>Vote: Barney // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 5 to Con (Arguments, Sources), 1 to Pro (Conduct)
>Reason for Decision:
See Votes Tab and the following two links:
#10 https://www.debateart.com/debates/5926/comments/62827
#18 https://www.debateart.com/debates/5926/comments/62879
>Reason for Removal:
The voter sufficiently explains their reasoning for awarding all points, providing an extensive accounting of the arguments presented and how he viewed them in the comments with some additions in the the vote itself. The source points are sufficiently explained by pointing to how those sources were defended, which focuses on the quality of their usage rather than their quantity. And the conduct point allocation rewards some good behavior on the part of Pro that seems justified.
**************************************************
>Vote: McMieky // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to Pro (Arguments), 2 to Con (Legibility, Conduct)
>Reason for Decision:
i really liked both sides of this argument
>Reason for Removal:
The voter does not explain their decision. An RFD must include reasoning for awarding points and this just expresses the voter's appreciation for the debate. That is not sufficient to award points.
**************************************************
First off, Barney is just like any other user. His votes can be removed if there is a basis for doing so. I'll look over his vote as well.
Second, and I've mentioned this before, the constant haranguing of voters needs to stop. Each of the voters on this debate has been willing to deal with it, but with this many comments aimed at challenging every facet of every vote that has been cast against you, it's bound to have a chilling effect on other voters who might post a vote against you. At this point, you've more than made your case, so please just leave it here or, if you must, keep it to personal contact with either me or the voters if they are willing.
>Vote: CatholicApologetics // Mod action: Removed at the Request of the Voter
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to Con (Arguments)
>Reason for Decision:
The debate centers on whether dreams have divine or spiritual significance, with Pro asserting that some dreams are divinely inspired and Con maintaining that dreams are purely physical phenomena. Pro leans heavily on Islamic theology and personal anecdotes to make their case, arguing that the spiritual nature of dreams transcends scientific understanding. Con counters by emphasizing the need for empirical evidence and dismissing religious and anecdotal claims as unverifiable and subjective. A major flaw in Pro’s argument is their reliance on the Quran as a foundational source. Without proving the validity of the Quran as a scholarly or universally accepted authority, their theological arguments lack weight for readers outside that religious framework. Furthermore, Pro's anecdotal evidence, while emotionally compelling, cannot withstand Con’s critique of subjectivity and confirmation bias. Con effectively highlights these weaknesses by pointing to the unverifiable nature of Pro’s claims and questioning the universality of their arguments, particularly when other religions could make similar claims. In Round 3, the debate continues with both sides expanding on their earlier positions.
Ultimately, Con's approach is more grounded and methodical, relying on empirical evidence and logical coherence. This is why their arguments bear significantly more weight. They successfully dismantle Pro's arguments without relying on equally speculative or unverifiable claims. Con’s ability to focus on the lack of substantive proof in Pro’s case, combined with their demand for a higher standard of evidence, makes their position more persuasive. As a voter prioritizing verifiable and universally applicable arguments, I choose Con.
**************************************************
You know you can just tag me once instead of spamming me with each individual response, right?
I’m not getting to this until later anyway, so if your goal is to alert me to each point one at a time, this isn’t helping. It’s just adding to a growing list of notifications and emails.
You can tag me anytime. Considering I’m getting a lot of tags from this debate already, you don’t have to do so, as I’m bound to read through all of this anyway, but you can do so anyway.
A) I really don't have to look far to see what you've done right here. It's pretty clear that you've made a very large and expansive effort to call out someone who voted against you and the back-and-forth with Americandebater has been... acrimonious. You're clearly frustrated. Even if you feel that it's warranted, this is more than a bit much, and you've continued to ping him over and over despite requests to stop.
B) I've explained my decision and pointed out that voters are not required to cover every single point presented in the debate to have a sufficient RFD. Voters are required to show that they read and considered a variety of arguments presented throughout the debate, and Lemming's vote is clearly not based on just a single source that you presented. I disagree that "adding arguments in last round is is not allowed for instigators not contendor" and I think a lot of voters would also disagree with that view. I could see how those points would be perceived as new arguments, but it's not up to me to make that call.
C) Why do you think both Savant and Lemming modified their votes? I sent PMs to both of them and explained why their votes were problematic. They chose how they wanted to handle it. If that's not intervention enough for you, that's one thing, but let's not pretend that I just sat on my hands here.
