"Practicality in Virtuality (source 2) was available in full, as was Effects of Game (source 3). Only Source 1 and 4 were behind a pay wall,"
I found 3/4 sources behind paywall except for the "abstract" portions, as the voter said. Again, whether this is enough to warrant source point allocation is unclear, but there was a comparison between the two of you given and there was elaboration as to how this damaged your case... hence the borderline decision. If you want to appeal the decision you may.
"I reposted Source 1's full link here."
Really it's irrelevant to my decision on the vote whether you provided sources to him after the fact or not. He didn't have that source at the time he voted. If he wants to retract the source point now that's one thing. But I won't delete the vote because you provided your source after the debate time elapsed.
"He also said source 4 wasn't really relevant since con's arg wasn't based on that."
I made sure to criticize him for the use of outside content. But that isn't in of itself enough to warrant vote removal if he pairs it with valid justifications also.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Fruit_Inspector // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:5 (5 points awarded to CON)
>Reason for Decision: See Vote Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
This vote came dangerously close to removal due to the following excerpt from the new voting policy (https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy):
"While a voter may choose to, there is no requirement to study any source beyond the precise part(s) quoted or paraphrased by either debater (and even then, within reason). Further, overly studying a source beyond what was presented, risks basing a vote upon the outside content of your own analysis instead of that offered by the debaters. If neither debater even alluded to details from a source a voter mentions, the vote has probably crossed this line. The one exception where it is acceptable to do this would be a situation in which the voter notices one side blatantly lying about what is present in their source (even if that criticism wasn’t brought up by the opponent). Note that this does not include implied warrants (For example, Debater A gives a statistic of rising temperatures and says “this source supports my argument that people will be eating more ice cream in the years to come”... The warrant here is implied, not explicitly stated. The voter should not use this as an excuse to say Debater A lied about the contents of the source)."
The voter violated this voting standard throughout much of his justifications, clearly reading into the source and basing his decision on his own analysis that CON never echoed nor even alluded to. In sum: much of this was based on outside content.
All the same, the voter made valid points regarding PRO's inaccessibility of sources... (This criticism is fair play, although I wouldn't want to make this criticism common place as many debaters like to cite books). This makes things tougher. While it isn't clear if enough of PRO's case was riding on the inaccessible sources to warrant source point allocation without reading the debate in detail, the voter does say: "I gave this point to CON because his sources were all accessible and were related to his arguments. However, PRO's sources were not used well. In Round 1, only one source was accessible without a paid subscription of some sort." This gives a direct comparison between the two and shows a pretty stark contrast, it also shows that PRO used a large volume of these inaccessible sources instead of just one or two.
Ultimately then, I'm judging this vote as borderline (which is automatically ruled sufficient per moderation policy). While much of the source point allocation was based on fluff outside content, the voter also included valid justifications that prevent this vote from removal.
For future reference, please keep outside analysis out of your source point allocation.
Sure, privately funded entertainment can portray whatever it wants. Parents can choose not to have their children watch or read such things and that's also fine.
Although I am not sure whether it's good to have publicly funded entertainment (i.e. PBS kids) portray controversial things like this because
a.) the government implanting ideological tenets into children is the last thing we want happening.
b.) those who do not agree with homosexuality would be funding the societal embracement of it against their will.
c.) it risks constituting a governmental rejection of religion (debatably, but it would be portrayed this way by many)
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Undefeatable // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 5:0 (5 points awarded to PRO)
>Reason for Decision:
"Con tried many ways to refute pro, but I can’t buy any of his rebuttals because they’re immensely flawed. Pro successfully shows that the suffering of any being should be prevented — Kant does not successfully allow animals’ tortured. I recommend using a different philosophy. Pro used a great environmental argument, even if it wasn’t mentioned many times con did not bat if away successfully. Sources to pro because con mostly only used common sense. In the end, pro has a net benefit analysis that is largely in his favor, while con only had a kritique that not everyone will convert to veganism. Next time, I recommend that con try to resolve the problems with meat industry, because there’s too many problems that he can’t defeat. In addition pro’s suffering argument is near impossible to defeat. Don’t try to refute it using Kant."
