*******************************************************************
>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
******************************************************************
Con dropped all points that pro made, and didn't try to counter any of pro's arguments at all.
Con did not provide any sources, either.
Slight edge to Pro for spelling + grammar as well.
Con also forfeited last round, which is poor conduct
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ragnar// Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 7 points to pro
>Reason for Decision: See below
Reason for Mod Action>Reason for Mod Action: This RFD is fine except for the spelling and grammar point.
In order to award spelling and grammar (S&G) points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Give specific examples of S&G errors
Explain how these errors were excessive
Compare each debater's S&G from the debate
S&G errors are considered excessive when they render arguments incoherent or incomprehensible.
Although the voter did compare the grammar with the other side, ragnar did not explain why it was excessive and rendered the arguments incoherent or incomprehensible. It's not enough to vote for grammar for one or two minor spelling mistakes.
For this, let X=0.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999...
Arguments:
Pro showed with examples of mathematical proof that X is verifiably not less than 1. Con counters that 1 is greater than anything less than 1, but failed to in any way even try to connect this to X (if X is less than 1 by some bit, he needs to show that bit existing; whereas con showed that there is no last decimal place for the missing 0.00000000000000000000000000...1 to occur).
Sources:
So the Brit site StudyMath.co.uk bolstered that pro's proofs were valid, and Wikipedia that it was sound, due to people having worked this out long ago.
Con offered nothing, not even a challenege against the authority of that third party verification of pro's case (it's pretty essential on a debate like this, so the absence of it hurts more than the normal dropping of sources).
S&G:
Missing punctuation, capitalization, etc. Here's a gem (pasting a whole round here...): "you are splitting hairs , literally!"
Pro on the other hand was perfectly legible.
Conduct:
Forfeiture from con, no issues from pro.
Offered neg case:
There are two ways con could have conceivably won...
1. Argue that pro is launching a truism, which would make this an unmoderated troll debate.
2. Use the ≈ to demonstrate that while X is effectively 1, it is more true to say that X≈1 than to say X=1. ... Before reading this debate, that would have been my case, but I am now convinced (so it would have been a losing argument to me due to pro's argumentation skill, but it would have been a valid if unsound argument to make, which truly could have turned other voters... and yes, if well argued I could have voted in favor of it even while now disagreeing).
3. As a bonus I would have rejected offhand, a Kritik against our number system for not really existing such as the lengthy one carried out in the comment section. A slightly better one can be found within a single post here:
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: Tied
>Reason for Decision: While Cons argument was very weak and ignorant, I must award him the point as they at least didn't fully forfeit.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter awarded this as a tie, but the RFD says that the point goes to con. I am assuming that they made a mistake with their vote.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: NotClub // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to pro for arguments, 1 point to con for conduct
>Reason for Decision: Concession
>Reason for Mod Action: Users are not allowed to vote on their own debate. Their voting privileges has been suspended.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: [RationalMadman] // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: All points tied
>Reason for Decision: I will like to know what the fuck this is and why I must give Con a single point
>Reason for Mod Action: In order to award a tie, one still needs to analyze the arguments and why they left the arguments as a tie.
************************************************************************
*************************
Since you have not completed 2 debates, you don't meet the eligibility requirements. Note that 'completed' means that it is in the voting stage or is finished the voting stage.
*************************
A boy and a girl both "consent" to go out and rob a bank. They manage to avoid getting caught, they make off with all the money, and they have committed the perfect robbery.
Then, later on, the girl "comes forward" saying that, during the robbery, she was raped by the boy, and she claims she is a rape victim.
Exile's argument is basically that, in a scenario like this one, immunity should be declined, and that both the boy and girl should be punished for robbing the bank, while the boy is punished even more if it turns out to be true that he raped the girl.
RationalMadman's argument is basically that, in a scenario like this one that I mentioned, the so-called "rape victim" should be forgiven for robbing the bank while the boy is punished for robbing the bank, and punished even more if it turns out to be true that he also raped the girl.
Normally, I would side with Exile and award the point(s) to him, since it's obviously better that they both be punished for robbing a bank, rather than having only 1 of them be punished while the other gets away with it and potentially robs another bank or something, which is what RationalMadman wants.
However, it gets tricky, here, since, if you side with Exile and decline immunity, then you run the risk of having neither the boy nor the girl report their robbery, and you risk allowing BOTH of them to get away with robbery since it was not reported, instead of having them both be punished for the robbery.