Well, it's your call. I get that you have big problems with my moderation of the site, and I understand your frustrations even if I come down in a different position on the issue. Clearly, my role or lack thereof is contributing to your departure, and for what it's worth, I apologize for my lack of activity on the site.
To be clear, though, I had already warned tigerlord regarding his recent behavior, and I'll state it publicly: harassing debaters and voters is against site rules, and the prolonged effort to string this out, both in the comments here and in PMs, needs to stop.
I'm just going to address both BK's and Lemming's votes in one comment.
Neither is going to be removed at this point. I understand if the debaters felt they gave short shrift to their arguments, I understand if the debaters feel that they were overly dismissive or even outright wrong about what happened at certain points. It is not my job as a moderator to specifically go through each point made an ascertain its accuracy, nor am I making a checklist of every argument and ensuring that the voters covered them to some arbitrary level of sufficiency. So long as the voters covered a great deal of the arguments presented by both sides, explained why they were weighing certain points as greater, and showed at least some due consideration of the points presented by each side, that is sufficient to meet the voting standards of this site for arguments.
Three things that got brought up a few times in messages to me.
If one of the voters did show a distinctly different interpretation of what happened in the debate from reality and based their vote entirely on that reasoning, that could be a basis for removal. Both voters base their decisions on a variety of arguments, and I don't see either of them leaving it up to one misinterpreted point or putting the lion's share of attention on said point.
If one of the voters decided to weigh certain points differently based on whether they were presented for the first time in the final round, that is their prerogative. Voters can decide that new arguments in the final round can receive less weight due to a lack of ability to respond. If they use this to dismiss the entire round, then there is a basis for challenging the vote. If they use this to dismiss large swaths of arguments that were presented before the final round, that is also a basis for challenging it. I don't see that happening with either voter.
While we're at it, someone summarizing their decision doesn't mean that, in that blurb, they cover their reasoning exhaustively. I look at the entire basis for the vote, not just the summary at the end, to determine whether they did their due diligence.
I'm willing to review this decision, but note that I have limited time due to a busy schedule of late.
>Vote: Lemming // Mod action: Removed at the Request of the Voter
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 5 to Con (Arguments, Sources)
>Reason for Decision:
See comments 17 through 22 of this debate.
If either side should read my reasons and find them disagreeable,
Well, votes by people of different views are also valuable in understanding other people's minds and reasons.
Also DART has a page for vote requests, that sees 'slight results 'sometimes.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3492-vote-requests
There is also the option of suggesting a trade of votes, between oneself and another person looking for votes on their debate.
However such a trade does not mean they will vote for your side in your debate,
Nor that you are obligated to vote for their side in their debate.
Reason for Removal: The voter has been given the go-ahead to re-post his vote awarding only arguments, as his vote is more than sufficient in meeting the standards for awarding those points.
**************************************************
>Vote: Savant // Mod action: Removed at the Request of the Voter
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 5 to Con (Arguments, Sources)
>Reason for Decision:
Pro argues that no dreams have divine meaning. Con argues that some do. Both debaters seem to agree on these as the goalposts. Off the bat, this seems like a difficult thing for Con to justify (how do you show that NO dream has divine influence?), however I think they end up doing a good enough job to show divine influence as unlikely until we get some better evidence than what Pro is providing.
Con shows a basis for dreams based on physical phenomena. So we've found causes for dreams, without locating divine influence. By itself, that makes me lean Con. The Pro comes in and cites Islam plus personal experience. The issue is that Pro does not justify Islam being the one true religion or the cited religious texts as reliable sources. They argue that Islam might be true, but based on what I see in this debate, any religion might be true and I have no particular reason to favor Islam.
Pro attributes his personal experience to divine influence, Con attributes it to luck. Since it's a single anecdote, the luck argument seems pretty compelling. Pro's argument relies on the timing of the dream and the earthquake, but as Con pointed out, it wasn't specific. Plus billions of people dream every day, and Con cites reliable sources showing much of this is not based on divine influence. Presumably we should expect some coincidences to happen.
If Pro had showed a large-scale study or even perhaps strong evidence of a very specific prediction based on a dream, that could have been enough to sway me, but as it stands, I have timing that may or not be coincidental and religious doctrines that depend on me accepting Islam is true. That would be fine if Pro gave some reasons to accept Islam as true, but they just seem to accept that as given without justification. Pro gives some more anecdotes in the last round, but I can't weight these very strong because Con doesn't have a chance to respond. Plus, these could be cherry-picked rather than an independent sample.
Sources to Con for going to scientific articles, since Pro's sources are never shown to be reliable and are pretty subjective.
