*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Block19 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Con for arguments, sources, s/g and conduct
>Reason for decision: cause yeah
>Reason for Mod Action: None of the points are explained and thus is insufficient.
************************************************************************
He thoroughly explained both points. He examined the sources and weight why one was better than the other. He also explained the conduct point well enough to justify it.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: MagicAintReal // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points to con for arguments, sources, and conduct
>Reason for decision: See vote
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote is more than sufficient
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Wylted // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to con for arguments
>Reason for decision: See vote
>Reason for Mod Action: This is borderline so as per the standards, we will let the vote stand.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Block // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to pro for arguments.
>Reason for decision:The topic I am pro gun: Change my mind is a difficult one to argue. It seems like both sides were arguing whether gun ownership was more of a benefit to American society than a negative, that is what i am basing my decision on. I give my vote to Our_Boat_is_Right because because he took an over all approach to guns and therefore seemed to make the more convincing argument.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter fails to sufficiently justify awarding argument points. The voter fails to survey the main arguments in the debate and to weigh those arguments to produce a decision.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ralter // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to pro for arguments
>Reason for decision: See vote
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote is more than sufficient
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Alec // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points to con for sources, conduct, and arguments.
>Reason for decision:
Better conduct: The BoP was on Pro and Pro didn't prove anything except using cites from the bible. Although there is proof of God's existence(sadly), Pro failed to present any proof of God whatsoever. Con wins by my vote.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter fails to survey the arguments and the conduct point is not sufficiently explained
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Alec // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points to con for sources, conduct, and arguments.
>Reason for decision:
Convincing arguments: I got convinced by Con.
Most reliable sources: Con cited. Pro did not.
Better conduct: I think Pro's account got hacked, because I don't think this is like Our Boat is Right. However, I still award Con conduct points. Pro called Con a racist in round 1 and forfeit round 2. I quote from Round 1 what Pro said: "My opponent is wrong, and is biased because doesn't like Warren or her Indian heritage.". What happened Boat Right?
>Reason for Mod Action: Failure to explain all points
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Raltar // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 2 points to pro for sources
>Reason for decision: Pro provided valid sources and used them effectively to prove his point. It seems something went awry in regards to Con's response, and I personally think the larger issue was ignored here..
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter fails to properly explain this point.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Block19 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points to Con for arguments, sources, and conduct.
>Reason for decision: Con addressed both sides of the issue properly and behaved more honorably than Pro did when they instigated this discussion. Con also used better and more objective sources, for these reasons i have awarded the following points.
>Reason for Mod Action: None of the points are explained and thus is insufficient.
************************************************************************
It is much MUCH MUCH higher. I've even gotten the opportunity to question cops/prosecutors about their tactics behind closed doors and they've told me that these defendants weren't guilty of the crimes they were charged, they were probably guilty of something else anyway so it all works out in the end. Disgusting.
That is utterly horrendous and deplorable. No wonder no one trusts the cops!
They need to thoroughly examine the witness and the evidence before getting an arrest warrant or trying the case.
I cited an alarming number of innocent people who plead guilty to murder charges. I shudder to think how many innocent people were convicted of lesser crimes.
The biggest issue I see with rape cases and sexual assault cases is that it's really their word against his. Unless it's collaborated by quite a few people (as in the Cosby case) it's really impossible to prove without DNA evidence.
That's rather disgusting. Openly committing perjury and filing false charges in court should not be tolerated. At minimum she should be forced to pay the defendant his legal fees AND pay the state back for whatever it cost to try the case
Exactly! Innocence is completely irrelevent today. Defendants are already in a altard state of mind and they're just bullying them into accepting a deal regardless if they are innocent
"This was the worst troll debate in the history of bad troll debates." -Virtuoso
A moderator has already declared this a troll debate. According to the rules, troll debates aren't moderated.
I really should have worded my RFD better. I was calling it a troll debate from a voter/reader POV and not necessarily from a vote moderation POV. That being said, we do look at the rules to determine what actions to take. In this case the rules stated:
Moderators *must* remove inadequate votes that a) fail to address the majority of resolution-impacting points made by both debaters, b) are lies about debater performance, or c) are vendetta votes/overtly biased
Thus for purposes of vote moderation we will see it as a normal debate.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: reukinche // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 6 points to Pro for arguments, sources, and conduct.
>Reason for Decision:
Spelling and grammar: I didn't see any mistakes which reduced readability.
Sources: Con used one or two arguably partisan sources (CNN and Vox), but all of Pro's sources were partisan.
Arguments: While Pro's arguments had some flaws, some of which Con pointed out, Con's arguments hinged on partisan sources.
Conduct: Pro forfeited first, and Con forfeited in response. However, conduct on both sides could have been better.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter fails to sufficiently justify awarding argument points. The voter fails to survey the main arguments in the debate and to weigh those arguments to produce a decision. The voter also fails to sufficiently justify awarding sources points. There is not comparison between the debaters in terms of source quality. The voter can recast a sufficient vote by surveying and weighing the key arguments of the debate to produce a verdict and then by comparing (or making a comparative statement re:) the quality of each debater's sources. Furthermore the voter does not properly evaluate the conduct point.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: dustryder // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 6 points to con
>Reason for Decision:
Arguments:
In general, Pro fails to address Con's overall points. This has taken the form of either strawman arguments, or just unsubstantiated claims. For example, Pro suggests that overall homicide should be looked at over gun crime. However, overall homicide cannot address gun crime in its entirety and Pro's reasoning fails to address this.
