"Disregarding something as rock is up to tje voter, not song poster. Ita obcious you like softer music, he abused the edges of the genre to achieve that. I was apoealing to truer rock fans or people seeking rock in its raw intense form."
I disagree here. Soft rock is fair game. I personally love soft rock, acoustic rock, and hard rock.
In order to award conduct points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Provide specific references to instances of poor conduct which occurred in the debate
Demonstrate how this poor conduct was either excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate
Compare each debater's conduct from the debate
Misconduct is excessive when it is extremely frequent and/or when it causes the debate to become incoherent or extremely toxic. In the case of awarding conduct points solely on the basis of forfeits, there is an exception to these steps: a debater may award conduct points solely for forfeited rounds, but only if one debater forfeited half or more of their rounds or if the voter also awards argument points (or explains their decision not to award argument points in a manner which meets the argument points voting standards).
One or two examples of less-than-perfect conduct would not be sufficient for me to award a conduct point
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ragnar // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to con for arguments
>Reason for Decision: The resolution says can’t, to which pro agrees it sometimes (even if not always) does. Con on the other hand shows that as a trade medium money is all about buying happiness.
>Reason for Mod Action: To award argument points, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision. I don't see enough weighing here and I don't see the voter's justification in the debate text.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: sigmaphil // Mod action: Not Removed
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: OoDart // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to pro for arguments and conduct
>Reason for Decision: See beliow
Reason for Mod Action: The argument point is borderline and thus will be deemd sufficient; however, the conduct point is not. According to the COC:
In order to award conduct points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Provide specific references to instances of poor conduct which occurred in the debate
Demonstrate how this poor conduct was either excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate
Compare each debater's conduct from the debate
Misconduct is excessive when it is extremely frequent and/or when it causes the debate to become incoherent or extremely toxic. In the case of awarding conduct points solely on the basis of forfeits, there is an exception to these steps: a debater may award conduct points solely for forfeited rounds, but only if one debater forfeited half or more of their rounds or if the voter also awards argument points (or explains their decision not to award argument points in a manner which meets the argument points voting standards).
The voter fails to show how this is 'excessive, frequent, and/or cause the debate to be incoherent or extremely toxic.'
Pro provided explanations as to why God created beings with certain colors. Con never proved them wrong, but simply said "You cannot prove God did this." Without proving God could not have done this, I must follow the most logical conclusion. Pro claimed, for example, "God chose their colors not the weasel." He gave support to the fact that weasels do not get to choose their color. He also explained how if they came through random evolution, they should have random colors. Pro gave support for intelligent design. Con went on to compare intelligent design to rape, which frankly seems like a catch-all argument in the event that you do not have any actual arguments.
Neither participant had sources.
Con had slightly better S&G but pro's mistakes were minor and did not affect the debate.
Con said "The second sentence made me laugh." in regards to a sentence said by pro. This sentence was a statement of pro's beliefs. Either con laughed at the minor grammatical error or laughed at pro's beliefs. Both of these are poor conduct.
Hi there - your vote didn't get handled in time. The biggest issue I see in your vote is the conduct point:
Virtuoso made the better arguments which can be seen above.
christopher_best was less cordial.
Virtuoso gets the argument point and the conduct point from me.
The conduct point isn't sufficient. What is meant by less cordial, and more importantly, how it is excessive, frequent, or when it makes the debate tobecome incoherent or toxic.
Thus your vote would have been removed if I was modding it.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: [yours] // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Pro
>Reason for Decision: See below
>Reason for Mod Action: This voter is ineligible. In order for an account to be eligible to vote, they must first have read the rules and completed 2 non-forfeit, non-troll debate OR made 100 forum posts.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: [yours] // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Pro
>Reason for Decision: See below
>Reason for Mod Action: This voter is ineligible. In order for an account to be eligible to vote, they must first have read the rules and completed 2 non-forfeit, non-troll debate OR made 100 forum posts.