Choosing whether to side with Exile or RationalMadman for this debate is basically choosing between having a 50% chance of catching both criminals but also another 50% chance of catching none at all (Exile), OR, having a 100% chance of nabbing at least 1 criminal and having 'em face justice but at the drawback of having a 0% chance of having the other criminal face justice for that crime (RationalMadman), respectively.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: OnDaWay // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 6 points to pro for arguments, sources, and conduct
>Reason for Decision: What a good debate.
>Reason for Mod Action: This account is ineligible to vote. In order to vote, an account must: (1) Read the site’s COC AND have completed 2 non-troll/non-FF debate OR have 100 forum posts. Moreover, none of his points are sufficiently explained per the COC's standards.
Please see the rules: https://www.debateart.com/rules
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: NealDoesDebate // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to pro
>Reason for Decision: He had a better points.
>Reason for Mod Action: This account is ineligible to vote. In order to vote, an account must: (1) Read the site’s COC AND have completed 2 non-troll/non-FF debate OR have 100 forum posts. Moreover, none of his points are sufficiently explained per the COC's standards.
Please see the rules: https://www.debateart.com/rules
************************************************************************
Conceded debates are not moderated and thus will not be removed unless they vote for the conceding side. This debate kinda perplexed me because Con did explicitly state in a forum topic that he concedes the debate; however because the final round was posted, we cannot allow voters to use that forum topic as a reason to vote.
As such, Dr.Franklin and semperfortis' vote is hereby removed.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Nicko/Exile // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: Points to con for forfeit
>Reason for Mod Action: These accounts are ineligible to vote. In order to vote, an account must: (1) Read the site’s COC AND have completed 2 non-troll/non-FF debate OR have 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
******************************************************************
Con dropped all points that pro made, and didn't try to counter any of pro's arguments at all.
Con did not provide any sources, either.
Slight edge to Pro for spelling + grammar as well.
Con also forfeited last round, which is poor conduct
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ragnar// Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 7 points to pro
>Reason for Decision: See below
Reason for Mod Action>Reason for Mod Action: This RFD is fine except for the spelling and grammar point.
In order to award spelling and grammar (S&G) points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Give specific examples of S&G errors
Explain how these errors were excessive
Compare each debater's S&G from the debate
S&G errors are considered excessive when they render arguments incoherent or incomprehensible.
Although the voter did compare the grammar with the other side, ragnar did not explain why it was excessive and rendered the arguments incoherent or incomprehensible. It's not enough to vote for grammar for one or two minor spelling mistakes.
*******************************************************************
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1392/comment_links/19718
For this, let X=0.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999...
Arguments:
Pro showed with examples of mathematical proof that X is verifiably not less than 1. Con counters that 1 is greater than anything less than 1, but failed to in any way even try to connect this to X (if X is less than 1 by some bit, he needs to show that bit existing; whereas con showed that there is no last decimal place for the missing 0.00000000000000000000000000...1 to occur).
Sources:
So the Brit site StudyMath.co.uk bolstered that pro's proofs were valid, and Wikipedia that it was sound, due to people having worked this out long ago.
Con offered nothing, not even a challenege against the authority of that third party verification of pro's case (it's pretty essential on a debate like this, so the absence of it hurts more than the normal dropping of sources).
S&G:
Missing punctuation, capitalization, etc. Here's a gem (pasting a whole round here...): "you are splitting hairs , literally!"
Pro on the other hand was perfectly legible.
Conduct:
Forfeiture from con, no issues from pro.
Offered neg case:
There are two ways con could have conceivably won...
1. Argue that pro is launching a truism, which would make this an unmoderated troll debate.
2. Use the ≈ to demonstrate that while X is effectively 1, it is more true to say that X≈1 than to say X=1. ... Before reading this debate, that would have been my case, but I am now convinced (so it would have been a losing argument to me due to pro's argumentation skill, but it would have been a valid if unsound argument to make, which truly could have turned other voters... and yes, if well argued I could have voted in favor of it even while now disagreeing).
3. As a bonus I would have rejected offhand, a Kritik against our number system for not really existing such as the lengthy one carried out in the comment section. A slightly better one can be found within a single post here:
Want to debate me on this?
Thank you.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: Tied
>Reason for Decision: While Cons argument was very weak and ignorant, I must award him the point as they at least didn't fully forfeit.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter awarded this as a tie, but the RFD says that the point goes to con. I am assuming that they made a mistake with their vote.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: NotClub // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to pro for arguments, 1 point to con for conduct
>Reason for Decision: Concession
>Reason for Mod Action: Users are not allowed to vote on their own debate. Their voting privileges has been suspended.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: [RationalMadman] // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: All points tied
>Reason for Decision: I will like to know what the fuck this is and why I must give Con a single point
>Reason for Mod Action: In order to award a tie, one still needs to analyze the arguments and why they left the arguments as a tie.