Con states that America has a large number of mass shootings and violent gun crimes in comparison to other western countries. Pro fails to address the general idea that America comparatively has a large number of violent gun crimes. Pro also claims that mass shootings can be stopped, but fails to substantiate this claim
Finally, while Con cites a source that promoted gun control internationally, Pro responds only in terms of Australia.
Conduct:
Pro has very obviously not read some of Con's sources. More than that, he's constructed and argued against his own narrative based upon what he imagines the sources to be about. This is dishonest
Sources:
While both produced a number of sources, only Con's addressed the main points. Pro's sources were effective, but only in the contexts of the strawmans he was arguing for and hence were irrelevant in regards to Con's main arguments.
>Reason for Mod Action: Arguments and sources are sufficiently explained but conduct is not. In order to award a conduct point, one side must forfeit at least one round or have excessively rude conduct
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Alec // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to pro for arguments and conduct
>Reason for Decision: Con forfeit most of the debate and he said something trollish for the last round. This is poor arguing and poor conduct.
>Reason for Mod Action: Both debaters agreed to a tie and thus this vote is removed.
Also mod note: I am deleting dustryder's counter vote.
************************************************************************
I'm almost finished. Probably 330
I’ll try
Within the next 3 hrs
I'm almost finished my arguments.
Thank you. Will have them up probably late tonight or tomorrow afternoon
Yeah. That's always been my downfall. I get into too many debates at once.
Thanks so much for your feedback and a great RFD!! I'd definitely love to improve my debate skills.
No he did not. He stated the resolution is affirmed and to vote for him. That's standard practice. I've seen him do it in every single debate
vote deleted. You should be able to revote now
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Block19 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Con for arguments, sources, s/g and conduct
>Reason for decision: cause yeah
>Reason for Mod Action: None of the points are explained and thus is insufficient.
************************************************************************
It's ok!
ROFL!
Yes you can as long as the disclose doesn't relate to another user.
Tej can certainly override me. The vote is sufficient whether or not you agree with it.
He thoroughly explained both points. He examined the sources and weight why one was better than the other. He also explained the conduct point well enough to justify it.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: MagicAintReal // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points to con for arguments, sources, and conduct
>Reason for decision: See vote
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote is more than sufficient
************************************************************************
Ah I gotcha. I'm sorry. But since you voted for the other person, I still had to delete the vote.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Wylted // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to con for arguments
>Reason for decision: See vote
>Reason for Mod Action: This is borderline so as per the standards, we will let the vote stand.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Block // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to pro for arguments.
>Reason for decision:The topic I am pro gun: Change my mind is a difficult one to argue. It seems like both sides were arguing whether gun ownership was more of a benefit to American society than a negative, that is what i am basing my decision on. I give my vote to Our_Boat_is_Right because because he took an over all approach to guns and therefore seemed to make the more convincing argument.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter fails to sufficiently justify awarding argument points. The voter fails to survey the main arguments in the debate and to weigh those arguments to produce a decision.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ralter // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to pro for arguments
>Reason for decision: See vote
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote is more than sufficient
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Alec // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points to con for sources, conduct, and arguments.
>Reason for decision:
Better conduct: The BoP was on Pro and Pro didn't prove anything except using cites from the bible. Although there is proof of God's existence(sadly), Pro failed to present any proof of God whatsoever. Con wins by my vote.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter fails to survey the arguments and the conduct point is not sufficiently explained
************************************************************************
Mod note
Several votes were reported. This is a full forfeit debate and votes are not moderated
I'm sorry. But pro didn't cite anything so how could you even give him that point?
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Alec // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points to con for sources, conduct, and arguments.
>Reason for decision:
Convincing arguments: I got convinced by Con.
Most reliable sources: Con cited. Pro did not.
Better conduct: I think Pro's account got hacked, because I don't think this is like Our Boat is Right. However, I still award Con conduct points. Pro called Con a racist in round 1 and forfeit round 2. I quote from Round 1 what Pro said: "My opponent is wrong, and is biased because doesn't like Warren or her Indian heritage.". What happened Boat Right?
>Reason for Mod Action: Failure to explain all points
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Raltar // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 2 points to pro for sources
>Reason for decision: Pro provided valid sources and used them effectively to prove his point. It seems something went awry in regards to Con's response, and I personally think the larger issue was ignored here..
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter fails to properly explain this point.
************************************************************************
Me to! In fact this is probably on of my favorite debates of all time.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Block19 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points to Con for arguments, sources, and conduct.
>Reason for decision: Con addressed both sides of the issue properly and behaved more honorably than Pro did when they instigated this discussion. Con also used better and more objective sources, for these reasons i have awarded the following points.
