Instigator / Pro
14
1479
rating
3
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#2003

PETA should be banned.

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
12
Better sources
4
8
Better legibility
4
4
Better conduct
0
4

After 4 votes and with 14 points ahead, the winner is...

oromagi
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Six months
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
28
1922
rating
117
debates
97.44%
won
Description

It is very controversial and I do not like it.

-->
@oromagi
@Worldthink897
@seldiora

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: seldiora // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:6; 6 points to Con.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action: Seriously, this could be called a two round forfeit, but that is pretty far from a full forfeiture.
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
**************************************************

seldiora
54 minutes 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:
full forfeit, and pro sources were not that good

-->
@fauxlaw

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

>Reason for Decision: Argument: Pro's arguments did not withstand the rebuttals by Con. Pro's first round argument was entirely contained within a link outside the debate with no commentary by Pro. Bad form. Conversely, Con's arguments were mostly criticized, but lacked credence by rebuttal, and mostly failed in the attempt. Con's arguments, by contrast, could not be successfully rebutted by Pro, as Con demonstrated in his round 5.

Sources: Pro's sources were biases, inconclusive and self-contradicting. Example: Peta founder was demonstrated to criticize pet ownership, yet engage in proxie pet care, as Con demonstrated. Con's sources were credible and consistent in their messages.

S&G: Tie

Conduct: Pro's first and last rounds did not meet standard expectation. Con was professional and credible in all rounds.

>Reason for Mod Action: While the reasoning for the points awarded is fine, per the Voting Policy, there needs to be explicit mention of at least one argument/counterargument to award argument points. In addition, there needs to be explicit mention of what Pro did to warrant him losing conduct points. I actually agree with your analysis, for the record, and I am sorry for the inconvenience.
************************************************************************

Oh wait that is Oromagi...

Who is that activist flag guy?

PETA gets free speech protections.

Although I see Pro is definitely trying his best, I doubt that he can win against Oromagi.

No kill shelters are far more unethical than kill shelters and this is one thing peta got right. This is the worst common criticism of peta. They use so many ignorant extremist tactics but they get bashed for this? They get some stuff right, just deal with it

-->
@Barney

As in, no protest, funding, employees fired, relations cut off. Closed.

-->
@Worldthink897

Banned in what sense?