Ragnar always votes against me and i think its personal
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 4 votes and with 22 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Ragnar should be censored for his bias to me
- That I always vote against Bill, and
- That my voting regarding Bill is personally targeted against him.
- https://tiny.cc/DebateArt
- https://www.debateart.com/debates/1367/vote_links/3436
- https://www.debateart.com/leaderboard/debates?order_direction=desc&order=votes
Verifiably FalseOn the debate “Standard of living and quality of life are different things,” due to him offering what I considered to be a superior argument, I graded the arguments in favor of Bill [2]; giving him his sole victory I might add.
RFD in comments
Ragnar completely disproved Pro's case by providing a link to debate in which he did vote for him. Also no arguments for the "personal" point. Without any refutation, arguments must go to CON.
Links to voting history disprove that he isn't vote bombing or making it personal. CON actually gave sources to prove his point. Sources go to CON.
I could understand what both were saying. Tie on spelling and grammar.
Callout debate and then didn't even argue. Wasted CON's time, who actually went to the trouble to make points. CON gets conduct points.
Pro is objectively wrong when he states that Ragnar always votes against him and Ragnar points this out when he refers to the debate “Standard of living and quality of life are different things”, and seeing how Pro must prove Ragnar always votes against him and that it is personal, he can't win this debate unless he could prove that Ragnar really didn't vote against him in that debate. Sadly, Billbatard fails to prove this in R2, he never even supported how it was personal either, he just dropped everything Ragnar stated.
Therefore Pro loses arguments because he doesn't offer any evidence.
No argument is offered by pro at all. Con demonstrates he has voted for pro - directly refuting the premise. Arguments to con, open and shut.
Sources: con won the debate with an unassailable source that demonstrated the resolution false, by linking the vote that refuted the resolution, cons source was seminal in the victory thus warrants the source point - pro offered no sources.
Conduct: this is a poor conduct call out debate - which, together with pros unwillingness to argue - is clearly poor behaviour, and Warrants a conduct mark down.
Thank you all for voting!
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's offering was pretty straightforward-
P1: User Ragnar always votes against user billbatard
C1: therefore, Ragnar is shown to be biased in debates involving user billbatard
PRO's single strand of evidence was instantly disproved with CON's link to a debate where Ragnar favored billbatard
As instigator and provacateur, BoP was 100% PRO's and he just didn't bother to assemble any case beyond the one faulty assertion
CON offered contradicting evidence and challenged PRO to prove state of mind, which challenge PRO did not accept. In fact, PRO never engaged.
Arguments to CON.
Sources to CON for refuting PRO entire premise with a link to a vote contradicting PRO's assertion.
S&G to CON for offering PRO the point if PRO would only adhere to DART formatting (as designed by CON). PRO ignored this generous offering.
Conduct to CON because PRO essentially used debates to dodge the "no call out thread" rules of DART. Judging by PRO's overall lack of conviction and effort, this VOTER finds that PRO's debate represent an effort to troll/provoke that was effectively nullified by CON's adherence to DART standards.
cool
If Bill manages to use my suggested formatting in R2, I urge an S&G vote in his favor for the magnitude of improvement.