************************************************************************
Basic history knowledge. Hitler is doomed after he failed to make the Soviet Union capitulate and after he declared war on US. There is nothing Hitler could have done to prevent his eventual defeat. It is just like the situation with Poland, there is no way they could win
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Christen // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to pro for conduct, 4 points to con for arguments and conduct
>Reason for Decision: See below
>Reason for Mod Action: To award argument points, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision. This is not done.
To award S/G points, the voter must (1) give specific examples of S/G errors, (2) explain how these errors were excessive, and (3) compare each debaters' S/G. S&G errors are considered excessive when they render arguments incoherent or incomprehensible. The voter fails to show why pro's arguments are incoherent.
Conduct point is fine.
************************************************************************
Crossed's arguments were overall better and more detailed, so I gave 'em the arguments.
Both side's sources seemed decent enough.
Crossed had multiple spelling errors and also should have had a capital letter instead of a lowercase letter, in multiple instances.
Nemiroff forfeited rounds, so conduct goes to Crossed, too.
*******************************************************************
Mod note: Full forfeit debates are not moderated unless the voter is ineligible or the vote votes for the forfeiting side.
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: RichardCarter // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 6 points to pro for arguments, sources, and conduct.
>Reason for Decision: See below
>Reason for Mod Action: This voter is ineligible. In order for an account to be eligible to vote, they must first have read the rules and completed 2 non-forfeit, non-troll debate OR made 100 forum posts.
************************************************************************
Arguments - Pro used multiple arguments in his first round and was provided in detail and citations to prove them, and was formatted to be easy to read for all viewers. None of it had any sort of bias and unfair views. Con provided no arguments at all and only falsely claimed that Pro conceded because he posted his goodbye message due to school, not because of this argument. That's not a concession.
Sources - Pro was the only one who used sources, marking them in his arguments and providing all links that were trustworthy and hard to argue against. Con did not provide any sources since he didn't provide any argument.
Spelling and Grammar - I'm going to give it a tie. Even though Con barely said anything, what they did said didn't have any spelling and grammar errors.
Conduct - Pro won this one since Con forfeited over half of the debate. But not only that, Con then claims that Pro conceded because Pro was leaving Debateart because of school. That's not at all what it was if Pro was frequently extending the arguments many times.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Nemiroff // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points to con for arguments and sources
>Reason for Decision: Con successfully redefined the meaning of verse cited by pro, while also expanding it using the context that surrounded it. After that pro seemed to have gone on defense as con made successful arguments, backing them up when challenged.
>Reason for Mod Action:To award argument points, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision. To award sources points, the voter must (1) explain how the debaters' sources impacted the debate, (2) directly assess the strength/utility of at least one source in particular cited in the debate, and (3) explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's. None of this is properly done
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
This debate has perplexed the mod team for quite some time. On one hand, con full forfeited even though pro made a forum post to concede all debates. In this instance, bsh ruled that because this is a full forfeit, all votes must go to Pro. Any votes for con will be removed
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: PressF4Respect // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 7 points to pro
>Reason for Decision: See below
Reason for Mod Action>Reason for Mod Action: None of this RFD is sufficient per our standards. The voter fails to properly evaluate and weigh the points given. Please review the COC https://www.debateart.com/rules
******************************************************************
Thanks for the feedback!
I enjoyed this battle and hope you did too.
Thanks for the vote
"Disregarding something as rock is up to tje voter, not song poster. Ita obcious you like softer music, he abused the edges of the genre to achieve that. I was apoealing to truer rock fans or people seeking rock in its raw intense form."
I disagree here. Soft rock is fair game. I personally love soft rock, acoustic rock, and hard rock.
