Instigator / Pro
25
1489
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#1559

Hedonism

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
9
12
Better sources
8
8
Better legibility
4
4
Better conduct
4
2

After 4 votes and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...

Speedrace
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Two months
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
26
1641
rating
63
debates
65.08%
won
Description

I will be arguing pro hedonism. You will be arguing con hedonism by showing an alternative philosophy to be better.

From a glance it doesn't seem like Speedrace's advantage is fair here given that Ethan G's vote fails to address conduct which is necessary in this case due to the forfeit.

-->
@Barney

Thanks for letting me know how the sources points work. I've adjusted my vote accordingly.

-->
@SirAnonymous

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: SirAnonymous // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 1:2; 1 point to Pro, and 2 points to Con.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action: Basically you can't vote sources just for /has sources/ you need to name one and what it did for the debate. You can revote at any time with that amended to your current vote.
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 were notably superior to the other's.
**************************************************

SirAnonymous
17 days ago
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 forfeited a round, so Pro gets conduct.
Con used sources and Pro didn't, so Con wins sources.
Judging by the debate description, the BoP seems to be shared, so I will judge the arguments accordingly.
Both participants argued that their own philosophies would lead to personal happiness and the benefit of others. Pro argued that, by definition, hedonism is the pursuit of happiness, so it inevitably leads to happiness. Furthermore, most people are not pleased by harming others, so in their search for pleasure, they will not harm others. Contrarily, Con argued that HBOY (Congrats to the participants for coining the name of this interesting philosophy) would by definition help yourself and others. Con pointed out that hedonism has the problem that some people are pleased by hurting others, thus giving hedonism an inescapable moral problem. As Pro pointed out, however, HBOY has the exact same problem if someone believes that pain helps other. Thus, both philosophies are weakened by this same problem.
Pro also attempted to show a contradiction in HBOY because it is impossible to always help yourself and others. But as Con pointed out, HBOY only says to "try" to help others. If helping yourself and others is not always possible, there is no contradiction because only trying is required.
Overall, the moral problems both philosophies face cancel each other out, so arguments are a tie.

-->
@Muffins

Chillax dude.

One of the clique will come a put you back on top. No one is "shitting" on you. You're just upset because the mod took back his vote. But notice, I did not ask him to.

You disagree with me about your debate vote, but so what? Must everyone agree with you?

The power of the clique is not that they are great debaters, but that their clique vote mods ensure votes against them get removed, and votes for them remain.

All this crying is unbecoming for one aspiring to be Dart elite. Hey clique mods, see what happens when you make them think winning is their right?

-->
@ethang5

OK Bob.

Doesn't change the fact that you are still blithely shitting on me, my arguments, my efforts, and the entire mod team. Did I politely give you an out to actually read the debate and evaluate fairly? Yah. Did you take the out and push even further with your shenanigans? Yeah. Am I pointing out your BS? Hell yeah. Do you have a good response to the fact that you're pulling a BS stunt right now? No. Instead you ad hom the mods for removing your vote multiple times, throwing conspiracy accusations on them, and you ad hom me for 'bad form' or for 'having a slight problem'. Bro if you're gonna be a dick, you're gonna get called out for it, form or not.

It's like Joe in the anecdote saying that reporting an incident to HR might be bad form because it creates conflict in the company, reporting Bob to HR, then getting told by Bob "How's your form now bro I thought you didn't want to create conflict in the company? You're just the type to stir things up I guess. Eat your own words." The only proper response from Joe would be to say "Fuck you. You burnt my manuscript."

Wow.

You first contacted me 2 weeks ago...

>Probably bad form to critique a voter of your own debate, but here:...

Your form has really improved since then hasn't it?

-->
@ethang5

Bob the company proofreader takes a handwritten, untyped story draft written by a friend, let's call him Joe, and burns it.

Bob then says to the world, "HEY EVERYONE! JOE MIGHT HAVE A SLIGHT PROBLEM WITH THE FACT THAT I BURNT HIS DRAFT! ALSO, IF I GET FIRED, THEN THERE'S SOME HARDCORE CLIQUE FAVORITISM GOING ON, AND I WILL SUE THE COMPANY. MARK MY WORDS."

Bob to Joe, his angry friends, and company HR with regards to what he did: "It's funny that you guys actually care so much. It's just a stupid draft. He put effort into writing it? Well it's not like it's important anyway. Lol. Joe needs to chill. Y'all need to stop taking this so seriously."

That's you, Ethang. You're Bob. You burned every argument and response that I wrote for this debate right out of your head, and evaluated the debate based on a single argument that CON wrote, an argument that I responded to. A response that CON dropped and that you did not weigh. Neither did you weigh a single one of my actual points - both the ones that CON dropped and the ones that CON responded to. It's like I didn't really exist in this debate for you.

