I've finished reading the debate, but I want to dig back into the rounds a bit more to come up with a decision. Should be able to manage that over the next few days and write up a decision this weekend.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: FishChaser // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to pro (arguments)
>Reason for Decision: Benjamin gets several things wrong about 12 year old Naruto, For instance Naruto took the Chunin exams and learned the rasengan while still 12.
Even still, the avatar state is pretty hard to beat for 12 year old Naruto even assuming he could even contend with Aang in base form.
Benjamin also misrepresents Naruto as a mindless brute when Naruto is a creative/tactical genius but that alone doesn't win Naruto the fight.
Baggins also gets something wrong, get it actually works to his favor because Naruto CAN access some 9 tails chakra voluntarily at this point, but he has to run out of his normal chakra first.
At the end of the day, I think it's clear that Aang has more power, speed and versatility which will rape Naruto directly in the anus cheeks.
Also, the likelihood of Naruto passing the first tail is low because over time, the seal on Kurama weakened allowing more of Kurama's chakra to get through. Chances are that Naruto at age 12 would only get one tail at best and it is more likely that he wouldn't even get that far since it took almost being killed by Sasuke and knowing that he was losing/being betrayed by his best friend to activate the first tail.
There is a way that Baggins could have argued to be the biggest douche bag possible, since Aang was frozen he was technically just suspended in a 12 year old body while being much older. Technically when Aang was 12, he only had air bending in base form.
Baggins overstates Naruto's speed, which is significantly lower than lightspeed and is still lower even later when he gains six paths sage mode. Haku starts to move in front of Kakashi's raikiri before he starts charging towards Zabuza if I remember correctly.
The claim that Naruto can tank fire blasts in base form is wrong. The only time I remember him getting flamed in base form that one might interpret him as tanking it is when Naruto fought Sasuke on the roof of the hospital, but he used his rasengan to create a barrier similar to Hyuga "rotation".
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter appears to provide a great deal of analysis regarding the veracity of certain claims within the debate, some of which are actual rebuttals made by the debaters, and some of which are the voter himself inserting his insights. While that is valuable feedback for the debaters, it is not in and of itself a basis for the decision. The only line of text in this RFD that speaks to the decision directly is:
"At the end of the day, I think it's clear that Aang has more power, speed and versatility which will rape Naruto directly in the anus cheeks."
While the voter is welcome to post feedback for the debaters, the voter should be clear about what arguments by Pro and Con led him to believe that Aang has these three elements over Naruto. It does not help that the voter does not point to any specific points made in Aang's favor, focusing his attention almost entirely on the claims for Naruto, which makes it difficult to determine how the voter thinks Pro established that Aang has these advantages.
**************************************************
I enjoyed listening to all of these, but I'll admit I don't listen to a lot of electronic music. There's only so many different kinds of taste in music you can account for with these.
As I said in my RFD, I thought the pieces were there for you to succeed with your arguments in the debate, though yeah, there were some errors in your approach to blamonkey's case. I think you did well given the circumstances, but I also think you handicapped yourself in that approach.
I... honestly have no idea how to respond to that. I'm not sure we can get on the same page at this point, given that that last response has basically nothing to do with what I just said, so I'm just going to stop here.
My point was that you could have argued that other impacts matter more or, absent that, put more focus and attention on the ways that a kettle and dildo could enhance your chances of survival. You let yourself get too spread out in your analysis and you didn't argue why the impacts you did focus on are paramount. Both of you could use work in that regard.
I haven't forgotten about this. I'm spending some time on a flight this week, so I'm going to have time to read through it and start writing out thoughts.
I made very clear how I was weighing things early in my RFD. That final line doesn't change how that weighing calculus works, nor does my acknowledgement of the pairs of items.