>Reason for Mod Action:
So this vote makes it clear that the voter read the debate, but what this vote doesn't do so well is actually weigh arguments against eachother. The voter sort of tallied the points they liked from the PRO side and dismissed CON's side without any word as to what exactly was flawed about their arguments. I will warn the voter as well that, should they revote, their justifications as to why PRO won certain points should not be based on their own opinions about CON's points but rather the refutations PRO gave.
In short:
"To award argument points, the voter must:
(1) survey the main argument and counterargument 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."
Or as I like to call it: do as I say, not as I do!
"It was found that those who fall into the category of generation X lost their virginity (on average) at 18.1, baby boomers at 17.6 and millennials at 17.4 years-old."
Apologies, but I mixed up my PRO's and my CON's a few times in R2. Here is the corrected statements:
1. "CON concedes that China would repeatedly bomb the US in response until they ran out of nuclear weapons, of which they would have about 150 left (200 of which would be used up) undoubtedly resulting in the absolute destruction of the United States as a nation."
This should be:
"PRO concedes that China would repeatedly bomb the US in response until they ran out of nuclear weapons, of which they would have about 150 left (200 of which would be used up) undoubtedly resulting in the absolute destruction of the United States as a nation."
2. "PRO agrees with CON that the world would be thrust into a Dark Age regardless of a response from the US. PRO never claimed otherwise."
This should be:
"CON agrees with PRO that the world would be thrust into a Dark Age regardless of a response from the US. CON never claimed otherwise."
3. "CON’s response is largely a non-response. RECALL & EXTEND that the extinction of humanity is a bad way to preserve it. CON himself describes this as likely in his description: “Further, it may very well lead to the extinction of the human race through nuclear winter and the spread of fallout.”
This should be:
"PRO's response is largely a non-response. RECALL & EXTEND that the extinction of humanity is a bad way to preserve it. PRO himself describes this as likely in his description: “Further, it may very well lead to the extinction of the human race through nuclear winter and the spread of fallout.”
Hi Nikunj! Welcome back. Unfortunately Bear left the site before he could give the concluding post to the tournament, so I made the conclusion post myself:
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5340-the-bearman-tournament-final-results-published-by-the-man-himself-wait-shit-i-meant-bear-himself
- Just to directly quote from my RFD: "What PRO really needed to do was beef up a utilitarian framework from a philosophical deontology vs utilitarian point of view and then really just try and dwarf CON’s impacts."
- But also, you really should've hit hard on CON's idea of loss of autonomy with some libertarian-style philosophy.. Just because you've been offered a sum of money for something doesn't mean you are incapable of making rational decisions, and even if you aren't, it's not the governments job to be your mother. To quote the RFD again: "Should the government treat adults like children who can’t understand things even when explained to them in detail? Why shouldn’t the government give the information necessary for someone to make a decision, and then allow them to make that decision for themselves? Personal responsibility eventually has to take the reins, or else there is no limit to what the government could forbid for “our own good.”
Definitely not in every case. If we truly value human life, we must also be willing to fight to protect it from being devalued. But of course, you can commit war crimes that cross that line into becoming murder.
Guess in response to that you could make a meta-arg about nuclear subs and nuclear aircraft carriers lmao. But yeah, a little gas + match = fun times in California.
The main points I thought of for CON have to do with the following:
1. Nuclear disasters (Chernobyl much)
&
2. Nuclear waste (This shit won't turn you into the hulk, it'll just kill you)
&
3. Higher energy costs killing the poor (Self-explanatory)
But each point has their own refutations, and outweighing is so much easier on the PRO side
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: gugigor // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3:0 (3 points awarded to PRO)
>Reason for Decision: See Vote Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
So this one was pretty tough to make a decision on.
To award argument points, the voter must:
(1) survey the main argument and counterargument 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.
