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: Gatorade // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 6 points to pro for arguments, grammar, and conduct
>Reason for Decision: See below
>Reason for Mod Action: The arguments are borderline, but the rest of the vote cannot stand. 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. Finally To award conduct points, the voter must (1) identify specific instances of misconduct, (2) explain how this misconduct was excessive, unfair, or in breach of the debate's rules, and (3) compare each debater's conduct.
Round 1
CON waives, per description.
PRO brings up points about how Epstein was not watched, PRO also brings up a fake news source called "InfoWars". PRO mostly used conspiracy theories here to prove his point.
Round 2
CON brings up points attacking PRO's sources. These claims are correct, because InfoWars is not a reliable source. But CON does not have any sources backing up his claims of the 'YouTube' video being fake, and has no sources backing up his claims about the gurney photos being fake either.
PRO concedes that Epstein could have been murdered. PRO also makes several grammar mistakes, which makes it really hard to read. PRO states that the same guy investigated MLK and JFK, but that is simply not true. PRO also states that "he doesn't want to bring up fake news" which is just a simple way of stating "I'm to lazy to refute your claims".
ROUND 3
CON makes grammar mistakes in this round too, which makes it sort of hard to read, but nowhere close to the amount of PRO. CON rebuts PRO's points.
PRO should not have answered this round as BOP per CON's first argument rules.
ARGUMENT
CON convinced me.
SOURCES
Both had terrible sources.
GRAMMAR
PRO had the grammar of a five year old.
CONDUCT
PRO should've forfeited last round.
Fair enough. If you're interested, I"d also like to redo our Resurrection debate. Perhaps just copy and paste everything we did before and I will just have to do the final round. It's a shame I lost just because of that one round, but that's the nature of debates like that.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Risky112 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: Full points to pro
>Reason for Decision: I like drinking Gatorade.
>Reason for Mod Action: This vote is not eligible 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: christopher_best // Mod action:
>Points Awarded: Tie
>Reason for Decision: Let's be diplomatic and make this a tie. I found both the arguments "another round, another forfeit" and "forfeited" rather convincing and brilliant.
>Reason for Mod Action: This vote is not eligible 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.
\
************************************************************************
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
I have no idea how to use YouTube live.
Thanks. I need to do more live debates. Sadly, I have no idea how to do them anymore since hangouts on air is dead.
Removed for the same reason below.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Gatorade // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 6 points to pro for arguments, grammar, and conduct
>Reason for Decision: See below
>Reason for Mod Action: The arguments are borderline, but the rest of the vote cannot stand. 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. Finally To award conduct points, the voter must (1) identify specific instances of misconduct, (2) explain how this misconduct was excessive, unfair, or in breach of the debate's rules, and (3) compare each debater's conduct.
************************************************************************
Round 1
CON waives, per description.
PRO brings up points about how Epstein was not watched, PRO also brings up a fake news source called "InfoWars". PRO mostly used conspiracy theories here to prove his point.
Round 2
CON brings up points attacking PRO's sources. These claims are correct, because InfoWars is not a reliable source. But CON does not have any sources backing up his claims of the 'YouTube' video being fake, and has no sources backing up his claims about the gurney photos being fake either.
PRO concedes that Epstein could have been murdered. PRO also makes several grammar mistakes, which makes it really hard to read. PRO states that the same guy investigated MLK and JFK, but that is simply not true. PRO also states that "he doesn't want to bring up fake news" which is just a simple way of stating "I'm to lazy to refute your claims".
ROUND 3
CON makes grammar mistakes in this round too, which makes it sort of hard to read, but nowhere close to the amount of PRO. CON rebuts PRO's points.
PRO should not have answered this round as BOP per CON's first argument rules.
ARGUMENT
CON convinced me.
SOURCES
Both had terrible sources.
GRAMMAR
PRO had the grammar of a five year old.
CONDUCT
PRO should've forfeited last round.
Debate over. Please vote
There are literally thousands of secular Jews
JS Bach
Yes I am Jewish
OK awesome!
Fair enough. If you're interested, I"d also like to redo our Resurrection debate. Perhaps just copy and paste everything we did before and I will just have to do the final round. It's a shame I lost just because of that one round, but that's the nature of debates like that.
Technically I'm an Agnostic Theist with more leanings on the Agnostic side. Wanna accept?
A bit of both.
yep
Fair enough. You can now vote.
It says you have not yet read the site's code of conduct. There is a medal you receive when you read and accept the code of conduct.
No problem. Pentatonix is fantastic!
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Risky112 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: Full points to pro
>Reason for Decision: I like drinking Gatorade.
>Reason for Mod Action: This vote is not eligible 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: christopher_best // Mod action:
>Points Awarded: Tie
>Reason for Decision: Let's be diplomatic and make this a tie. I found both the arguments "another round, another forfeit" and "forfeited" rather convincing and brilliant.
>Reason for Mod Action: This vote is not eligible 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.
\
************************************************************************