**************************************************
Being concise isn't a requirement for voters on this site, so that cannot be a reason for me to remove this vote. If the vote amounts to a lot of the voter's own points and not engaging with the arguments presented in the debate, it may be removed. I'll give this a look after work.
>Reported Vote: AnonYmous_Icon // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 to Con (Arguments, Conduct)
>Reason for Decision:
Pro’s words r commendable but less in fully addressing some of Con’s key arguments , sometime i c that pro trying to prove the authority of Chruch in place of infallibility
authority ≠ infallibility
and con u do well but the thing is that u have to win the heart of ur opponent who stand against u .... for that its not enough
But after all the purpose of this debate is to learn and i know u make it as i ......
>Reason for Mod Action:
Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter has to analyze arguments presented by both sides and it seems the only argument the voter provided analysis for is the comparison between authority and infallibility, and only very limited analysis of that. The voter mentions that Con needs to "win the heart of ur opponent" rather than providing any analysis of their points.
The voter provides no reasoning for awarding conduct.
**************************************************
"Resulting in a lower net negative quality of life for all American citizens and legal immigrants combined."
That pretty clearly draws attention to anything that affects American citizens and legal immigrants directly as the ones that matter most. I agree it's not just economic (don't think I ever said it was just economic, could be wrong), but it narrows it on the who and the where rather than the what.
I agree that there should be limits, I just wouldn't want to limit the lines of argumentation one could make in a debate about which person would be a worse president, at least not in this way. I think part of the strength of having a debate like this is in the discussion of what makes someone better for the role, which should include everything a president does as opportunities to make a point, but necessarily does include weighing certain aspects of the job differently depending on the side. I personally love a solid weighing calculus because it requires the debaters to convince the voters of what matters more, rather than just setting a definition that restricts access to certain points.
*shrug* your choice I guess. I'm not saying that would be an argument I'd take up personally, I'm just not fond of setting up a definition that limits the scope of the debate in that way.
See, to me, that looks like an argument for why certain tasks taken on by the President should be deemed paramount. I understand why you'd argue that. I just don't love that you would restrict your opponent's ability to argue about tasks outside that scope rather than just argue in the debate that they are necessarily outweighed.
I do think the "job" of the presidency goes beyond just facilitating a better life for those specific groups, and though I understand why you'd prioritize them in any debate like this, I'd say it's at least a little restrictive. You or your opponent can always argue knock-on effects for anything external to those groups, I guess.
I'd be tempted if this wasn't so inherently polarizing. I'd expect a lot of debate over what the word "worse" means, even if whoever takes this accepts the definition as written above, which does seem somewhat restrictive.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Americandebater24 // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to con (Arguments)
>Reason for Decision: https://youtu.be/Mfq98FqnxOQ
You can skip to the last 5 to 7 minutes for the vote
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter clearly does a great deal of due diligence going through the debate, as established by the YouTube video that showcases a line-by-line evaluation of the points presented by each side. The standards for voting on this site don’t require that level of detail, so it is more than sufficient with regards to establishing that the voter read the debate and evaluated the given arguments.
As for whether the voter met the criteria for voting on arguments, even including comments, I think he did enough to establish his view of the debate and how it relates to his point allocation in a way that is sufficient. Pointing out that he (the voter) has a problem with the side he is voting for is distinct from saying that that argument was successfully refuted by the other side in the debate. Voting based on which side “won” is a question of the arguments and how they stacked up against each other, so that falls under convincing arguments. The voter doesn’t need to be personally convinced that one side is right to award these points. Other issues like drops, which he seems to support in the video, consistency in his RFD, and voting on issues one side sees as irrelevant are more granular and, generally speaking, are not bases we evaluate for removing votes, particularly when that vote isn’t wholly reliant on any single one of these. It seems like at least some of these issues are arguable and not clearly false views on the part of the voter, so they can’t be used to throw out the vote.
**************************************************
Seriously, can this just stop? I know you're frustrated, but this is not helping and all this requires at this point is for you to drop it. I'm already on the hook to go over your vote and determine whether it meets the voting standards, so that's going to happen regardless of what else is said.
Again, please refrain from questioning his intelligence. There can be plenty of reasons why he's not getting your point that don't require you to assume his IQ.
I know you don’t need me to explain this. I get being frustrated, but try to be civil and direct what you’re saying at the points rather than the person. You might perceive them differently than he does, but that doesn’t change how it’s taken.