The voter accomplished this, but it was largely accomplished through him stating he did or didn't grasp certain arguments. While it certainly isn't ideal, ultimately I think the vote is sufficient.
Ragnar gave some commentary on it in the mod Discord that pretty much sums up how I feel about this:
"It's one of those things where I dislike it for his lack of understanding of the concepts, but it's the debaters job to explain them while enough and concise enough to the voters, rather than depending on people like me with a religious education."
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Fauxlaw // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:3 (3 points awarded to CON)
>Reason for Decision: See Vote Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Fauxlaw // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 5:1 (5 points awarded to PRO, 1 point awarded to CON)
>Reason for Decision: See Vote Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Fauxlaw // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:6 (6 points awarded to CON)
>Reason for Decision: See Vote Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was borderline. By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient. I would've liked to see a lot more specification on conduct, but ad hominems are of course valid reasons to assign the point.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: gugigor // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 6:0 (6 points awarded to PRO)
>Reason for Decision:
"Since Mods are very slow, I am counter voting fauxlaw for conduct and source.
As for arguments, I believe Pro has won because he displayed it would increase performance of students and allow for greater flexibility not available in real life. This goes largely unaddressed. Con uses an "obligation" argument, but Pro's plan just seems to be a law helping instill funds necessary for more video games. There doesn't seem to be any requirements as far as I'm concerned. Pro is just suggesting that more games would be more helpful for the curriculum. I don't know whether to accept social skills rebuttal or not, since it's a new argument in the final round and Pro couldn't respond."
>Reason for Mod Action:
Awarding points based solely on other votes violates voting guidelines.
Argument: Pro's resolution, description, and argument, call for mandatory [by law, at state level] implementation of video games in school curricula, and offers several sources of studies to demonstrate that video game play can be educationally enhancing. However, Pro does not demonstrate the point that education will be negatively impacted if video games are not part of the curriculum, and this secondary point is Con's major thrust. Video games can be helpful, but they are not a necessity enforced by legal mandate. Pro's argument never successfully overwhelm's the lack of necessity as Con's argument alleges. Pro's BoP was that video game play must be a necessity in school. His "should" argument fails, because he makes it a matter of imposed law to accomplish it. That carries the "should" argument into enforced school administration behavior; that video games must be implemented in the school curriculum. Pro, in effect, bit off more than could be chewed, and would likely have won these points, and the debate as a whole, had he avoided the matter of necessity by law. The Pro suggestion alone, leaving the matter to school districts to decide without the imprimatur of legal requirement would have carried the day. Therefore, Con's rebuttal succeeds. points to Con.
Sources: This factor goes to Con only because Pro's enforcement of his argument, by law, never is supported by scholastic defense of sourcing. No source stipulates that the play of video games as a school curriculum tool ought to be enforced by law. Con's sources limit their reach to defend Con's allegation that while video games may, in fact, have beneficial results, the introduction of them is not a necessity. Points to Con.
S&G: Tie
Conduct: Pro loses this point by his R2 claim that Con dropped the "argument" of Pro's R1 "pre-rebuttal." Being referenced by Pro as a rebuttal to an argument that Con never made does not turn it into an argument for Pro that Con ignores at that point in the debate. Bad form by Pro. Con wins the point.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Fauxlaw // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:6 (6 points awarded to CON)
>Reason for Decision: See Comments
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter did a good job handling arguments but the sources & conduct point is not adequately justified. The voter should revote with these point allocations either removed or more adequately substantiated.
Citing Ragnar here:
"Things not to award sources for (barring for exceptional cases):
- Common knowledge… E.g., that Wikipedia says JFK was the president of a country, is unlikely to enhance any impacts (unless the other side is denying that).
- The subject of the debate… E.g., in a biblical debate, preferring one side’s analysis of the bible itself already speaks directly to the argument points, not exceptional sourcing.
- A lead of only a couple sources, even if only one side had any. While quantity isn’t the standard, there is a minimal threshold for consideration.
