Instigator
Points: 6

This site is elitist bullsh&t

Voting

The participant who scores the most points is declared the winner

The voting period will end in:
00:00:00:00
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Philosophy
Time for argument
Two weeks
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Six months
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Required rating
10
Points: 14
Description
Voting is a sacred right. Liberals probably feel anyone who vote for Trump is too stupid or evil to vote, Conservatives probably feel anyone who votes for Bernie or Warren is a commie and should be arrested. Yet we all get to vote as long we put down our guns or bombs for a moment. My voting rights were suspended because some ass here didnt like the way i was doing it. well f(**^ [email protected]
Round 1
Published:
I dont understand how any fair minded person can set up a voting system then tell you you voted in a wrong way, talk about a kangaroo court situtation!QQ
Published:
If you look at a debate 3 days ago you would realize you have to talk about all the arguments to award the argument point. Talk about the sources in the sources points. Talk about conduct for the conduct point. The other votes are like what I said here.

The debate

Comment #30
>Reported Vote: Ragnar// Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Points Awarded: 5 points to con for arguments and sources
>Reason for Decision: see comments.
Reason for Mod Action>Arguments are sufficient; the voter surveys all the main arguments, weights them against each other, and reaches a conclusion.
Sources are also sufficient: the voter surveys sources, uses examples and shows how these source affected the individual arguments.

From this you can gather Ragnar was able to meet the standards of the vote.
If you want see his vote here it is.

Comment #20
>Reported Vote: Trent0405// Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 3 points to or for arguments
>Reason for Decision: See above
Reason for Mod Action> I have gone back and forth on this one over the last few days: but ultimately my view is that this vote falls short of what can be considered borderline.
While the voter cites some examples from pros argument, it is not fully clear from the RFD why he weighted pros point more strongly than cons. In fact, these extra quotes muddy the water for why the voter felt pros arguments were better.
Likewise, there is little detail on why the voter rejected cons arguments on the grounds of relevance - though this alone would have simply made the vote borderline.
I will normally consider a vote to be borderline if only semantic or formatting changes are required; but I feel the explanation in the first portion of the RfD is sufficiently lacking in clarity to pass the borderline test.

From this you can gather you must talk about both arguments not just one.


Comment #13
>Reported Vote: PressF4Respect // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 3 points to pro for arguments
>Reason for Decision: "More convincing debater”
Reason for Mod Action>This vote is insufficient, To award arguments, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.

From this you realize the moderator has clearly stated what must be done in order to award points. If you simply look for this debate you would have found this out or you could've asked the moderators to know what would be going with their rules but you didn't which is why your vote was taken down.


Comment #14
>Reported Vote: WaterPhoenix // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 5 points to pro for arguments and sources, 1 point to pro for conduct.
>Reason for Decision: See above
Reason for Mod Action>none of the points are sufficient. The voters does not survey and weigh arguments, compare and assess sources and the impact they had in the debate (one side having no sources is not grounds for point allocation); not did the voter explain how the conduct was sufficiently toxic or severe to warrant conduct mark down.
To award arguments, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.
To award sources points, the voter must (1) explain how the debaters' sources impacted the debate, (2) directly assess the strength/utility of at least one source in particular cited in the debate, and (3) explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's.
To award conduct points, the voter must (1) identify specific instances of misconduct, (2) explain how this misconduct was excessive, unfair, or in breach of the debate's rules, and (3) compare each debater's conduct.


You don't even know how to vote to even say something about the voting system. Please understand it before you criticize it. You are also in no position to critize because your vote was awful.

Here it is:

Better arguments



3 points
Better sources



2 points
Better spelling and grammar



1 point
Better conduct



1 point
Reason:
it came down to a debate on what best means

You gave me all the points for 10 words. Do you even understand how to vote or did you forget to ask the moderators because you accidentally pressed enter?

From this I can clearly understand if you really wanted to vote under the DA rules you would've asked the moderators or looked through debates. I also knew that your vote was awful even disregarding the rules of this site. 10 words is not enough to give one side the points for 4 different things. 