Can we please refrain from insults, particularly those aimed towards one person's intellectual capacities? This is an issue with the contents of the debate and a vote, it doesn't help the conversation along, and it's against the CoC.
We can review the vote by listening to it. If the vote is reported, then I don't see the harm in listening to it instead of reading it so long as the reasoning is clear.
Also, while I appreciate the reminder, I did mean by this coming weekend. I am in the process of reading through this debate.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Americandebater24 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 to con (Arguments, Conduct)
>Reason for Decision: Pro was quite unprofessional and failed to provide an objective reason for their negative view of Canada. Conversely, Con remained composed and made a concerted effort to articulate their stance professionally.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Saying that one side was "quite unprofessional" and the other was "composed" is not sufficient reason to award conduct. These are both vague, subjective evaluations that do not meet the criteria for awarding this point. The voter must point out specific conduct violations.
Similarly, saying that one side "failed to provide an objective reason for their" position and the other "made a concerted effort to articulate" theirs is not sufficient reason to award arguments. The voter must evaluate specific points brought up by each side and not simply generalize about what each side did or failed to do.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: LogicalDebater01 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 to con (Arguments, Conduct)
>Reason for Decision: To start off, I can keep this quite short and simple.
This is very much a debate that shifts itself into the fields of philosophy, therefore the debate becomes more abstract and more reliant on the arguments that each individual makes and it would be ludicrous or absurd to list any source somewhat due to the unreliability of the source that is created by the complexity revolving around the context of "philosophy" which contain opposing views, including when debating any topic that had become philosophical or any topic that has philosophy.
Listing sources here should be considered unreliable and I recommend everyone to focus on the arguments that each individual has made and which one is more logically sounding and less argumentative as well as reasonable..
Major reminder that the topics here debated delve into the fields of Quantum mechanics, Biology (Including neurobiology), Cognition (Psychometrical terms such as "Working memory, executive function, and learning"), Philosophy, and etc.
Each topic has their own limitations therefore each topic should not exceed their own limitation; otherwise inconsistency is brought into existence and the argument will observably be apparent to flaws.
-----------------
First round, Pro yaps intensely about quantum mechanics and the baby basics of neuroscience and how brain rotting cells function (hyperbole, also the yapping is actually quite irrelevant and unnecessary to the topic of the debate) where as Con professionally remains on topic and not as further away Pro is. Con remains more on stand and more smart about his decision not to get dragged off to any more irrelevant matters and stays in consistency with the topic at hand by not digging down too much to the subatomic scales whereas the subject of "Free Will" isn't that subatomic (especially in this case). Con however opposes Pro's yapping with vigorous logic in a detailed and logical manner; very efficient way. Con does this opposition by remaining logical and on topic, not off topic.
Furthermore, other rounds Con just continues to bring more reasonable materials up. Con probably mogs Pro in terms of reasoning. (speaking based on the reasoning Con has provided so far for each arguments that are highly logical sounding than Pro's arguments). (But really I'm just judging based upon how complex each reasonings are from a psychometrical standpoint, if anyone's curious).
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter does explain arguments sufficiently, particularly when taking the additional reasoning provided in the comments into account. While the voter does use loaded language to describe some of what he sees in the debate, he nevertheless provides sufficient evaluation of the debate to explain his vote.
However, the voter does not do enough to explain conduct. His explanation for conduct has been provided to me personally upon request, and while he does provide some evidence that certain points may have been worded disrespectfully and/or with a degree of frustration, resulting in statements that suggested a lack of understanding or seriousness, none of these suffice as explicit cases of personal attacks or any other sufficient conduct violation to justify awarding the point, nor is one side being more logical or directed in their presented arguments sufficient basis for awarding it.
The voter may re-post his vote at any time awarding Arguments.
**************************************************
I'll see what I can do. Looks like it has a while in the voting period, so just remind me.
I'll try to get to this.
>Vote: Barney // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 5 to Con (Arguments, Sources), 1 to Pro (Conduct)
>Reason for Decision:
See Votes Tab and the following two links:
#10 https://www.debateart.com/debates/5926/comments/62827
#18 https://www.debateart.com/debates/5926/comments/62879
>Reason for Removal:
The voter sufficiently explains their reasoning for awarding all points, providing an extensive accounting of the arguments presented and how he viewed them in the comments with some additions in the the vote itself. The source points are sufficiently explained by pointing to how those sources were defended, which focuses on the quality of their usage rather than their quantity. And the conduct point allocation rewards some good behavior on the part of Pro that seems justified.