- Source spam without relevant analysis by the presenter. Sources are awarded for quality, not mere quantity.
- The voter’s own research on the topic."
This justification plays to the final bullet: "This factor goes to Con only because Pro's enforcement of his argument, by law, never is supported by scholastic defense of sourcing. No source stipulates that the play of video games as a school curriculum tool ought to be enforced by law." This is essentially bringing in outside content into the debate.
Regarding conduct, citing Ragnar again:
"(Point is) Invalid if: Both sides had similar types and/or magnitude of misbehavior, or it is too minor for a reasonable person to be significantly distracted from the topic. Further, a conduct penalty is not warranted for mere dislike for the topical contentions, or for weak argumentation."
The voter has to demonstrate that this behavior from PRO is of sufficient magnitude to distract from the topic.
I think you mixed up PRO and CON lol
"Practicality in Virtuality (source 2) was available in full, as was Effects of Game (source 3). Only Source 1 and 4 were behind a pay wall,"
I found 3/4 sources behind paywall except for the "abstract" portions, as the voter said. Again, whether this is enough to warrant source point allocation is unclear, but there was a comparison between the two of you given and there was elaboration as to how this damaged your case... hence the borderline decision. If you want to appeal the decision you may.
"I reposted Source 1's full link here."
Really it's irrelevant to my decision on the vote whether you provided sources to him after the fact or not. He didn't have that source at the time he voted. If he wants to retract the source point now that's one thing. But I won't delete the vote because you provided your source after the debate time elapsed.
"He also said source 4 wasn't really relevant since con's arg wasn't based on that."
I made sure to criticize him for the use of outside content. But that isn't in of itself enough to warrant vote removal if he pairs it with valid justifications also.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Fruit_Inspector // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:5 (5 points awarded to CON)
>Reason for Decision: See Vote Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
This vote came dangerously close to removal due to the following excerpt from the new voting policy (https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy):
"While a voter may choose to, there is no requirement to study any source beyond the precise part(s) quoted or paraphrased by either debater (and even then, within reason). Further, overly studying a source beyond what was presented, risks basing a vote upon the outside content of your own analysis instead of that offered by the debaters. If neither debater even alluded to details from a source a voter mentions, the vote has probably crossed this line. The one exception where it is acceptable to do this would be a situation in which the voter notices one side blatantly lying about what is present in their source (even if that criticism wasn’t brought up by the opponent). Note that this does not include implied warrants (For example, Debater A gives a statistic of rising temperatures and says “this source supports my argument that people will be eating more ice cream in the years to come”... The warrant here is implied, not explicitly stated. The voter should not use this as an excuse to say Debater A lied about the contents of the source)."
The voter violated this voting standard throughout much of his justifications, clearly reading into the source and basing his decision on his own analysis that CON never echoed nor even alluded to. In sum: much of this was based on outside content.
All the same, the voter made valid points regarding PRO's inaccessibility of sources... (This criticism is fair play, although I wouldn't want to make this criticism common place as many debaters like to cite books). This makes things tougher. While it isn't clear if enough of PRO's case was riding on the inaccessible sources to warrant source point allocation without reading the debate in detail, the voter does say: "I gave this point to CON because his sources were all accessible and were related to his arguments. However, PRO's sources were not used well. In Round 1, only one source was accessible without a paid subscription of some sort." This gives a direct comparison between the two and shows a pretty stark contrast, it also shows that PRO used a large volume of these inaccessible sources instead of just one or two.
Ultimately then, I'm judging this vote as borderline (which is automatically ruled sufficient per moderation policy). While much of the source point allocation was based on fluff outside content, the voter also included valid justifications that prevent this vote from removal.
For future reference, please keep outside analysis out of your source point allocation.
*wakes up*
yknow, I think I'll start liking dick now
Sure, privately funded entertainment can portray whatever it wants. Parents can choose not to have their children watch or read such things and that's also fine.
