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.
************************************************************************
"Oh come on, I'm merely pointing out that higher order mammals have to ensure their society's sustained survival in order to ensure the adept individual's sustained survival.
Eugenics was based on racial disparities not homeostatic maintenance and sustainability of the immediate society."
This is wrong. Based on this logic it would be morally permissible to kill those who are disabled or those who are "unfit.' The "undesirables" hurt the overall "homeostatic" nature of the rest of society.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Jboy3r // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: All votes to con
>Reason for Decision: Full forfeit
>Reason for Mod Action: Full forfeit debates are not moderated unless they vote for the forfeiting side, which they did.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ramshutu // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: All votes to con
>Reason for Decision: Full forfeit
>Reason for Mod Action: Full forfeit debates are not moderated unless they vote for the forfeiting side, which they did not do.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman, armoredcat, Ramshutu // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: All votes to con
>Reason for Decision: Full forfeit
>Reason for Mod Action: Full forfeit debates are not moderated unless they vote for the forfeiting side, which they did not do.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ramshutu // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Con
>Reason for Decision: Full forfeit
>Reason for Mod Action: Full forfeit debates are not moderated unless they vote for the forfeiting side, which they did not do.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ramshutu // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Con
>Reason for Decision: Full forfeit
>Reason for Mod Action: Full forfeit debates are not moderated unless they vote for the forfeiting side, which they did not do.
************************************************************************
I just read your argument. You miss one thing: DA users don’t go spamming on DI or other debate sites about how great their platform is compared to theirs. Haha. Yeah
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.
************************************************************************
"Oh come on, I'm merely pointing out that higher order mammals have to ensure their society's sustained survival in order to ensure the adept individual's sustained survival.
Eugenics was based on racial disparities not homeostatic maintenance and sustainability of the immediate society."
This is wrong. Based on this logic it would be morally permissible to kill those who are disabled or those who are "unfit.' The "undesirables" hurt the overall "homeostatic" nature of the rest of society.
If you’re argument inherently has some rebuttals attaches I’m perfectly OK with it.
Sounds good. Looking forward to the argument. I hope we can finally have a good debate!
Also are you pro life? Taking your views to its logical conclusion it would appear that abortion would be immoral.
Kinda curious if you think smoking is immoral? It’s obvciously harmful to yourself and those around you.
That line of reason was pretty much responsible for eugenics and an attempt to create a ‘master race’ by killing those who are ‘unfit’
Interesting. Though in Darwinian Evolution it’s survival of the most adapt. It puts the individual against society.
The objective morality response was interesting. I don’t think I’ve seen an atheist affirm natural law
Yeah lol. I don’t really care. You can have the w
I'm such a fucking idiot. I posted the arguments for another debate to this one
Looks like an interesting topic. I agree with pro. Would be interested in seeing con's response.
Can you please wait until Saturday night/Sunday to post arguments? Thanks!
Wanna accept? I know we were wanting to do a speech debate on it
Sure definitely!!
Me to! I'd hate to see a good debate go tied
Yep!
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Jboy3r // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: All votes to con
>Reason for Decision: Full forfeit
>Reason for Mod Action: Full forfeit debates are not moderated unless they vote for the forfeiting side, which they did.
************************************************************************
Thanks for the vote and feedback!!
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ramshutu // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: All votes to con
>Reason for Decision: Full forfeit
>Reason for Mod Action: Full forfeit debates are not moderated unless they vote for the forfeiting side, which they did not do.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman, armoredcat, Ramshutu // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: All votes to con
>Reason for Decision: Full forfeit
>Reason for Mod Action: Full forfeit debates are not moderated unless they vote for the forfeiting side, which they did not do.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ramshutu // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Con
>Reason for Decision: Full forfeit
>Reason for Mod Action: Full forfeit debates are not moderated unless they vote for the forfeiting side, which they did not do.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ramshutu // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Con
>Reason for Decision: Full forfeit
>Reason for Mod Action: Full forfeit debates are not moderated unless they vote for the forfeiting side, which they did not do.
************************************************************************
Regardless if my errors were fewer you should not have awarded me that point.
I’m surprised that you can’t revote if your vote is removed. I think that’s something that should be done.
You should be able to revote if you want and just post arguments.
I feel like I should have pushed harder in the debate.
Feel free to re vote without the conduct point if you wish
For the record I think the conduct point was sufficient.
Would love to get your vote
I just read your argument. You miss one thing: DA users don’t go spamming on DI or other debate sites about how great their platform is compared to theirs. Haha. Yeah
Yeah I worded it awkwardly. Rebuttals include all rebuttals and defense is defense of your arguments and the rebuttals.
Ok cool. Thanks for the vote
Ok cool. I didn’t know people could delete their own votes. I appreciate the thorough review