If it were me on the Pro side here, I'd argue either deontology (not a big fan of it, but there are some workable arguments) or gone more along the lines of "absolute power corrupts," the latter of which is more in line with how the show goes. The kind of deification Light eventually takes on, both in the eyes of others and in his own eyes, is dangerous and could have gotten far worse if he hadn't been taken out. I think focusing on the long term implications of how this power would have molded society in the Death Note universe and how it would twist other Death Note users and their actions were strong directions to take, but they required reading into the material in some detail.
I'll note that I actually did mention the Thomas Paine argument. The point of the argument, as far as I could tell, is that it's morally right for a government to regulate people. That's fine, but it doesn't actually tell me why this specific type of regulation at this level is morally right. It tells me that a government must regulate, which as far as I can tell, a government would do on either side of this debate. That's the point I said was non-unique. The same holds true for that divine right of kings (again, the point being that a government should govern). I don't actually see a specific mention of the Federalist Papers, but I did touch on the Constitution (in that is/ought issue). Maybe I missed a couple of points of legal theory, though I think I covered the majority of your argument in some way, shape or form.
As a general rule, telling me that the government cannot do something isn't going to convince me on an "ought" resolution. It's an effort to engage in an inherency argument that aims to establish that there are barriers to action. Valid as those points may be, on an "ought" resolution, my focus is on whether the changes should happen, not whether they can. Otherwise, you could never debate big shifts in policy. If there are barriers to action, then part of debating an "ought" resolution is assuming that, in some way, shape or form, those barriers can be dealt with. It's fine if you want to argue that the process of removing those barriers is net harmful, and that's an argument I would have considered pretty strongly.
To be clear (since I didn't really mention it in my RFD), I don't think the "Burdens" section actually covers much in the way of actual burdens. What Pro's doing there is presenting a framework for his argument, i.e. legal rights ought to be afforded in cases where refusing to extend them to certain groups results in structural violence. That's a clear statement with regards to what Pro believes suffices as an "ought." You argued that that "ought" wasn't sufficient reason to extend a right, effectively arguing that Pro's framework was insufficient to meet the burden he took on for this debate. The trouble is two-fold, and I did mention this in my RFD: one, I'm unclear by the end of the debate how high the bar is for someone to demonstrate that a moral harm is sufficient to engender a right, and two, I don't see a competing moral framework aimed at establishing what should be the standard for a right. Instead, I see a legal basis for establishing a right, which I think Pro effectively countered and showed why the moral basis supercedes it, and I see a moral basis for why regulations should exist, which is non-unique.
So when you talk about it not being fair "for you to have to justify PRO'S is as an ought when he doesn't justify it himself," I'm not sure I understand the problem. Pro had to present a framework to establish why the number of legal immigrants coming into the US should increase. There was an equal burden for you to establish a similar framework or some other distinct reason why increasing their number would be a negative. I think you did a bit of the latter, but Pro did enough to confound that and pushed me to focus on the absence of the former, and I found that convincing. You had to give me a reason to uphold the status quo as better with some kind of framework supporting it. I didn't see you actually supporting the existing system as better policy from some moral or philosophical perspective. Maybe I'm wrong and you can point to places where you did just that. If that's the case, then I encourage you to do so. I'm not demanding responses to Pro's case, but I am trying to find offense for your side of the debate, and I think I detailed all the problems I saw with the offense you provided.
We don't have control over site coding, dude. But here's a fix I've been using: copy-paste your argument into a Google Doc before copy-pasting it into here. I've found that that doesn't encounter the same problem.
Again, I’m not enforcing to stop defamation, but if, as you say, there are other instances of someone engaging in name calling or insults, I am very much willing to pursue them as well. That being said, their presence or absence does not change my warning.
You've called him and many other people on this site defamatory names, so let's not go throwing stones in glass houses. My role here does not include addressing all instances of defamation. You are also the only one that I have seen between the two of you to engage in a very clearly targeted use of personal attacks aimed not at what he was saying, but at his intelligence. Pointing to other things you have said that would not require my intervention doesn't change the fact that you've done this. If you want to falsely equivocate, be my guest, but I won't be enforcing based on that equivocation.
