Instigator / Pro
9
1266
rating
119
debates
15.97%
won
Topic

The universe is based on binary code

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
0
9
Sources points
6
6
Spelling and grammar points
2
3
Conduct points
1
3

With 3 votes and 12 points ahead, the winner is ...

sylweb
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Science
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender / Con
21
1534
rating
7
debates
78.57%
won
Description
~ 0 / 5,000

No information

Added:
--> @Ramshutu

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ramshutu // Mod action: Not Removed

>Points Awarded: 4 points to Con for arguments and conduct

>Reason for Decision: Conduct to con for pros forfeit.
After “surveying the arguments”, it seems that pro didn’t provide a meaningful argument, and instead his opening argument appeared to be more of an incoherently rambling opinion: there was little in the way of an attempt on pros part to establish his position logically, or provide any walk through of the supporting logic. Con arguments are therefore more convincing because he correctly points out how con falls well short of his burden of proof. That some is sufficient to win the debate. Con goes further, by pointing out how the tenuous argument pro made was wrong: pointing out that the 1:0 alternatives are arbitrary and subjective.
Grammar and spelling go to con too: “Every something has to have something at it's core that makes it something”, “to it beyond it's discernible” - both should be its. General poor use of grammar, that make the arguments made hard to follow eg: statements like “many intellectually smart people” (redundancy), “How can I possibly know this you might ask?” Too short, needs a comma between this and you, breaks up the flow of the debate, and the choice of grammar in examples such as this makes it harder to read.

>Reason for Mod Action: The voter surveys the main arguments and weighs them to arrive at a decision. Forfeiting is sufficient grounds to award conduct so long as arguments are explained, which they are. The vote is sufficient.
************************************************************************

Added:
--> @David

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Virtuoso // Mod action: Removed

>Points Awarded: 4 points to Con for arguments and sources

>Reason for Decision: Pro forfeited a round and loses conduct. Not only that but he doesn’t really even try to make an argument.
Pro’s entire argument was how he’s some mason and totally failed to actually provide evidence for his claim. Ultimately the BOP is entirely on him which he fails to uphold.

>Reason for Mod Action: The conduct point is sufficiently explained, but the argument point suffers. To award argument points, the voter must: "survey specific arguments and counterarguments from both sides which impacted their voting decision." The voter fails to survey any counterarguments or any arguments from Con; should the voter update their RFD with these arguments surveyed and weighed, the vote would be sufficient.
************************************************************************