Although I am not sure whether it's good to have publicly funded entertainment (i.e. PBS kids) portray controversial things like this because
a.) the government implanting ideological tenets into children is the last thing we want happening.
b.) those who do not agree with homosexuality would be funding the societal embracement of it against their will.
c.) it risks constituting a governmental rejection of religion (debatably, but it would be portrayed this way by many)
At least we know we agree.
jinx.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Undefeatable // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 5:0 (5 points awarded to PRO)
>Reason for Decision:
"Con tried many ways to refute pro, but I can’t buy any of his rebuttals because they’re immensely flawed. Pro successfully shows that the suffering of any being should be prevented — Kant does not successfully allow animals’ tortured. I recommend using a different philosophy. Pro used a great environmental argument, even if it wasn’t mentioned many times con did not bat if away successfully. Sources to pro because con mostly only used common sense. In the end, pro has a net benefit analysis that is largely in his favor, while con only had a kritique that not everyone will convert to veganism. Next time, I recommend that con try to resolve the problems with meat industry, because there’s too many problems that he can’t defeat. In addition pro’s suffering argument is near impossible to defeat. Don’t try to refute it using Kant."
>Reason for Mod Action:
So this vote makes it clear that the voter read the debate, but what this vote doesn't do so well is actually weigh arguments against eachother. The voter sort of tallied the points they liked from the PRO side and dismissed CON's side without any word as to what exactly was flawed about their arguments. I will warn the voter as well that, should they revote, their justifications as to why PRO won certain points should not be based on their own opinions about CON's points but rather the refutations PRO gave.
In short:
"To award argument points, the voter must:
(1) survey the main argument and counterargument 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."
Really the only way to make abstinence only education effective is to couple it with religious indoctrination and severe social ostracism.
Or as I like to call it: do as I say, not as I do!
"It was found that those who fall into the category of generation X lost their virginity (on average) at 18.1, baby boomers at 17.6 and millennials at 17.4 years-old."
https://www.indy100.com/offbeat/average-age-people-lose-their-virginity-dred-study-gay-men-women-millenials-baby-boomers-generation-x-8204266
I will review it if I have the time. Ragnar, if you can get to it before me, that'd be great as I'm pretty busy atm
Apologies, but I mixed up my PRO's and my CON's a few times in R2. Here is the corrected statements:
1. "CON concedes that China would repeatedly bomb the US in response until they ran out of nuclear weapons, of which they would have about 150 left (200 of which would be used up) undoubtedly resulting in the absolute destruction of the United States as a nation."
This should be:
"PRO concedes that China would repeatedly bomb the US in response until they ran out of nuclear weapons, of which they would have about 150 left (200 of which would be used up) undoubtedly resulting in the absolute destruction of the United States as a nation."
2. "PRO agrees with CON that the world would be thrust into a Dark Age regardless of a response from the US. PRO never claimed otherwise."
This should be:
"CON agrees with PRO that the world would be thrust into a Dark Age regardless of a response from the US. CON never claimed otherwise."
3. "CON’s response is largely a non-response. RECALL & EXTEND that the extinction of humanity is a bad way to preserve it. CON himself describes this as likely in his description: “Further, it may very well lead to the extinction of the human race through nuclear winter and the spread of fallout.”
This should be:
"PRO's response is largely a non-response. RECALL & EXTEND that the extinction of humanity is a bad way to preserve it. PRO himself describes this as likely in his description: “Further, it may very well lead to the extinction of the human race through nuclear winter and the spread of fallout.”
Generally I do like to wait. It's best to read the arguments, marinate on them for a few days, and then see what you have come up with.
Also, congrats on making BABY BEAR!
Hi Nikunj! Welcome back. Unfortunately Bear left the site before he could give the concluding post to the tournament, so I made the conclusion post myself:
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5340-the-bearman-tournament-final-results-published-by-the-man-himself-wait-shit-i-meant-bear-himself
worse case scenario, we could both waive R2 and I'd have a bit more time but I think I'll have it done
I will be posting my R2 a bit last minute tomorrow. I'd work on it more tonight but I am braindead
Yes, I feel like I'll hit 20k and then have to whittle it down to 15k
About 25% through the rebuttal... Gotta say, I'm starting to wish we had a higher character count here. Oh well
Vote bump.