Calling someone a liar is not and has never been a personal attack. It relates specifically to what you say. It is also not part of my role as moderator to determine who is right and who is wrong, so I do not intercede in matters that others might view as "untruths". I am not here to defend your or anyone else's argument. I am not here to validate you or anyone else. So I'm not sure what you're expecting me to do, but none of what I see from Lemming warrants a warning.
You can justify it however much you want to yourself, but you know this is against site rules and I shouldn't have to delve into the why of it. Whether you feel it is warranted does not make these insults appropriate. Attack what they say as much as you want, but steer clear of personal attacks.
Consider this a formal warning. Insults like "blithering idiot" and "dumb ass" are strictly against the CoC. If we see this again in any context, there will be consequences.
I agree with Barney that the debate is not clear from either the resolution or the description. If you wanted to argue against plea bargains and judge trials, you probably should have done that in your opening argument (even better if it was in the description that that was your position) in order to establish the entirety of your case instead of a shifting target. Notably, these additions would also be non-topical, and as a judge, I would be amenable to your opponent perming that part of your plan since it has nothing to do with corporal punishment.
As for specific points against your position a la corporal punishment, I'd say you've got an issue with classism. Who is most likely to see time in jail/prison as the most damaging to their livelihoods and families? Those who cannot afford bail or are generally financially strapped. You're also leaving these same people with a lasting physical mark, one that shows in their day-to-day behaviors and functions as a near constant reminder during that time to them and everyone around them (including police) that they have been convicted of a crime and suffered a punishment.
I’m not taking a position on whether or not the terms in the resolution are debatable. My opinion on that is irrelevant to the question of whether this vote is sufficient. If a voter doesn’t see this as debatable, then as long as they justify that perspective, that is sufficient under the voting standards of this site.
In response to the appeal regarding Trent0405's vote:
I agree with Barney's decision.
Voters are not obligated to award any points they do not wish to award. That includes choosing not to award sources, even when one side does not use them. The voter elaborated on his reasoning regarding sources below.
Similarly, while a rule may establish that something is debatable, the voters are not held to the standard of having to afford weight to that type of argument. Voters have leeway to determine whether these arguments make a difference in their decision.
As for arguments, the voter explained his perception of the argument presented by Pro and, at least as far as I can tell, it references what Pro said in the debate. He also considers specific arguments presented by Con. That is sufficient.
We already don’t allow users below the age of 13. We could set an age limit for voting and enforce that as mods, but if someone is using other accounts to vote bomb, I don’t think it’ll do much to prevent that.
I'm not going to permanently ban Lancelot on a basis that I cannot possibly know for certain. He received a ban commensurate with what we know to have happened - I'm not going to ban him for longer on the basis that other accounts associated with his have exacerbated the situation. I have already banned several accounts that are obviously linked to these efforts, and ban others and restrict voting as necessary to prevent this from happening again.
Boba_Tea was explicitly warned on this debate and via PM about voting on RM’s debates and has ignored that warning. His voting privileges have been suspended indefinitely while moderation discusses other interventions.
We have no basis whatsoever for believing that Devon is involved in this, so no, we’re not going to permanently ban him over a comment made on a separate debate and his vote here.
And yes, I do believe we know who is responsible. It’s not a mystery. That doesn’t mean it’s who you think it is.
Both the accounts that vote bombed just as time was running out have been banned. We know this is the result of actions from a single user, but since all their accounts have already been permanently banned, we can only keep knocking them down. Would be great if we could remove these votes after the debate ends…
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Devon // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 point to Pro (Arguments, Conduct)
Pro argues that the main incentive for survival of all sentient beings is self-preservation, implying that their will to live is instinctual. He uses multiple facts to support this conclusion, including that anyone who violates their privilege to live is morally and ethically wrong, and most likely a psychopath. I buy this line of reasoning, as these two constructives are very powerful arguments.