************************************************************************
Awesome. I'm glad I was able to inspire someone to debate : D
Looks like a fun debate
Yeah, you're right. I was looking at the wrong part. I do apologize. @christen - you may recast your vote.
*************************
Since you have not completed 2 debates, you don't meet the eligibility requirements. Note that 'completed' means that it is in the voting stage or is finished the voting stage.
*************************
A boy and a girl both "consent" to go out and rob a bank. They manage to avoid getting caught, they make off with all the money, and they have committed the perfect robbery.
Then, later on, the girl "comes forward" saying that, during the robbery, she was raped by the boy, and she claims she is a rape victim.
Exile's argument is basically that, in a scenario like this one, immunity should be declined, and that both the boy and girl should be punished for robbing the bank, while the boy is punished even more if it turns out to be true that he raped the girl.
RationalMadman's argument is basically that, in a scenario like this one that I mentioned, the so-called "rape victim" should be forgiven for robbing the bank while the boy is punished for robbing the bank, and punished even more if it turns out to be true that he also raped the girl.
Normally, I would side with Exile and award the point(s) to him, since it's obviously better that they both be punished for robbing a bank, rather than having only 1 of them be punished while the other gets away with it and potentially robs another bank or something, which is what RationalMadman wants.
However, it gets tricky, here, since, if you side with Exile and decline immunity, then you run the risk of having neither the boy nor the girl report their robbery, and you risk allowing BOTH of them to get away with robbery since it was not reported, instead of having them both be punished for the robbery.
Choosing whether to side with Exile or RationalMadman for this debate is basically choosing between having a 50% chance of catching both criminals but also another 50% chance of catching none at all (Exile), OR, having a 100% chance of nabbing at least 1 criminal and having 'em face justice but at the drawback of having a 0% chance of having the other criminal face justice for that crime (RationalMadman), respectively.
************************
RM's vote is bordelrine, thus it is allowed to stay
***********************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: OnDaWay // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 6 points to pro for arguments, sources, and conduct
>Reason for Decision: What a good debate.
>Reason for Mod Action: This account is ineligible to vote. In order to vote, an account must: (1) Read the site’s COC AND have completed 2 non-troll/non-FF debate OR have 100 forum posts. Moreover, none of his points are sufficiently explained per the COC's standards.
Please see the rules: https://www.debateart.com/rules
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: NealDoesDebate // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to pro
>Reason for Decision: He had a better points.
>Reason for Mod Action: This account is ineligible to vote. In order to vote, an account must: (1) Read the site’s COC AND have completed 2 non-troll/non-FF debate OR have 100 forum posts. Moreover, none of his points are sufficiently explained per the COC's standards.
Please see the rules: https://www.debateart.com/rules
************************************************************************
Rofl! It was indeed a deep rap.
Lol
Please see below.
Some moderator notes about votes on this debate:
Conceded debates are not moderated and thus will not be removed unless they vote for the conceding side. This debate kinda perplexed me because Con did explicitly state in a forum topic that he concedes the debate; however because the final round was posted, we cannot allow voters to use that forum topic as a reason to vote.
As such, Dr.Franklin and semperfortis' vote is hereby removed.
As RM said, 2/5 isn't half and thus your vote cannot stand. It is removed
****************************************
Vote reported: Imabench // Mod Action: Not removed
Reason: This vote is sufficient per the standards.
****************************************
https://www.debateart.com/rules
Your votes are removed as you are ineligible to vote. Trent's vote is removed since CVB are removed
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Nicko/Exile // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: Points to con for forfeit
>Reason for Mod Action: These accounts are ineligible to vote. In order to vote, an account must: (1) Read the site’s COC AND have completed 2 non-troll/non-FF debate OR have 100 forum posts.
************************************************************************
Good. I need some easy wins to bring up my win ratio!
Rather irrelevant to the debate.
***************************
Press for respect's vote has been removed and dr. franklin's counter vote bomb has been removed.
"I can't do this today."
Counts as a forfeit
***************************
MOD NOTE: This debate is unmoderated as this is a conceded debate.
"By Virtuoso" simply means that I carried out the ban. If a ban says "By bsh1" it means that bsh1 carried out the ban.
Rofl