Does you calling out the fact that I care about a thing that I put effort into justify you shitting on my efforts? Is it my fault for caring that you shat on my efforts? Is it the moderators' fault for trying to take action on the fact that you are shitting on other people's debates? You pointing out the fact that I have a problem with your vote ahead of time shows that at best you know what's going on with regards to your vote and are refusing to back down. At worse, you are being maliciously provocative for your own enjoyment. I'm seeing a little bit of both.

So I guess you being an asshole to me (and to the mod team) is alright, but any negative response you receive with regard to you being an asshole is fucked up, right? Cuz we should just let people shit on us and be chill about it, right? :)

-->
@Barney

The amount of quality ethics memes are real low. Good luck with that one.

That being said, I may give this one a read over.

-->
@ethang5
@Muffins

This debate has more than six weeks to attract more votes.

I won't lie, drama in comment sections has always decreased my propensity to vote, and I suspect it is likewise for many others... One advertising technique I would suggest (which would bury the current comments), would be maybe post an ethics meme (not for either of the two systems endorsed in this debate) in the comments every day or two?

-->
@blamonkey
@Barney
@Muffins

A week ago I said this,

"It's amazing how seriously you guys take this petty stuff." And Muffins might have a "slight problem" with the new vote.

I was more correct than I knew. It's clear to me now who the clique members are.

My apologies to Ragnar and Speedrace. Muffins, calm down. Nothing here is worthy of such histrionics.

Also, with all due respect because of the time you sacrifice to conduct moderation, you moderators need to grow a pair. Letting this idiot get away with pushing you around like this is just pathetic.

-->
@ethang5

This was interesting to watch. What shenanigans. So this is the state of things on this site. One Garbo voter gets to push around the moderation team with conspiracy theory accusations, thereby maintaining his impossibly biased vote which completely ignores the actual debate context. In no world is this debate a win for CON. Even I have better counters to Hedonism than what CON threw up. Heck, I could've defended HBOY better than he did WITH REGARDS TO THE RESOLUTION. CON literally dropped 3 entire arguments, all of which I've pointed out, all of which were impacted and IGNORED by CON. You literally cannot give a proper vote without weighing these dropped arguments, and the fact that you are doing it, Ethang, shows that you are voting on bias alone. Idk who the heck this ethang guy is, but he should not be voting on debates. Maybe instead of blaming the mods for targeting your votes, maybe look at why you've been targeted. The probability that it has something to do with the fact that the content that you put up is flawed is much higher than the probability that there is some kind of hidden conspiracy against you. Stop complaining about the mod team, stop throwing out inane accusations. Realize that maybe YOU actually ARE the problem. Fix yourself. You shouldnt be voting on debates if you don't know how to evaluate them properly. Stop being a lil bogie. I know it insults your ego if you were to let go and do as I'm telling you, but get the hell over it and make yourself better.

-->
@blamonkey

You were not a mod before I left. So I was not referrng to you there. I don't know you, so I will take your word.

>The popular view is that moderation is an amorphous mass that attempts to restrict the views of conservatives and amplify the liberal voice.

There is a reason that view persists. But the new mod team seems to be less inclined to that view. I really have no issue with you, but it was suspicious that the one debate I picked at random immediately has a mod removing my vote and having a 5 page RFD in tow.

And another vote a day earlier in another debate, same thing. My RFD may have been inadequate, but it is curious how quickly my votes are reported and how often a debate that has sat idle for weeks suddenly gets another vote right after mine is removed. And the other vote always goes against mine.

But rest easy. If I had a problem with you, I would take it up with you.

-->
@ethang5

I struggle with the perception that I am part of a clique. I handle voting reports and decide whether a vote should be removed. There are no people who are "one of my guys." It's for this reason that I was reluctant to join moderation to begin with. The popular view is that moderation is an amorphous mass that attempts to restrict the views of conservatives and amplify the liberal voice. I don't do that, and will never do that. I just ameliorate concerns people have with particular votes by either deleting them or not deleting them in accordance with the CoC and Voting Guidelines. If you are convinced that I am part of a clique who tries to abuse my powers, then you really should report me to get this settled. You say that you have "no issues that need to go to Virt," but you are accusing me of egregious misconduct. In your words:

"Before my hiatus from Dart, I noticed the came the voting mods were playing. It seems you are still playing. Ram is still voting mod right?
I will track the voting, and this time, maybe with bsh1 gone, the exposure of the behavior will not fall on deaf ears."

Go ahead and expose my behavior to Virt if you find it reprehensible. He could remove me.