Con counters that some species, including humans are suicidal and that death is sometimes a biological imperative. Con goes off-topic by mentioning the mental state of humans and claims it's possible to be a compassionate human with a moral compass and a serial killer. These arguments do nothing to refute Pro's arguments and deliberately misinterpret Pro's arguments. Since Con argues in bad faith here, points for conduct goes to Pro.
Since Con goes off-topic, then the point for arguments goes to Pro. Both sides have decent legibility and provide scientifically accurate data to support their narrative, so it is a tie for sources and legibility.
>Reason for Mod Action:
While the voter does sufficiently explain arguments, the conduct point is insufficiently explained. Claiming that a debater “argues in bad faith” is not a sufficient basis for awarding conduct, particularly as it assumes motivations behind making certain arguments. Refer to the voting standards for specifics regarding instances where conduct may be awarded.
**************************************************
Wow, then it really has been a while. I remember your debates on King_8 for sure. Still watching quite a bit of anime, so always happy to talk about it, debate on it, or vote on just about anything related to it.
Cool. Should be able to set aside an hour or so binge and score these. I get the basic concept of how you want voters to score it, so that shouldn't be a problem, but if I do end up erring in some way, let me know and I can delete and reformulate it when the time comes.
I've finished reading the debate, but I want to dig back into the rounds a bit more to come up with a decision. Should be able to manage that over the next few days and write up a decision this weekend.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: FishChaser // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to pro (arguments)
>Reason for Decision: Benjamin gets several things wrong about 12 year old Naruto, For instance Naruto took the Chunin exams and learned the rasengan while still 12.
Even still, the avatar state is pretty hard to beat for 12 year old Naruto even assuming he could even contend with Aang in base form.
Benjamin also misrepresents Naruto as a mindless brute when Naruto is a creative/tactical genius but that alone doesn't win Naruto the fight.
Baggins also gets something wrong, get it actually works to his favor because Naruto CAN access some 9 tails chakra voluntarily at this point, but he has to run out of his normal chakra first.
At the end of the day, I think it's clear that Aang has more power, speed and versatility which will rape Naruto directly in the anus cheeks.
Also, the likelihood of Naruto passing the first tail is low because over time, the seal on Kurama weakened allowing more of Kurama's chakra to get through. Chances are that Naruto at age 12 would only get one tail at best and it is more likely that he wouldn't even get that far since it took almost being killed by Sasuke and knowing that he was losing/being betrayed by his best friend to activate the first tail.
There is a way that Baggins could have argued to be the biggest douche bag possible, since Aang was frozen he was technically just suspended in a 12 year old body while being much older. Technically when Aang was 12, he only had air bending in base form.
Baggins overstates Naruto's speed, which is significantly lower than lightspeed and is still lower even later when he gains six paths sage mode. Haku starts to move in front of Kakashi's raikiri before he starts charging towards Zabuza if I remember correctly.
The claim that Naruto can tank fire blasts in base form is wrong. The only time I remember him getting flamed in base form that one might interpret him as tanking it is when Naruto fought Sasuke on the roof of the hospital, but he used his rasengan to create a barrier similar to Hyuga "rotation".
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter appears to provide a great deal of analysis regarding the veracity of certain claims within the debate, some of which are actual rebuttals made by the debaters, and some of which are the voter himself inserting his insights. While that is valuable feedback for the debaters, it is not in and of itself a basis for the decision. The only line of text in this RFD that speaks to the decision directly is:
"At the end of the day, I think it's clear that Aang has more power, speed and versatility which will rape Naruto directly in the anus cheeks."
While the voter is welcome to post feedback for the debaters, the voter should be clear about what arguments by Pro and Con led him to believe that Aang has these three elements over Naruto. It does not help that the voter does not point to any specific points made in Aang's favor, focusing his attention almost entirely on the claims for Naruto, which makes it difficult to determine how the voter thinks Pro established that Aang has these advantages.