**************************************************
I'll have a look over this vote later today.
Yep, that does make it easy.
That's... an odd one. I'll get on it.
I'll give this a look.
I’ll see what I can do.
I've deleted Casey's vote per their request.
>Vote: McMieky // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to Pro (Arguments), 2 to Con (Legibility, Conduct)
>Reason for Decision:
i really liked both sides of this argument
>Reason for Removal:
The voter does not explain their decision. An RFD must include reasoning for awarding points and this just expresses the voter's appreciation for the debate. That is not sufficient to award points.
**************************************************
Probably won't have time to get to this.
First off, Barney is just like any other user. His votes can be removed if there is a basis for doing so. I'll look over his vote as well.
Second, and I've mentioned this before, the constant haranguing of voters needs to stop. Each of the voters on this debate has been willing to deal with it, but with this many comments aimed at challenging every facet of every vote that has been cast against you, it's bound to have a chilling effect on other voters who might post a vote against you. At this point, you've more than made your case, so please just leave it here or, if you must, keep it to personal contact with either me or the voters if they are willing.
>Vote: CatholicApologetics // Mod action: Removed at the Request of the Voter
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to Con (Arguments)
>Reason for Decision:
The debate centers on whether dreams have divine or spiritual significance, with Pro asserting that some dreams are divinely inspired and Con maintaining that dreams are purely physical phenomena. Pro leans heavily on Islamic theology and personal anecdotes to make their case, arguing that the spiritual nature of dreams transcends scientific understanding. Con counters by emphasizing the need for empirical evidence and dismissing religious and anecdotal claims as unverifiable and subjective. A major flaw in Pro’s argument is their reliance on the Quran as a foundational source. Without proving the validity of the Quran as a scholarly or universally accepted authority, their theological arguments lack weight for readers outside that religious framework. Furthermore, Pro's anecdotal evidence, while emotionally compelling, cannot withstand Con’s critique of subjectivity and confirmation bias. Con effectively highlights these weaknesses by pointing to the unverifiable nature of Pro’s claims and questioning the universality of their arguments, particularly when other religions could make similar claims. In Round 3, the debate continues with both sides expanding on their earlier positions.
Ultimately, Con's approach is more grounded and methodical, relying on empirical evidence and logical coherence. This is why their arguments bear significantly more weight. They successfully dismantle Pro's arguments without relying on equally speculative or unverifiable claims. Con’s ability to focus on the lack of substantive proof in Pro’s case, combined with their demand for a higher standard of evidence, makes their position more persuasive. As a voter prioritizing verifiable and universally applicable arguments, I choose Con.
**************************************************
Also, and I think you already know this so I don’t know why you’d ask, I can’t remove votes from debates where the voting period has ended.
You know you can just tag me once instead of spamming me with each individual response, right?
I’m not getting to this until later anyway, so if your goal is to alert me to each point one at a time, this isn’t helping. It’s just adding to a growing list of notifications and emails.
You can tag me anytime. Considering I’m getting a lot of tags from this debate already, you don’t have to do so, as I’m bound to read through all of this anyway, but you can do so anyway.
A) I really don't have to look far to see what you've done right here. It's pretty clear that you've made a very large and expansive effort to call out someone who voted against you and the back-and-forth with Americandebater has been... acrimonious. You're clearly frustrated. Even if you feel that it's warranted, this is more than a bit much, and you've continued to ping him over and over despite requests to stop.
B) I've explained my decision and pointed out that voters are not required to cover every single point presented in the debate to have a sufficient RFD. Voters are required to show that they read and considered a variety of arguments presented throughout the debate, and Lemming's vote is clearly not based on just a single source that you presented. I disagree that "adding arguments in last round is is not allowed for instigators not contendor" and I think a lot of voters would also disagree with that view. I could see how those points would be perceived as new arguments, but it's not up to me to make that call.
C) Why do you think both Savant and Lemming modified their votes? I sent PMs to both of them and explained why their votes were problematic. They chose how they wanted to handle it. If that's not intervention enough for you, that's one thing, but let's not pretend that I just sat on my hands here.
Understood. If this isn't a good experience for you, then I wish you the best wherever life takes you.
Well, it's your call. I get that you have big problems with my moderation of the site, and I understand your frustrations even if I come down in a different position on the issue. Clearly, my role or lack thereof is contributing to your departure, and for what it's worth, I apologize for my lack of activity on the site.