Though that would make an interesting trap debate
rofl
Agreed
I agree with that. The COC says
In order to award conduct points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Provide specific references to instances of poor conduct which occurred in the debate
Demonstrate how this poor conduct was either excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate
Compare each debater's conduct from the debate
Misconduct is excessive when it is extremely frequent and/or when it causes the debate to become incoherent or extremely toxic. In the case of awarding conduct points solely on the basis of forfeits, there is an exception to these steps: a debater may award conduct points solely for forfeited rounds, but only if one debater forfeited half or more of their rounds or if the voter also awards argument points (or explains their decision not to award argument points in a manner which meets the argument points voting standards).
One or two examples of less-than-perfect conduct would not be sufficient for me to award a conduct point
Feel free to fix that in the next round
Yes, metal would be acceptable, though pop would be left up to the voters to decide.
RM's vote is borderline and will be allowed to stand
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ragnar // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to con for arguments
>Reason for Decision: The resolution says can’t, to which pro agrees it sometimes (even if not always) does. Con on the other hand shows that as a trade medium money is all about buying happiness.
>Reason for Mod Action: To award argument points, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision. I don't see enough weighing here and I don't see the voter's justification in the debate text.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: sigmaphil // Mod action: Not Removed
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: OoDart // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to pro for arguments and conduct
>Reason for Decision: See beliow
Reason for Mod Action: The argument point is borderline and thus will be deemd sufficient; however, the conduct point is not. According to the COC:
In order to award conduct points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Provide specific references to instances of poor conduct which occurred in the debate
Demonstrate how this poor conduct was either excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate
Compare each debater's conduct from the debate
Misconduct is excessive when it is extremely frequent and/or when it causes the debate to become incoherent or extremely toxic. In the case of awarding conduct points solely on the basis of forfeits, there is an exception to these steps: a debater may award conduct points solely for forfeited rounds, but only if one debater forfeited half or more of their rounds or if the voter also awards argument points (or explains their decision not to award argument points in a manner which meets the argument points voting standards).
The voter fails to show how this is 'excessive, frequent, and/or cause the debate to be incoherent or extremely toxic.'
************************************************************************
Pro provided explanations as to why God created beings with certain colors. Con never proved them wrong, but simply said "You cannot prove God did this." Without proving God could not have done this, I must follow the most logical conclusion. Pro claimed, for example, "God chose their colors not the weasel." He gave support to the fact that weasels do not get to choose their color. He also explained how if they came through random evolution, they should have random colors. Pro gave support for intelligent design. Con went on to compare intelligent design to rape, which frankly seems like a catch-all argument in the event that you do not have any actual arguments.
Neither participant had sources.
Con had slightly better S&G but pro's mistakes were minor and did not affect the debate.
Con said "The second sentence made me laugh." in regards to a sentence said by pro. This sentence was a statement of pro's beliefs. Either con laughed at the minor grammatical error or laughed at pro's beliefs. Both of these are poor conduct.
I can't mod votes on my own debate so *shrug*
Hi there - your vote didn't get handled in time. The biggest issue I see in your vote is the conduct point:
Virtuoso made the better arguments which can be seen above.
christopher_best was less cordial.
Virtuoso gets the argument point and the conduct point from me.
The conduct point isn't sufficient. What is meant by less cordial, and more importantly, how it is excessive, frequent, or when it makes the debate tobecome incoherent or toxic.
Thus your vote would have been removed if I was modding it.
Crap. I mis copied my word document.
Enjoy your date
Can we get a few real HONEST votes for once
It's clearly mythology, most likely flood stories are based on real localized floods.
Most Jews do not take Noah's flood literally.
Thank you, my friend.
I just gave my final speech in the other debate
Lol. I'll wait for a YEC to actually accept this.
Lol
This debate is not a FF, so you still need to analyze arguments.
It never showed up in the admin panel. There isn't any check box that let us know that it was reported. I'll handle the report now.
I'd be open to re-doing it
Thank you
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: [yours] // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Pro
>Reason for Decision: See below
>Reason for Mod Action: This voter is ineligible. In order for an account to be eligible to vote, they must first have read the rules and completed 2 non-forfeit, non-troll debate OR made 100 forum posts.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: [yours] // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Pro
>Reason for Decision: See below
>Reason for Mod Action: This voter is ineligible. In order for an account to be eligible to vote, they must first have read the rules and completed 2 non-forfeit, non-troll debate OR made 100 forum posts.