**************************************************
Still got a couple of weeks, won’t be a problem.
Didn’t give much thought to scoring, honestly.
I enjoyed listening to all of these, but I'll admit I don't listen to a lot of electronic music. There's only so many different kinds of taste in music you can account for with these.
Alright, I'll get to this.
As I said in my RFD, I thought the pieces were there for you to succeed with your arguments in the debate, though yeah, there were some errors in your approach to blamonkey's case. I think you did well given the circumstances, but I also think you handicapped yourself in that approach.
I... honestly have no idea how to respond to that. I'm not sure we can get on the same page at this point, given that that last response has basically nothing to do with what I just said, so I'm just going to stop here.
My point was that you could have argued that other impacts matter more or, absent that, put more focus and attention on the ways that a kettle and dildo could enhance your chances of survival. You let yourself get too spread out in your analysis and you didn't argue why the impacts you did focus on are paramount. Both of you could use work in that regard.
In paragraph 3, I detailed what specific impacts stood out to me as the most important in the debate and why.
I haven't forgotten about this. I'm spending some time on a flight this week, so I'm going to have time to read through it and start writing out thoughts.
I made very clear how I was weighing things early in my RFD. That final line doesn't change how that weighing calculus works, nor does my acknowledgement of the pairs of items.
It's perhaps in poor taste, and voters are welcome to recognize that in their votes, but yes, he's "allowed" to say it.
I'll aim to get to this this week.
I think I can squeeze this into the next two months somewhere...
I'll work on it this weekend.
So true. Also, all The Good Place references are very much appreciated. Love that show.
So your criticism is that I’m verbose? Good note. Very constructive.
If you’ve got a problem with my vote, then state it. I’m not interested in whatever this is.
If it were me on the Pro side here, I'd argue either deontology (not a big fan of it, but there are some workable arguments) or gone more along the lines of "absolute power corrupts," the latter of which is more in line with how the show goes. The kind of deification Light eventually takes on, both in the eyes of others and in his own eyes, is dangerous and could have gotten far worse if he hadn't been taken out. I think focusing on the long term implications of how this power would have molded society in the Death Note universe and how it would twist other Death Note users and their actions were strong directions to take, but they required reading into the material in some detail.
I’ll work on it
Should be good to do it. Just remind me in a week.
I'll note that I actually did mention the Thomas Paine argument. The point of the argument, as far as I could tell, is that it's morally right for a government to regulate people. That's fine, but it doesn't actually tell me why this specific type of regulation at this level is morally right. It tells me that a government must regulate, which as far as I can tell, a government would do on either side of this debate. That's the point I said was non-unique. The same holds true for that divine right of kings (again, the point being that a government should govern). I don't actually see a specific mention of the Federalist Papers, but I did touch on the Constitution (in that is/ought issue). Maybe I missed a couple of points of legal theory, though I think I covered the majority of your argument in some way, shape or form.
As a general rule, telling me that the government cannot do something isn't going to convince me on an "ought" resolution. It's an effort to engage in an inherency argument that aims to establish that there are barriers to action. Valid as those points may be, on an "ought" resolution, my focus is on whether the changes should happen, not whether they can. Otherwise, you could never debate big shifts in policy. If there are barriers to action, then part of debating an "ought" resolution is assuming that, in some way, shape or form, those barriers can be dealt with. It's fine if you want to argue that the process of removing those barriers is net harmful, and that's an argument I would have considered pretty strongly.