>Reason for Mod Action: None of the points are explained and thus is insufficient.
************************************************************************
Sorry for the ff. I overslept and didn't realize how little time I had. I had my arguments 90% finished
https://archive-media-1.nyafuu.org/vp/image/1522/20/1522201804169.jpg
Lol.
And wow - your arguments are almost entirely irrelevant to the debate.
I never hope for a forfeit. I want a challenging debate not one that ends in a forfeit. I love the challenge of a good debater like you.
Ok.
Hype for RM's arguments!
Y
P
E
Interesting opening. It's a shame your syllogism is woefully invalid.
It is much MUCH MUCH higher. I've even gotten the opportunity to question cops/prosecutors about their tactics behind closed doors and they've told me that these defendants weren't guilty of the crimes they were charged, they were probably guilty of something else anyway so it all works out in the end. Disgusting.
That is utterly horrendous and deplorable. No wonder no one trusts the cops!
The fact the law encourages innocent people to testify against another innocent person is kinda disgusting.
I agree.
They need to thoroughly examine the witness and the evidence before getting an arrest warrant or trying the case.
I cited an alarming number of innocent people who plead guilty to murder charges. I shudder to think how many innocent people were convicted of lesser crimes.
The biggest issue I see with rape cases and sexual assault cases is that it's really their word against his. Unless it's collaborated by quite a few people (as in the Cosby case) it's really impossible to prove without DNA evidence.
That's rather disgusting. Openly committing perjury and filing false charges in court should not be tolerated. At minimum she should be forced to pay the defendant his legal fees AND pay the state back for whatever it cost to try the case
Agree. Also if anyone files a false charge, they should get the same time the other perosn would have gotten.
Exactly! Innocence is completely irrelevent today. Defendants are already in a altard state of mind and they're just bullying them into accepting a deal regardless if they are innocent
I agree 100%!
Also people exonerated from DNA evidence ought to get at least 1 million for every year in jail.
I’m fine with that
Thanks for the feedback!
you're joking right?
"This was the worst troll debate in the history of bad troll debates." -Virtuoso
A moderator has already declared this a troll debate. According to the rules, troll debates aren't moderated.
I really should have worded my RFD better. I was calling it a troll debate from a voter/reader POV and not necessarily from a vote moderation POV. That being said, we do look at the rules to determine what actions to take. In this case the rules stated:
Moderators *must* remove inadequate votes that a) fail to address the majority of resolution-impacting points made by both debaters, b) are lies about debater performance, or c) are vendetta votes/overtly biased
Thus for purposes of vote moderation we will see it as a normal debate.
You have about 10 hours to post
I agree with Magic
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: reukinche // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 6 points to Pro for arguments, sources, and conduct.
>Reason for Decision:
Spelling and grammar: I didn't see any mistakes which reduced readability.
Sources: Con used one or two arguably partisan sources (CNN and Vox), but all of Pro's sources were partisan.
Arguments: While Pro's arguments had some flaws, some of which Con pointed out, Con's arguments hinged on partisan sources.
Conduct: Pro forfeited first, and Con forfeited in response. However, conduct on both sides could have been better.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter fails to sufficiently justify awarding argument points. The voter fails to survey the main arguments in the debate and to weigh those arguments to produce a decision. The voter also fails to sufficiently justify awarding sources points. There is not comparison between the debaters in terms of source quality. The voter can recast a sufficient vote by surveying and weighing the key arguments of the debate to produce a verdict and then by comparing (or making a comparative statement re:) the quality of each debater's sources. Furthermore the voter does not properly evaluate the conduct point.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: dustryder // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 6 points to con
>Reason for Decision:
Arguments:
In general, Pro fails to address Con's overall points. This has taken the form of either strawman arguments, or just unsubstantiated claims. For example, Pro suggests that overall homicide should be looked at over gun crime. However, overall homicide cannot address gun crime in its entirety and Pro's reasoning fails to address this.
Con states that America has a large number of mass shootings and violent gun crimes in comparison to other western countries. Pro fails to address the general idea that America comparatively has a large number of violent gun crimes. Pro also claims that mass shootings can be stopped, but fails to substantiate this claim
Finally, while Con cites a source that promoted gun control internationally, Pro responds only in terms of Australia.
Conduct:
Pro has very obviously not read some of Con's sources. More than that, he's constructed and argued against his own narrative based upon what he imagines the sources to be about. This is dishonest
Sources:
While both produced a number of sources, only Con's addressed the main points. Pro's sources were effective, but only in the contexts of the strawmans he was arguing for and hence were irrelevant in regards to Con's main arguments.
>Reason for Mod Action: Arguments and sources are sufficiently explained but conduct is not. In order to award a conduct point, one side must forfeit at least one round or have excessively rude conduct
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Alec // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to pro for arguments and conduct
>Reason for Decision: Con forfeit most of the debate and he said something trollish for the last round. This is poor arguing and poor conduct.
>Reason for Mod Action: Both debaters agreed to a tie and thus this vote is removed.
Also mod note: I am deleting dustryder's counter vote.
************************************************************************