To be clear, though, I had already warned tigerlord regarding his recent behavior, and I'll state it publicly: harassing debaters and voters is against site rules, and the prolonged effort to string this out, both in the comments here and in PMs, needs to stop.
I'm just going to address both BK's and Lemming's votes in one comment.
Neither is going to be removed at this point. I understand if the debaters felt they gave short shrift to their arguments, I understand if the debaters feel that they were overly dismissive or even outright wrong about what happened at certain points. It is not my job as a moderator to specifically go through each point made an ascertain its accuracy, nor am I making a checklist of every argument and ensuring that the voters covered them to some arbitrary level of sufficiency. So long as the voters covered a great deal of the arguments presented by both sides, explained why they were weighing certain points as greater, and showed at least some due consideration of the points presented by each side, that is sufficient to meet the voting standards of this site for arguments.
Three things that got brought up a few times in messages to me.
If one of the voters did show a distinctly different interpretation of what happened in the debate from reality and based their vote entirely on that reasoning, that could be a basis for removal. Both voters base their decisions on a variety of arguments, and I don't see either of them leaving it up to one misinterpreted point or putting the lion's share of attention on said point.
If one of the voters decided to weigh certain points differently based on whether they were presented for the first time in the final round, that is their prerogative. Voters can decide that new arguments in the final round can receive less weight due to a lack of ability to respond. If they use this to dismiss the entire round, then there is a basis for challenging the vote. If they use this to dismiss large swaths of arguments that were presented before the final round, that is also a basis for challenging it. I don't see that happening with either voter.
While we're at it, someone summarizing their decision doesn't mean that, in that blurb, they cover their reasoning exhaustively. I look at the entire basis for the vote, not just the summary at the end, to determine whether they did their due diligence.
I'm willing to review this decision, but note that I have limited time due to a busy schedule of late.
It's a process, please be patient.
Yep, my mistake. Corrected.
>Vote: Lemming // Mod action: Removed at the Request of the Voter
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 5 to Con (Arguments, Sources)
>Reason for Decision:
See comments 17 through 22 of this debate.
If either side should read my reasons and find them disagreeable,
Well, votes by people of different views are also valuable in understanding other people's minds and reasons.
Also DART has a page for vote requests, that sees 'slight results 'sometimes.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3492-vote-requests
There is also the option of suggesting a trade of votes, between oneself and another person looking for votes on their debate.
However such a trade does not mean they will vote for your side in your debate,
Nor that you are obligated to vote for their side in their debate.
Reason for Removal: The voter has been given the go-ahead to re-post his vote awarding only arguments, as his vote is more than sufficient in meeting the standards for awarding those points.
**************************************************
>Vote: Savant // Mod action: Removed at the Request of the Voter
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 5 to Con (Arguments, Sources)
>Reason for Decision:
Pro argues that no dreams have divine meaning. Con argues that some do. Both debaters seem to agree on these as the goalposts. Off the bat, this seems like a difficult thing for Con to justify (how do you show that NO dream has divine influence?), however I think they end up doing a good enough job to show divine influence as unlikely until we get some better evidence than what Pro is providing.
Con shows a basis for dreams based on physical phenomena. So we've found causes for dreams, without locating divine influence. By itself, that makes me lean Con. The Pro comes in and cites Islam plus personal experience. The issue is that Pro does not justify Islam being the one true religion or the cited religious texts as reliable sources. They argue that Islam might be true, but based on what I see in this debate, any religion might be true and I have no particular reason to favor Islam.
Pro attributes his personal experience to divine influence, Con attributes it to luck. Since it's a single anecdote, the luck argument seems pretty compelling. Pro's argument relies on the timing of the dream and the earthquake, but as Con pointed out, it wasn't specific. Plus billions of people dream every day, and Con cites reliable sources showing much of this is not based on divine influence. Presumably we should expect some coincidences to happen.
If Pro had showed a large-scale study or even perhaps strong evidence of a very specific prediction based on a dream, that could have been enough to sway me, but as it stands, I have timing that may or not be coincidental and religious doctrines that depend on me accepting Islam is true. That would be fine if Pro gave some reasons to accept Islam as true, but they just seem to accept that as given without justification. Pro gives some more anecdotes in the last round, but I can't weight these very strong because Con doesn't have a chance to respond. Plus, these could be cherry-picked rather than an independent sample.
Sources to Con for going to scientific articles, since Pro's sources are never shown to be reliable and are pretty subjective.
**************************************************
I'm not arguing your take on his vote right now. I'll read over it when I get the chance and make my own assessment.