To be clear (since I didn't really mention it in my RFD), I don't think the "Burdens" section actually covers much in the way of actual burdens. What Pro's doing there is presenting a framework for his argument, i.e. legal rights ought to be afforded in cases where refusing to extend them to certain groups results in structural violence. That's a clear statement with regards to what Pro believes suffices as an "ought." You argued that that "ought" wasn't sufficient reason to extend a right, effectively arguing that Pro's framework was insufficient to meet the burden he took on for this debate. The trouble is two-fold, and I did mention this in my RFD: one, I'm unclear by the end of the debate how high the bar is for someone to demonstrate that a moral harm is sufficient to engender a right, and two, I don't see a competing moral framework aimed at establishing what should be the standard for a right. Instead, I see a legal basis for establishing a right, which I think Pro effectively countered and showed why the moral basis supercedes it, and I see a moral basis for why regulations should exist, which is non-unique.
So when you talk about it not being fair "for you to have to justify PRO'S is as an ought when he doesn't justify it himself," I'm not sure I understand the problem. Pro had to present a framework to establish why the number of legal immigrants coming into the US should increase. There was an equal burden for you to establish a similar framework or some other distinct reason why increasing their number would be a negative. I think you did a bit of the latter, but Pro did enough to confound that and pushed me to focus on the absence of the former, and I found that convincing. You had to give me a reason to uphold the status quo as better with some kind of framework supporting it. I didn't see you actually supporting the existing system as better policy from some moral or philosophical perspective. Maybe I'm wrong and you can point to places where you did just that. If that's the case, then I encourage you to do so. I'm not demanding responses to Pro's case, but I am trying to find offense for your side of the debate, and I think I detailed all the problems I saw with the offense you provided.
I can’t delete completed debates like this.
Thanks for the reminder, be spending much of the weekend on this.
Remind me in a week in case I blank on this. Will get to it.
We don't have control over site coding, dude. But here's a fix I've been using: copy-paste your argument into a Google Doc before copy-pasting it into here. I've found that that doesn't encounter the same problem.
Again, I’m not enforcing to stop defamation, but if, as you say, there are other instances of someone engaging in name calling or insults, I am very much willing to pursue them as well. That being said, their presence or absence does not change my warning.
You've called him and many other people on this site defamatory names, so let's not go throwing stones in glass houses. My role here does not include addressing all instances of defamation. You are also the only one that I have seen between the two of you to engage in a very clearly targeted use of personal attacks aimed not at what he was saying, but at his intelligence. Pointing to other things you have said that would not require my intervention doesn't change the fact that you've done this. If you want to falsely equivocate, be my guest, but I won't be enforcing based on that equivocation.
Calling someone a liar is not and has never been a personal attack. It relates specifically to what you say. It is also not part of my role as moderator to determine who is right and who is wrong, so I do not intercede in matters that others might view as "untruths". I am not here to defend your or anyone else's argument. I am not here to validate you or anyone else. So I'm not sure what you're expecting me to do, but none of what I see from Lemming warrants a warning.
You can justify it however much you want to yourself, but you know this is against site rules and I shouldn't have to delve into the why of it. Whether you feel it is warranted does not make these insults appropriate. Attack what they say as much as you want, but steer clear of personal attacks.
Consider this a formal warning. Insults like "blithering idiot" and "dumb ass" are strictly against the CoC. If we see this again in any context, there will be consequences.
I agree with Barney that the debate is not clear from either the resolution or the description. If you wanted to argue against plea bargains and judge trials, you probably should have done that in your opening argument (even better if it was in the description that that was your position) in order to establish the entirety of your case instead of a shifting target. Notably, these additions would also be non-topical, and as a judge, I would be amenable to your opponent perming that part of your plan since it has nothing to do with corporal punishment.
As for specific points against your position a la corporal punishment, I'd say you've got an issue with classism. Who is most likely to see time in jail/prison as the most damaging to their livelihoods and families? Those who cannot afford bail or are generally financially strapped. You're also leaving these same people with a lasting physical mark, one that shows in their day-to-day behaviors and functions as a near constant reminder during that time to them and everyone around them (including police) that they have been convicted of a crime and suffered a punishment.
Alright then, should be fun. Nice to have you back.