-->
@blamonkey

I have no issues with you that need to go to Virt. That is fair enough, though muffins might have a slight problem with it.

No worries, there is still a lot of time, some other clique member will come and vote to straighten out this outrage. I really thought speed was one of you guys. Guess he wasn't.

-->
@ethang5

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wD3PpKDVBmoe8otXWddnBjrorY1Lr_u_2as6Wrx_2yI/edit?usp=sharing

How about this: I'll delete my vote and only give the RFD. Fair enough?

-->
@ethang5

If you have a complaint to lodge about my actions, feel free to contact Virtuoso. I maintain that a 5 page RFD could not be done in a matter of minutes or hours with my schedule of helping out a debate club, going to college, trying to join Model UN, and moderating here. Funnily enough, I don't have a vendetta against you or other conservative voters on this site. I sincerely wanted to offer advice to the debaters and an RFD is the best way of doing that. If you observe any significant errors, please contact me at your earliest convenience.

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: AntonZenz123 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: Better arguments to Con; Better sources to Pro; Better spelling and grammar to Pro; Better conduct to Pro.
>Reason for Decision: just garbage...
">Reason for Mod Action: The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
Voting from slave accounts is prohibited (be it the same user, or any other which cannot be readily told apart).
"
**************************************************

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: JacquesBonhomme // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: Better arguments to Con; Better sources to Pro; Better spelling and grammar to Pro; Better conduct to Pro.
>Reason for Decision: See below
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
Voting from slave accounts is prohibited (be it the same user, or any other which cannot be readily told apart).
**************************************************

JacquesBonhomme
1 day ago
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✔ ✗ ✗ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Reason:
Let me just say this the pr hedonism guy seemed to be more assertive in his points, but i'm old dying basically after 6 decades of"hedonism" did hedonism make me happy? no it made me miserable and ruined my health.. i wish i had devoted all the time and money i spent on a good time for myself on others, i do as i come closer to the day i face my maker irealize what a fool i wias what a fool everyone chasing a good time is , hedonism is an easy way to live it requires little effort, you feel good for a while then the hangover the herpes, the brain damaged from 20 years of cocaine abuse.. yu health in ruin you go cap in hand to your insurance company sure its your money but its still defeat.. so you yong people out for a good time i get it, and enjoy yourself just ry to remember how you end up old and sick and alone better to invest your time in your family your kids your wife and your community.. your life will mean more and youll probably die happier than some old sick man with lier cancer emphasema and the gift that keeps on giving hep c

-->
@ethang5

>"Then JacquesBonhomme, an alt of banned user PaulVerliane votes for Pro, though his argument is FOR con. And though he has been proven an alt account and banned, his vote stands. How?"

Largely because no one (not even you) clicked the report button on it.

I'm correcting this now... we moderators are not divine beings, please click report to bring things to our attention.

people need to know the devil lives in hedonism you wont be happy

-->
@Barney

>Also, what annoyed you about the S&G before?

S&G stands for spelling and grammar. Pros grammar was just not as good. Grammar is more than just spelling or typos. It is also about clarity and flow. Pro was better.

Edit: sorry, I've been mixing up pro and con. Speed is better.

-->
@Barney

Then JacquesBonhomme, an alt of banned user PaulVerliane votes for Pro, though his argument is FOR con. And though he has been proven an alt account and banned, his vote stands. How?

Monkey expects me to believe it is coincidence that my reported vote just happened to be on the same debate he intended to vote on. And he then vote's immediately after my vote and puts pro on top. Please.

I have not been on the board for 10 months, so obviously I meant any vote other than this one. Monkey has a debate score of 100%. Shall we take a look see on who voted for him in those 12 debates?

@Ragnar, do you want to now question tied votes? Things happen in life. Speed forfeited a round, but not the debate. I have no reason to believe his missing a round was due to sloth or disinterest. His arguments were better.

-->
@ethang5

Perhaps I should clarify: I don't have enough time in my busy schedule to care about a vote so much to the point that I'd vote out of spite by writing a 5-page RFD. Also, your vote has been reported perhaps a week ago. I asked you to recast the vote and you did with no further repercussions. It has been well within 10 months.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1532/the-problem-of-evil?open_tab=comments&comments_page=1&comment_number=15

-->
@ethang5

Purely out of curiosity, why do you consider conduct to be within the tied range when one side forfeited a round? Also, what annoyed you about the S&G before? ... Not asking you to change your vote or give a thesis.

a good time lasts a few seconds herpes is forever

-->
@blamonkey

No vote of mine has been reported in 10 months. And yes, you could write all that in a day, though you had longer.

Before my hiatus from Dart, I noticed the came the voting mods were playing. It seems you are still playing. Ram is still voting mod right?

