respond to things the way you wanted him do, to you means no response was made at all. I have proven this to be false, but still you insist on complaining.
Why Islam would be treated to exist was addressed in the third paragraph of my vote. Attempts to move the goalpost to a wholly different resolution (one not of the religion of the Muslims), and the back and forth such, are not something I cared to write at length about; and to expect such would be counter to "I did not ask you to repeat every single paragraph in th debate."
...
Your problem seems to not the content of the vote, but that it doesn't favor you. If this is false, you can easily prove so by quoting your disagreements with the earlier votes (hint: you made none). For example, when a vote in your favor read "ISLAM has a proven record of ATROCITIES against humanity....try doing the same with the Hare Krishna....not going to happen...the Koran is another Glorified Comic Book farce."
Your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired. For starters, you don't even know what a rebuttal is, as exemplified with "it was Con who used them to make his case after I mentioned them." When you make something part of your case, and the person rebuts it (even if they put greater importance on it), that is the literal definition of a rebuttal. For example, when you pulled a quote from one of Rat's sources which weakened it, that was not you making the original point but you rebutting it.
Once more, that you want the debate to be judged with Islam not as a religion, is an argument inside the debate which I simply did not buy. That you want something and don't always get it, is a normal part of life.
I got to say, I did not expect your R2 prediction to hold so strongly: "If I then would prove that Sharia law regimes and the followers of Islam are non-peaceful, he either agrees with me and says it's 'good and justified non-peace like fighting Nazis' or will flip it a third way and say 'neither the followers nor the written word are the real Islam, real Islam is something else that you can't touch or attack or call non-peaceful."
"I made a clear distinction between muslims and Islam several times." To repeat myself: Your case was dependent upon Islam not existing as a practiced religion. I did not buy this argument. In fact your own definition (unless you think Muslims are fictional) of it implies it does exist: "the religious faith of Muslims." If you wanted the debate to be about a hypothetical non-practiced religion, that limitation should have been agreed upon by you and your opponent prior to the start of the debate.
"The first 3 were part of Con's positive case" ... That you introduced each of these is easily proven with a simple CTRL+F, disproving your own claim "Con had no rebuttal to any of my points." I really should not know the content of your debate better than you.
Your evidence someone did not read the debate is them making dozens of references to it, to include penalizing conduct for BS in the final round... Compared to votes that you stated no disagreement with, this becomes a very fine example of pure absurdity.
Do you have any idea how nonsensical you are being? You want the debate on "the religious faith of Muslims" to be judged ignoring the existence of actual Muslims. Your opponent's final paragraph one round is discussing BoP, and you begin the next round complaining about how he did not address BoP. You're even going so far as to insult your own case, claiming that you catching a weak piece of his evidence did not happen because a vote made mention of it.
"Con had no rebuttal to any of my points" ... As seen in my vote (unless you think you did not introduce any of these to the debate), the very definition of the word peace, Nazis, 4:90, peace and pacifism, etc.
Given that you are disagreeing with easily verifiable facts of your own debate, I see little point in engaging with you further on this.
It is not my job to repeat every single paragraph from the debate.
I do congratulate you on the very nice strawperson while complaining about a strawperson. If the only piece of Rat's evidence mentioned was the 4:34, then my vote certainly did not include the words "Moe caught a pretty damning line in one of Rat's sources" or references to you both bringing up the historical evidence of the Nazis, etc.
Your case was dependent upon Islam not existing as a practiced religion. I did not buy this argument. In fact your own definition (unless you think Muslims are fictional) of it implies it does exist: "the religious faith of Muslims." If you wanted the debate to be about a hypothetical non-practiced religion, that limitation should have been agreed upon by you and your opponent prior to the start of the debate.
I am uncertain what that was I just attempted to read... And dammit, it's winner selection, so I can't skip to a conduct point deduction for pro not showing up.
Under the COC to award sources you must:
"The key to sufficiently ground awarding sources points is an emphasis on quality, not quantity. This means that the voter needs to explain how the sources were relevant to the debate. This requires that the voter explain how the sources impacted the debate, directly assessing the strength of at least one source, and explaining how it either strengthened or weakened the argument it was utilized for. Even if one side does not present a source, the voter must at least establish the relevance of the other side's sources. There must be some comparative analysis between both debaters’ sources."
Think of it this way, you don't award anything because you want to, but because the debaters left it feeling dishonest to leave it out of your vote. S&G for example. when one side is non-legible "Bob's spelling was so awful, it made it difficult to understand what case he was trying to make... Plus every paragraph he confused they're there and their." For Sources you might have "Joe used sources to undermine Jane's case, Nasa.gov showing that he Earth is not flat was of particular impact to the arguments. I am unsure why Jane thought PizzaHut.com was a sufficient counter to that."
I'll be voting on this. Right now I will say plainly that I doubt any point other than arguments is warranted.
Not casting a formal vote, as I do not feel motivated enough to do a lengthy analysis of each point...
In short, I'd say pro wins: The value offered is easy to weight (as he showed it in raw dollars). Whereas con's counter plan was more about instilling a feeling that some people ought to be killed, never-mind the extra innocent people who would be killed long before their DNA can be tested. Plus the reinvestment required by the counter plan, are not guaranteed.