I’m not taking a position on whether or not the terms in the resolution are debatable. My opinion on that is irrelevant to the question of whether this vote is sufficient. If a voter doesn’t see this as debatable, then as long as they justify that perspective, that is sufficient under the voting standards of this site.
I'm going to try to get to this. Someone remind me if I haven't posted a vote in a couple of days.
In response to the appeal regarding Trent0405's vote:
I agree with Barney's decision.
Voters are not obligated to award any points they do not wish to award. That includes choosing not to award sources, even when one side does not use them. The voter elaborated on his reasoning regarding sources below.
Similarly, while a rule may establish that something is debatable, the voters are not held to the standard of having to afford weight to that type of argument. Voters have leeway to determine whether these arguments make a difference in their decision.
As for arguments, the voter explained his perception of the argument presented by Pro and, at least as far as I can tell, it references what Pro said in the debate. He also considers specific arguments presented by Con. That is sufficient.
I should also say that I agree with Barney's view on GP's vote. It does seem like paraphrasing to me, rather than a confusion of points.
I’ve been reading. Will get a vote up before the deadline, might be close.
We’d have to detect them in advance, but I could see a basis for it.
We already don’t allow users below the age of 13. We could set an age limit for voting and enforce that as mods, but if someone is using other accounts to vote bomb, I don’t think it’ll do much to prevent that.
I'm not going to permanently ban Lancelot on a basis that I cannot possibly know for certain. He received a ban commensurate with what we know to have happened - I'm not going to ban him for longer on the basis that other accounts associated with his have exacerbated the situation. I have already banned several accounts that are obviously linked to these efforts, and ban others and restrict voting as necessary to prevent this from happening again.
Boba_Tea was explicitly warned on this debate and via PM about voting on RM’s debates and has ignored that warning. His voting privileges have been suspended indefinitely while moderation discusses other interventions.
I'll start working on it.
We have no basis whatsoever for believing that Devon is involved in this, so no, we’re not going to permanently ban him over a comment made on a separate debate and his vote here.
And yes, I do believe we know who is responsible. It’s not a mystery. That doesn’t mean it’s who you think it is.
Both the accounts that vote bombed just as time was running out have been banned. We know this is the result of actions from a single user, but since all their accounts have already been permanently banned, we can only keep knocking them down. Would be great if we could remove these votes after the debate ends…
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Devon // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 point to Pro (Arguments, Conduct)
Pro argues that the main incentive for survival of all sentient beings is self-preservation, implying that their will to live is instinctual. He uses multiple facts to support this conclusion, including that anyone who violates their privilege to live is morally and ethically wrong, and most likely a psychopath. I buy this line of reasoning, as these two constructives are very powerful arguments.
Con counters that some species, including humans are suicidal and that death is sometimes a biological imperative. Con goes off-topic by mentioning the mental state of humans and claims it's possible to be a compassionate human with a moral compass and a serial killer. These arguments do nothing to refute Pro's arguments and deliberately misinterpret Pro's arguments. Since Con argues in bad faith here, points for conduct goes to Pro.
Since Con goes off-topic, then the point for arguments goes to Pro. Both sides have decent legibility and provide scientifically accurate data to support their narrative, so it is a tie for sources and legibility.
>Reason for Mod Action:
While the voter does sufficiently explain arguments, the conduct point is insufficiently explained. Claiming that a debater “argues in bad faith” is not a sufficient basis for awarding conduct, particularly as it assumes motivations behind making certain arguments. Refer to the voting standards for specifics regarding instances where conduct may be awarded.
**************************************************
Wow, then it really has been a while. I remember your debates on King_8 for sure. Still watching quite a bit of anime, so always happy to talk about it, debate on it, or vote on just about anything related to it.
Cool. Should be able to set aside an hour or so binge and score these. I get the basic concept of how you want voters to score it, so that shouldn't be a problem, but if I do end up erring in some way, let me know and I can delete and reformulate it when the time comes.