Instigator / Pro
5
1489
rating
19
debates
42.11%
won
Topic
#2026

Cosmetic Surgeries for enhancing body parts should be banned across the globe.

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
2
4
Better legibility
1
2
Better conduct
2
1

After 2 votes and with 8 points ahead, the winner is...

CaptainSceptic
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 weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
13
1527
rating
8
debates
62.5%
won
Description

No information

-->
@fauxlaw

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

>Points Awarded: 4 to Con

>Reason for Decision:
Argument: Pro's argument that all cosmetic surgery should be banned is far to extensive to be common sense considering the vast number of surgeries performed for well-being of the patient and their wide variation. Pro argues for a moderate approach, but demonstrates "moderate" as absolute. Con's argument weold allow regulation, but not complete banning, which does smack of a "thought police" mentality, an argument Pro failed to defeat.
Sources: Pro demonstrated far more and better sourcing than Con
S&G: Clearly Con had better
Conduct: Con forfeited last round; ad form for conduct

>Reason for Mod Action: Argument points are justified, but source and S&G points are not. The Voting Policy requires the following rules for each category:

Sources
Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate
Directly evaluate at least one source in particular cited in the debate and explain how it either bolstered or weakened the argument it was used to support
Must explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's
Mere appeals to quantity are not sufficient to justify awarding sources points.

S&G

Give specific examples of S&G errors
Explain how these errors were excessive
Compare each debater's S&G from the debate

Sorry for removing the vote so close to the deadline.
************************************************************************

-->
@VonKlempter

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

>Points Awarded: 4 to Con

>Reason for Decision:

I would first like to congratulate both debaters for their effort, but since I do not wish to write 20 pages for a vote RFD, I will keep it short and simple. Arguments wise, both sides did well, however, the Instigator has failed to provide sufficient and clear conclusions for his arguments. He seems to provide a newer substantive at the end, and while it definitely is not wrong, it does not provide his arguments with the clarity and simplicity that resounds through the Contender's arguments.
As for sources, the Instigator has bogged his arguments down with a maelstrom of sites, placing as many as three sources just for one simple sentence. This further adds to the mild confusion that Pro's arguments create.
S&G is self-explanatory, neither side has problems expressing themselves, at least from a reader's point of view.
Conduct to the Instigator because the Contender forfeited the last round.

>Reason for Mod Action: Unfortunately, the vote does not reach the minimum standards for awarding argument points. There are three criteria that must be met for argument points to be awarded. The voter must"

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

No arguments are specifically mentioned, nor their counterarguments.

For source point allocations, the voter must, per Voting Policy guidelines,

"Directly evaluate at least one source in particular cited in the debate and explain how it either bolstered or weakened the argument it was used to support."

Other point allocations meet the minimum standards. So sorry for removing the vote close to the deadline.
************************************************************************

-->
@Barney

Yeah. Will do. Sorry about being a bit late with this.

-->
@blamonkey
@MisterChris

Would one of you mind reviewing the votes? They've both been reported.

-->
@RationalMadman
@Dr.Franklin

any feedback about the debate would be highly appreciated. Do tell which arguments you found the best and which you found lacking in some areas.

agree with pro

-->
@CaptainSceptic
@shadow_712

This is an OG topic. Always has been a debate topic in school tournaments and will remain a pressing issue, no matter how the world progresses.