Round 2
Published:
your rules are absurd why should i have to explain why i voted a certain way? when you go to the polls you dont have to explain why you voted this way or that you vote as you please.. and dont you dare mention those stupid bloody rules any more, the rules used to say you could own slaves, and peole like you defended that [email protected]@!!
Published:
your rules are absurd why should i have to explain why i voted a certain way? 
Yes.
when you go to the polls you dont have to explain why you voted this way or that you vote as you please..
Polls use is to state who you are voting for not why. Voting here's purpose is to declare a winner and state why. Sorry typing in reasons is too much to ask for.
and dont you dare mention those stupid bloody rules any more, the rules used to say you could own slaves, and peole like you defended that [email protected]@!!
You can criticize the rules and I never said you couldn't. Please bring actual problems with the voting on this site instead of comparing it to slavery. I wouldn't defend slavery and I don't think I have said otherwise. These seems to me like you are against rules even though you are for the rule of voting? I would like an answer. 
Round 3
Published:
the law is an ass the law is a ass
Said of a law that one thinks is unnecessary or ridiculous. The phrase comes from Charles Dickens' novel Oliver Twist: "The law is a ass—an idiot." ... The law is an ass!
The law is an ass - Idioms by The Free Dictionary

https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com › the+law+is+an+ass

Published:
Nothing informative has been added to the conversation.

I'll wait until the next round. 
Round 4
Published:
you fail to explain the rationale of your rules as if you dont have to
trust me you do now i'm here and i'm angry
you dont want that trust me
Published:
The burden was on you to demonstrate it was elitism. I countered your points sufficiently and you resort to well you didn't really counter my points. The problem here is that I did, you fail to bring up new points and we are here. Remember the round before where you could've given an actual argument instead resorted to a non-sequitur? That round and this round you failed to show how the site is "elitist bullsh&t". I have nothing to rebut.
Round 5
Published:
convince me these rules even make sense
Published:
My job isn't to convince you of anything. It is to demonstrate how this site isn't "elitist bullsh&t". Given I have successfully rebutted your claims. Your sole burden is not fulfilled meaning you failed to show this site is well just read the title.

Thanks for the debate billbatard
Added:
Wow.
Not saying who is right or wrong but pros arguments were weak...
Rules used to say you could have slaves... rules also say you cant murder people willy nilly. Clearly rules are not bad just because they are rules, but because of their individual justifications.
Pro used an example of a bad rule to descredit rules in general, which ignores all the good rules that we should be glad exists. He never questioned the specifics of the rules, just their existence. Thats a fail.
Does pro think we should also have secret voting and let trolls ruin this site in the name of blind idealism?
#1
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Pro literally has the argument the the law is an ass and that therefore the website is elitist bullshit. If you transcribe Pro's R3 and R4 logic into the angle he (profile identifies as male so I say 'he') took in R1 and R2, the case Pro makes is literally that the law is an ass and that there's no rationale behind it any more than there was behind racist slavery and that therefore they are equally abhorrent.
At first, Con slips up, for he makes the error of playing too defensive but not defending against the defence of the enemy. What I mean is that at first Con's reply was that Pro was totally entitled to attacked the law and rules and opened himself up to complete stampeding in R4 by Pro who could bring many new points thanks to Con asking him to, in order to justify why slavery is equally stupid, elitist and/or bullshit as voting regulations on this website. However, Pro never capitalises on that, Pro comes back just as passively defensive and asks for Con's rationale.
There also seems to be no way to tell if it is bullshit or not, because Pro didn't know you're allowed to swear on this website, unlike DDO, so was too afraid to directly use the word or definition in his debate round(s).
Pro never uses sources, other than using Oliver Twist, a fictional story, to justify that the Law is an ass because the main character says so... That is a terrible and unreliable use of sourcing in a debate that is meant to make the opponent admit that the site is elitist bullshit. If anything is elitist bullshit it's saying that as a Dickens fan you're entitled to just quote a character and win a debate down to your taste in books.
Con cites an actual event that Pro is referring to, compares others' votes that got removed and shows how Pro's own vote was actually worse than one that got removed, which was never ever countered by Pro. Pro's case is actually racist. What Pro is saying is shockingly that he considers that his vote is as inferior to the non-removed votes as the enslaved race was to the 'master race' in the times where slavery was legalised. This is actually the true extent of the analogy that Pro uses to counter Con's logic. It is neither justified nor properly brought into linking to the resolution throughout the debate.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Con demonstrated that the execution of the rules was not done in a bullshit manner (citing a debate which seems to have inspired this one). He did this via showing multiple votes, and explaining where the line in quality fell. The implication is that it would actually be bullshit to not insist people read the debates before they vote (and then to give minimal proof).
I was not convinced that rules are not elitism (that something is elitism, doesn't mean it's a bad thing), but pro complained about that rather than showing it, and never tried to meet BoP on either point (1. that it's elitist, and 2. that it's bullshit).