Animals have moral weight.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 6 votes and with 28 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
If there are any parameters on the debate you'd like to change before accepting this debate (character count, number of rounds, etc.) just tell me.
- Award no points for arguments
- Award conduct points to Con on account of Pro creating a truism debate, perhaps in an attempt to win farm.
- Award points for arguments to those who made legitimate arguments toward the topic at hand.
- Award conduct points to Pro on account of Con accepting the debate in bad faith, perhaps in an attempt to win farm.
perhaps in an attempt to win farm.
Pro argues that it is not relevant that he instigated a truism debate. This is not correct. Pro's conduct in instigating a truism debate is relevant to a vote on conduct points.
Pro alleges that I accepted this debate "to try to gain votes on the basis of having 'no grounds on which to make a case.' " This is misleading. My entry in to this debate largely represents an attempt to discourage instigating truism debates, and I was also somewhat curious as to how the community would respond. The need for votes was incidental. What Pro did does not appear to violate site policy and other users had already informed Pro of the problem. So, moderation will do nothing; Talking to Pro about it will do nothing. Consequently the only available means to the end was accepting the debate and using it as venue for a "prosecution". Whether or not the ends justify the means, well I suppose I can talk about that next round. I believe that they do.