I will track the voting, and this time, maybe with bsh1 gone, the exposure of the behavior will not fall on deaf ears.

-->
@ethang5

I had no intention of nullifying your vote. I planned on voting on the debate regardless. (You thought I could write all of that in one day?) I don't remember voting on any other debate when your vote was reported.

>Again, none of this is done

I'm going to keep track how often you come after me to a debate you were not going to vote on, and nullify my vote.

2 times now. You couldn't remove my vote, so you voted yourself to make the liberal win. It's amazing how seriously you guys take this petty stuff.

-->
@ethang5

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: ethang5 // Mod action: [Not Removed]

>Points Awarded: 3 points awarded to Speedrace

>Reason for Decision: Speed better tied his arguments to what we find in reality. Most people behave as if altruism is a better philosophy than hedonism as con notes when he says, "This is essentially what the average person does daily."
Pro argued that hedonism was profitable for the individual, but failed to show how it is better for society.
But cpro's greatest failing is when he says, about the contradiction in his argument,
"Can it not be? Can you not be interested in both your own well-being and that of others at the same time? I don’t see why not. Human beings are absolutely capable of holding conflicting, contradictory thoughts and emotions at the same time."
But the debate is not about whether people can hold contradictory beliefs, but whether such beliefs are better/more rational than noncontradictory beliefs.

Pro admits the contradiction, but still insists hedonism is better. Con has demonstrated to my satisfaction that Pro's argument is internally contradictory, and does not as accurately represent reality as altruism.

>Reason for Mod Action: The vote is borderline (i.e. it does not explicitly violate the CoC.)
************************************************************************

-->
@ethang5

Probably bad form to critique a voter of your own debate, but here:

"But the debate is not about whether people can hold contradictory beliefs, but whether such beliefs are better/more rational than noncontradictory beliefs."

No it's not. Read the resolution in the description. In order for CON to win, he has to show an alternative philosophy to be BETTER than hedonism. I've shown at the very least that his philosophy is at best JUST AS CONTRADICTORY as the "contradictory" elements of Hedonism. Con dropped this argument completely, which means you MUST (1) evaluate it or (2) evaluate my evaluation of it. That's what you're supposed to do to all the arguments that CON did not respond to. I'm not supposed to measure hedonism against what you personally consider to be 'noncontradictory beliefs'. I'm supposed to measure hedonism against CON's philosophy and vice versa.

Again, read the resolution in the description. Until you fairly evaluate the actual text + all relevant points and arguments (dropped, responses, etc.) made WITH RESPECT TO the ACTUAL resolution instead of contriving your own resolution in your head, I will continue to report your vote. As a debater, I know for a fact, given dropped arguments + the current resolution, that this is 100% a PRO win.

-->
@ethang5

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: [ethang5] // Mod action: [Removed]

>Points Awarded: 4 points to con for arguments and s/g

>Reason for Decision: Speed better tied his arguments to what we find in reality. Most people behave as if altruism is a better philosophy than hedonism.
Pro argued the hedonism was profitable for the individual, but failed to show how it is better for s society.

>Reason for Mod Action: Both the argument point and the s/g point is insufficient. In order to award argument points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:

Survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate
Weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself)
Explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points

Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.

None of this is done.

In order to award spelling and grammar (S&G) points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:

Give specific examples of S&G errors
Explain how these errors were excessive
Compare each debater's S&G from the debate
S&G errors are considered excessive when they render arguments incoherent or incomprehensible.

Again, none of this is done

************************************************************************

-->
@PaulVerliane

For me, a hedonist lifestyle is one ruled by strong discipline, work ethic and love for humanity. Is that extreme to you? It's all relative and subjective I think

-->
@Muffins

the secret to life is to find a balance, people argume for extremes either they want to like in hong kong or they think cuba is keen life isnt like that 24 7 orgies are not good a rock and roll life style will kill you but there is no need to be a monk, you need in all things to find balance.. half and half.. you know like Denmark open for business with free health care and college

the secret to life is to find a balance, people argume for extremes either they want to like in hong kong or they think cuba is keen life isnt like that 24 7 orgies are not good a rock and roll life style will kill you but there is no need to be a monk, you need in all things to find balance.. half and half.. you know like Denmark open for business with free health care and college

-->
@PressF4Respect

True. That would make rate of response higher. I just didn't want to be stressing about this debate for more than a week, haha.

-->
@Muffins

Piece of advice for the future: Try to make your time for argument at least one week.

-->
@Muffins

To avoid a trap such as saying people enjoy taking part in other ethical systems is technically low level hedonism, would you please refine the resolution into a meaningful statement?