Vote bump.
Great! On behalf of the debaters: it is much appreciated.
any of you willing and able to vote?
prolly can't vote on this one in time... sorry
Really my main advice is twofold:
- Just to directly quote from my RFD: "What PRO really needed to do was beef up a utilitarian framework from a philosophical deontology vs utilitarian point of view and then really just try and dwarf CON’s impacts."
- But also, you really should've hit hard on CON's idea of loss of autonomy with some libertarian-style philosophy.. Just because you've been offered a sum of money for something doesn't mean you are incapable of making rational decisions, and even if you aren't, it's not the governments job to be your mother. To quote the RFD again: "Should the government treat adults like children who can’t understand things even when explained to them in detail? Why shouldn’t the government give the information necessary for someone to make a decision, and then allow them to make that decision for themselves? Personal responsibility eventually has to take the reins, or else there is no limit to what the government could forbid for “our own good.”
In my opinion, not necessarily
Mostly what I mean is situations like Bunker Hill.
The British took their objective, but the Americans defended the position so well that taking the objective wasn't truly a "win" for the British.
Hmmm... "winning" is ambiguous and depends on what the objective is. I guess that's for the better if you're CON however.
Towards what end?
Suppression, survival or the elimination of the enemy?
War is ugly in general. It's best used when the alternative is uglier.
Yeah for sure. You can be justified in your war on paper but fuck it up with awful conduct
Yeah. I think WWII was a prime example of that.
Definitely not in every case. If we truly value human life, we must also be willing to fight to protect it from being devalued. But of course, you can commit war crimes that cross that line into becoming murder.
Guess in response to that you could make a meta-arg about nuclear subs and nuclear aircraft carriers lmao. But yeah, a little gas + match = fun times in California.
The main points I thought of for CON have to do with the following:
1. Nuclear disasters (Chernobyl much)
&
2. Nuclear waste (This shit won't turn you into the hulk, it'll just kill you)
&
3. Higher energy costs killing the poor (Self-explanatory)
But each point has their own refutations, and outweighing is so much easier on the PRO side
There's a good debate to be had here, but the literature favors PRO enough to where I'll pass I think.
planning on voting. I'll get started today
Yeah I cut it pretty close due to schoolwork, hopefully it didn't hurt the quality of my arguments too bad.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: gugigor // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3:0 (3 points awarded to PRO)
>Reason for Decision: See Vote Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
So this one was pretty tough to make a decision on.
To award argument points, the voter must:
(1) survey the main argument and counterargument 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.
The voter accomplished this, but it was largely accomplished through him stating he did or didn't grasp certain arguments. While it certainly isn't ideal, ultimately I think the vote is sufficient.
Ragnar gave some commentary on it in the mod Discord that pretty much sums up how I feel about this:
"It's one of those things where I dislike it for his lack of understanding of the concepts, but it's the debaters job to explain them while enough and concise enough to the voters, rather than depending on people like me with a religious education."
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Fauxlaw // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:3 (3 points awarded to CON)
>Reason for Decision: See Vote Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Fauxlaw // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 5:1 (5 points awarded to PRO, 1 point awarded to CON)
>Reason for Decision: See Vote Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Fauxlaw // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:6 (6 points awarded to CON)
>Reason for Decision: See Vote Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was borderline. By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient. I would've liked to see a lot more specification on conduct, but ad hominems are of course valid reasons to assign the point.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: gugigor // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 6:0 (6 points awarded to PRO)
>Reason for Decision:
"Since Mods are very slow, I am counter voting fauxlaw for conduct and source.