Being concise isn't a requirement for voters on this site, so that cannot be a reason for me to remove this vote. If the vote amounts to a lot of the voter's own points and not engaging with the arguments presented in the debate, it may be removed. I'll give this a look after work.
I’ll work on this.
From where I’m sitting, yes. I haven’t judged a lot of debates this year yet, but this would be a stand-out regardless.
Also, definitely encourage you to read some of those HoF debates. I’ve read most of them and they’re quite deserving.
RFD is written, just need to post it when I get home, so it will go up.
>Reported Vote: AnonYmous_Icon // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 to Con (Arguments, Conduct)
>Reason for Decision:
Pro’s words r commendable but less in fully addressing some of Con’s key arguments , sometime i c that pro trying to prove the authority of Chruch in place of infallibility
authority ≠ infallibility
and con u do well but the thing is that u have to win the heart of ur opponent who stand against u .... for that its not enough
But after all the purpose of this debate is to learn and i know u make it as i ......
>Reason for Mod Action:
Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter has to analyze arguments presented by both sides and it seems the only argument the voter provided analysis for is the comparison between authority and infallibility, and only very limited analysis of that. The voter mentions that Con needs to "win the heart of ur opponent" rather than providing any analysis of their points.
The voter provides no reasoning for awarding conduct.
**************************************************
I’ve finished the debate, just have to formulate the RFD. Might take a couple of days, but I’ll post a vote.
You’ll definitely have to remind me, but I’ll aim to get to this.
"Resulting in a lower net negative quality of life for all American citizens and legal immigrants combined."
That pretty clearly draws attention to anything that affects American citizens and legal immigrants directly as the ones that matter most. I agree it's not just economic (don't think I ever said it was just economic, could be wrong), but it narrows it on the who and the where rather than the what.
I agree that there should be limits, I just wouldn't want to limit the lines of argumentation one could make in a debate about which person would be a worse president, at least not in this way. I think part of the strength of having a debate like this is in the discussion of what makes someone better for the role, which should include everything a president does as opportunities to make a point, but necessarily does include weighing certain aspects of the job differently depending on the side. I personally love a solid weighing calculus because it requires the debaters to convince the voters of what matters more, rather than just setting a definition that restricts access to certain points.
*shrug* your choice I guess. I'm not saying that would be an argument I'd take up personally, I'm just not fond of setting up a definition that limits the scope of the debate in that way.
See, to me, that looks like an argument for why certain tasks taken on by the President should be deemed paramount. I understand why you'd argue that. I just don't love that you would restrict your opponent's ability to argue about tasks outside that scope rather than just argue in the debate that they are necessarily outweighed.
I do think the "job" of the presidency goes beyond just facilitating a better life for those specific groups, and though I understand why you'd prioritize them in any debate like this, I'd say it's at least a little restrictive. You or your opponent can always argue knock-on effects for anything external to those groups, I guess.
I'd be tempted if this wasn't so inherently polarizing. I'd expect a lot of debate over what the word "worse" means, even if whoever takes this accepts the definition as written above, which does seem somewhat restrictive.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Americandebater24 // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to con (Arguments)
>Reason for Decision: https://youtu.be/Mfq98FqnxOQ
You can skip to the last 5 to 7 minutes for the vote
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter clearly does a great deal of due diligence going through the debate, as established by the YouTube video that showcases a line-by-line evaluation of the points presented by each side. The standards for voting on this site don’t require that level of detail, so it is more than sufficient with regards to establishing that the voter read the debate and evaluated the given arguments.
As for whether the voter met the criteria for voting on arguments, even including comments, I think he did enough to establish his view of the debate and how it relates to his point allocation in a way that is sufficient. Pointing out that he (the voter) has a problem with the side he is voting for is distinct from saying that that argument was successfully refuted by the other side in the debate. Voting based on which side “won” is a question of the arguments and how they stacked up against each other, so that falls under convincing arguments. The voter doesn’t need to be personally convinced that one side is right to award these points. Other issues like drops, which he seems to support in the video, consistency in his RFD, and voting on issues one side sees as irrelevant are more granular and, generally speaking, are not bases we evaluate for removing votes, particularly when that vote isn’t wholly reliant on any single one of these. It seems like at least some of these issues are arguable and not clearly false views on the part of the voter, so they can’t be used to throw out the vote.
**************************************************
Seriously, can this just stop? I know you're frustrated, but this is not helping and all this requires at this point is for you to drop it. I'm already on the hook to go over your vote and determine whether it meets the voting standards, so that's going to happen regardless of what else is said.