************************************************************************
Moon, Mars is way too far away.
Basic history knowledge. Hitler is doomed after he failed to make the Soviet Union capitulate and after he declared war on US. There is nothing Hitler could have done to prevent his eventual defeat. It is just like the situation with Poland, there is no way they could win
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Christen // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to pro for conduct, 4 points to con for arguments and conduct
>Reason for Decision: See below
>Reason for Mod Action: To award argument points, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision. This is not done.
To award S/G points, the voter must (1) give specific examples of S/G errors, (2) explain how these errors were excessive, and (3) compare each debaters' S/G. S&G errors are considered excessive when they render arguments incoherent or incomprehensible. The voter fails to show why pro's arguments are incoherent.
Conduct point is fine.
************************************************************************
Crossed's arguments were overall better and more detailed, so I gave 'em the arguments.
Both side's sources seemed decent enough.
Crossed had multiple spelling errors and also should have had a capital letter instead of a lowercase letter, in multiple instances.
Nemiroff forfeited rounds, so conduct goes to Crossed, too.
*******************************************************************
Mod note: Full forfeit debates are not moderated unless the voter is ineligible or the vote votes for the forfeiting side.
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: RichardCarter // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 6 points to pro for arguments, sources, and conduct.
>Reason for Decision: See below
>Reason for Mod Action: This voter is ineligible. In order for an account to be eligible to vote, they must first have read the rules and completed 2 non-forfeit, non-troll debate OR made 100 forum posts.
************************************************************************
Arguments - Pro used multiple arguments in his first round and was provided in detail and citations to prove them, and was formatted to be easy to read for all viewers. None of it had any sort of bias and unfair views. Con provided no arguments at all and only falsely claimed that Pro conceded because he posted his goodbye message due to school, not because of this argument. That's not a concession.
Sources - Pro was the only one who used sources, marking them in his arguments and providing all links that were trustworthy and hard to argue against. Con did not provide any sources since he didn't provide any argument.
Spelling and Grammar - I'm going to give it a tie. Even though Con barely said anything, what they did said didn't have any spelling and grammar errors.
Conduct - Pro won this one since Con forfeited over half of the debate. But not only that, Con then claims that Pro conceded because Pro was leaving Debateart because of school. That's not at all what it was if Pro was frequently extending the arguments many times.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Nemiroff // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points to con for arguments and sources
>Reason for Decision: Con successfully redefined the meaning of verse cited by pro, while also expanding it using the context that surrounded it. After that pro seemed to have gone on defense as con made successful arguments, backing them up when challenged.
>Reason for Mod Action:To award argument points, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision. To award sources points, the voter must (1) explain how the debaters' sources impacted the debate, (2) directly assess the strength/utility of at least one source in particular cited in the debate, and (3) explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's. None of this is properly done
************************************************************************
Good luck!
That wouldn't be a bad idea.
Debate over. Please vote
Probably because there was confusion whether this debate should be viewed as a concession or ff.
Yeah, and I saw that. It was kind of a catch-22, but bsh made the final ruling. I am in agreement with his decision.
@everyone - see below
*******************************************************************
This debate has perplexed the mod team for quite some time. On one hand, con full forfeited even though pro made a forum post to concede all debates. In this instance, bsh ruled that because this is a full forfeit, all votes must go to Pro. Any votes for con will be removed
*******************************************************************
This debate is a full forfeit, thus waterphoenix vote is not moderated
This debate is a full forfeit, thus waterphoenix vote is not moderated
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: PressF4Respect // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 7 points to pro
>Reason for Decision: See below
Reason for Mod Action>Reason for Mod Action: None of this RFD is sufficient per our standards. The voter fails to properly evaluate and weigh the points given. Please review the COC https://www.debateart.com/rules
******************************************************************