As for arguments, I believe Pro has won because he displayed it would increase performance of students and allow for greater flexibility not available in real life. This goes largely unaddressed. Con uses an "obligation" argument, but Pro's plan just seems to be a law helping instill funds necessary for more video games. There doesn't seem to be any requirements as far as I'm concerned. Pro is just suggesting that more games would be more helpful for the curriculum. I don't know whether to accept social skills rebuttal or not, since it's a new argument in the final round and Pro couldn't respond."
>Reason for Mod Action:
Awarding points based solely on other votes violates voting guidelines.
Argument: Pro's resolution, description, and argument, call for mandatory [by law, at state level] implementation of video games in school curricula, and offers several sources of studies to demonstrate that video game play can be educationally enhancing. However, Pro does not demonstrate the point that education will be negatively impacted if video games are not part of the curriculum, and this secondary point is Con's major thrust. Video games can be helpful, but they are not a necessity enforced by legal mandate. Pro's argument never successfully overwhelm's the lack of necessity as Con's argument alleges. Pro's BoP was that video game play must be a necessity in school. His "should" argument fails, because he makes it a matter of imposed law to accomplish it. That carries the "should" argument into enforced school administration behavior; that video games must be implemented in the school curriculum. Pro, in effect, bit off more than could be chewed, and would likely have won these points, and the debate as a whole, had he avoided the matter of necessity by law. The Pro suggestion alone, leaving the matter to school districts to decide without the imprimatur of legal requirement would have carried the day. Therefore, Con's rebuttal succeeds. points to Con.
Sources: This factor goes to Con only because Pro's enforcement of his argument, by law, never is supported by scholastic defense of sourcing. No source stipulates that the play of video games as a school curriculum tool ought to be enforced by law. Con's sources limit their reach to defend Con's allegation that while video games may, in fact, have beneficial results, the introduction of them is not a necessity. Points to Con.
S&G: Tie
Conduct: Pro loses this point by his R2 claim that Con dropped the "argument" of Pro's R1 "pre-rebuttal." Being referenced by Pro as a rebuttal to an argument that Con never made does not turn it into an argument for Pro that Con ignores at that point in the debate. Bad form by Pro. Con wins the point.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Fauxlaw // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:6 (6 points awarded to CON)
>Reason for Decision: See Comments
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter did a good job handling arguments but the sources & conduct point is not adequately justified. The voter should revote with these point allocations either removed or more adequately substantiated.
Citing Ragnar here:
"Things not to award sources for (barring for exceptional cases):
- Common knowledge… E.g., that Wikipedia says JFK was the president of a country, is unlikely to enhance any impacts (unless the other side is denying that).
- The subject of the debate… E.g., in a biblical debate, preferring one side’s analysis of the bible itself already speaks directly to the argument points, not exceptional sourcing.
- A lead of only a couple sources, even if only one side had any. While quantity isn’t the standard, there is a minimal threshold for consideration.
- Source spam without relevant analysis by the presenter. Sources are awarded for quality, not mere quantity.
- The voter’s own research on the topic."
This justification plays to the final bullet: "This factor goes to Con only because Pro's enforcement of his argument, by law, never is supported by scholastic defense of sourcing. No source stipulates that the play of video games as a school curriculum tool ought to be enforced by law." This is essentially bringing in outside content into the debate.
Regarding conduct, citing Ragnar again:
"(Point is) Invalid if: Both sides had similar types and/or magnitude of misbehavior, or it is too minor for a reasonable person to be significantly distracted from the topic. Further, a conduct penalty is not warranted for mere dislike for the topical contentions, or for weak argumentation."
The voter has to demonstrate that this behavior from PRO is of sufficient magnitude to distract from the topic.
ah... this will be fun. Glad I gave myself 2 weeks lol
I'll most likely get my R1 finished before the time elapses. If not I'll simply waive and post it later
thanks for the the quick and concise RFD & feedback. I agree on a lot of points you make. Live debating is tufff ;-;
If I do vote, it probably won't be as detailed as I'd normally like
Oh shit that reminds me I was gonna vote on this one. I'll see if I can get that done tonight but it may not happen