Again, please refrain from questioning his intelligence. There can be plenty of reasons why he's not getting your point that don't require you to assume his IQ.
I’m going to treat what he said here in the comments as additional information about his vote that will go along with his video.
I’m not here to police all accusations, particularly those directed at what you’ve said. Insulting your intelligence is distinct and against the CoC.
I know you don’t need me to explain this. I get being frustrated, but try to be civil and direct what you’re saying at the points rather than the person. You might perceive them differently than he does, but that doesn’t change how it’s taken.
Can we please refrain from insults, particularly those aimed towards one person's intellectual capacities? This is an issue with the contents of the debate and a vote, it doesn't help the conversation along, and it's against the CoC.
We can review the vote by listening to it. If the vote is reported, then I don't see the harm in listening to it instead of reading it so long as the reasoning is clear.
Also, while I appreciate the reminder, I did mean by this coming weekend. I am in the process of reading through this debate.
I am reading through this, but if I haven't posted a vote by then, someone remind me this weekend to get on this.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Americandebater24 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 to con (Arguments, Conduct)
>Reason for Decision: Pro was quite unprofessional and failed to provide an objective reason for their negative view of Canada. Conversely, Con remained composed and made a concerted effort to articulate their stance professionally.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Saying that one side was "quite unprofessional" and the other was "composed" is not sufficient reason to award conduct. These are both vague, subjective evaluations that do not meet the criteria for awarding this point. The voter must point out specific conduct violations.
Similarly, saying that one side "failed to provide an objective reason for their" position and the other "made a concerted effort to articulate" theirs is not sufficient reason to award arguments. The voter must evaluate specific points brought up by each side and not simply generalize about what each side did or failed to do.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: LogicalDebater01 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 to con (Arguments, Conduct)
>Reason for Decision: To start off, I can keep this quite short and simple.
This is very much a debate that shifts itself into the fields of philosophy, therefore the debate becomes more abstract and more reliant on the arguments that each individual makes and it would be ludicrous or absurd to list any source somewhat due to the unreliability of the source that is created by the complexity revolving around the context of "philosophy" which contain opposing views, including when debating any topic that had become philosophical or any topic that has philosophy.
Listing sources here should be considered unreliable and I recommend everyone to focus on the arguments that each individual has made and which one is more logically sounding and less argumentative as well as reasonable..
Major reminder that the topics here debated delve into the fields of Quantum mechanics, Biology (Including neurobiology), Cognition (Psychometrical terms such as "Working memory, executive function, and learning"), Philosophy, and etc.
Each topic has their own limitations therefore each topic should not exceed their own limitation; otherwise inconsistency is brought into existence and the argument will observably be apparent to flaws.
-----------------
First round, Pro yaps intensely about quantum mechanics and the baby basics of neuroscience and how brain rotting cells function (hyperbole, also the yapping is actually quite irrelevant and unnecessary to the topic of the debate) where as Con professionally remains on topic and not as further away Pro is. Con remains more on stand and more smart about his decision not to get dragged off to any more irrelevant matters and stays in consistency with the topic at hand by not digging down too much to the subatomic scales whereas the subject of "Free Will" isn't that subatomic (especially in this case). Con however opposes Pro's yapping with vigorous logic in a detailed and logical manner; very efficient way. Con does this opposition by remaining logical and on topic, not off topic.
Furthermore, other rounds Con just continues to bring more reasonable materials up. Con probably mogs Pro in terms of reasoning. (speaking based on the reasoning Con has provided so far for each arguments that are highly logical sounding than Pro's arguments). (But really I'm just judging based upon how complex each reasonings are from a psychometrical standpoint, if anyone's curious).
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter does explain arguments sufficiently, particularly when taking the additional reasoning provided in the comments into account. While the voter does use loaded language to describe some of what he sees in the debate, he nevertheless provides sufficient evaluation of the debate to explain his vote.
However, the voter does not do enough to explain conduct. His explanation for conduct has been provided to me personally upon request, and while he does provide some evidence that certain points may have been worded disrespectfully and/or with a degree of frustration, resulting in statements that suggested a lack of understanding or seriousness, none of these suffice as explicit cases of personal attacks or any other sufficient conduct violation to justify awarding the point, nor is one side being more logical or directed in their presented arguments sufficient basis for awarding it.
The voter may re-post his vote at any time awarding Arguments.
**************************************************
Considering most of that is invisible to him since he can't see you sticking your tongue out and making faces, have at that at least.