The least moving point to me was Hitler, given that WWII war criminals fall outside the scope of the local US legal system. I was very curious to read up on con's offered repeat killers, but the sources were not well organized (the cluster dump at the end, doesn't tell me which one will have information on anyone unless their name is in the URL).
I usually without reading arguments until debates are finished, but you calling focus on the resolution silly got my attention...
Had the word been proof, the con side would be very very difficult. Instead she took the hard one, basically trying to argue against raw evidence...
As per your off topic case, I wonder why you did not simply start a debate on that topic instead of hijacking this one? I actually enjoyed the read, particularly the callbacks to that rather epic debate. I'll be sure to cast a real vote with feedback, not a mere "forfeiture."
I definitely would have accepted this challenge, largely due to my sense of organization...
Which is not to say I agree with the specific rules cited. Things like not forfeiting and not cheating go without saying.
However, bloody well agreeing to shared definitions before the debate starts, helps to have a clean debate instead of one about semantics.
Either an edit button (haven't launched a debate here to know for sure), or ask one of the admins to change it.
Hard one, as evidence does not mean proof.
RM and Moe, as of now the best place to hold this argument would be inside the debate.
I advise correcting the S&G, but as Alec pointed out, it does not jeopardize readability in order to cost the point...
Regarding if the comment section is the debate to be voted on... I don't want to simply call Someone Else an idiot, but I will say they are highly misinformed. I can say they are misinformed, because I am a valid authority on the subject (information in my profile)
Imagine if someone says nothing inside the debate, then spends weeks whining in the comment section begging people to vote for them (this has happened numerous times). When judging the debate, would you logically follow the debate setup rules (such as a character limit, timing of the rounds etcetera)? Or would you dismiss the debate structure to vote based on anything else? Imagine if this were a physical competition, we do not credit the extra miles someone runs outside of a marathon.
You could for example have first hand information that Muhammad preached against peace, yet would that be fair to bring up as justification for a vote on this debate? While you could mention it as a side note, the ballot is to reflect the competition between them inside the arena.
RM, of course none of those three were. Why it's a double edged sword is that your opponent could name three similar men who happened to be Muslim (I will not do his research for him by listing examples).
Alec, I have no clue how you could twist that so badly. Plus comments (while related) are not the debate. Some people try to prove themselves right after debates end, but it doesn't count. Nor would arguments from anyone other than the debaters... I will however say that you could cast non-scoring votes, so as to get practice. Your biggest problem right now is wanting to commit what looks like revenge voting.
How do you each prefer to be referred? And do either of you object to a vote from me? If objections exist (be it due to my voting style, or more likely military service in Iraq), I will assign no points.
I have not read it all yet, but I am finding it engaging enough to continue (save for certain things which should have been handled prior to the start).
...
I will say right now I liked the reference to "Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and Nelson Mandela." As much as it is a rather obvious double edged sword. In any case, showing ways a religion can be considered "of peace," avoids attempted K's to the topic by saying 'religion cannot be of peace,' and gives a nice potential area for contrasting evidence.
Of course I read R1, I would not have voted otherwise.
For a little entertainment, Iraq used to report having 100% voter turnout. SNL did a nice summery of how democracy worked there: https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/election-night-coverage/2869239
Thanks for the debate. Now that voting has ended, feel free to ask me anything you like. I'm happy to discuss the topic, and/or debates in general.
I prefer categorized voting as well.
And I just realized the irony of this debate. Pro's stance that forfeiture doesn't mean anything, has validity within the select winner system.
Just the one song, and it's a very subjective stylistic thing. One singer was doing a flat low toned mumble I could rarely understand.
Yeah, sorry for the confusion. Leftover habit from DDO.
R1 to pro.
R2 to con (I did not care for the vocals in pro's choice).
R3 to con (Christmas cats put it over).
R4 tied.
R5 to con (liked the dark feel of that choice a little more).
However, not casting a vote as I don't view this as a debate per se...
Thanks for the vote, and I really like your one sentence summary of this debate: "On balance, here, the argument falls down to pro saying there is no evidence, so no sides should be taken - con says that there is evidence, so the middle ground is logically invalid."
This debate should probably have a link to a news story in the description. Also a definition of witch hunt.
... I am going to try to give him to benefit of the doubt, as I don't want to believe anyone is that damned pathetic.
You poor baby!
Next time instead of reporting every vote that isn't in your favor, how about take part in the debate to give some possible reason why a vote could be cast in your favor?
Under my proposed refinement to S&G, RM would have won that point as well. A block of text vs the work he put in...
I'm going to re-read this one more time... It's close... Likely I'll end up concluding a tie.
It's a nice hypothetical you present, but ultimately lacking in meaning.
Were they the same person, it would be on him to clarify (make a post to the original that he has changed his name...) and request a reevaluation. As of this moment, there is absolutely nothing to suggest they are the same person; plus he chose to present the arguments in the form of plagiarism, it would be an outright disrespect to his intellectual integrity to judge him otherwise.
That is aside from the obvious sloppy copy/paste job. That it's broken infers lack of access to the original writing (fresh copy/paste from the original writing, as opposed to how it was displayed on a random website, would lack the preponderance of errors).