RESOLVED: In the United States, Zoos Should Not Be Abolished Completely.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 7 votes and with 49 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
Specifics: I will be arguing for Pro and my opponent for Con. We will both have exactly three days to post our arguments. Forfeiting three times will merit a loss. Conceding will merit a loss. Trolling will merit a loss. K'ing will merit a loss. I will waive the first round and my opponent the last. Upon acceptation, my opponent agrees to the terms above. and below. Upon voting, voters agree to accept the terms above regarding losses.
Zoos are not sanctuaries. Zoos shall be defined as this :a facility with usually indoor and outdoor settings where living, typically wild animals are kept especially for public exhibition (Merriam Webster)
If you want to really debate on animal rights and the topic, remove the United states and set the debate from a world perspective, challenge me : "Zoos should not be abolished completely" I will accept. Lets cross swords, what say you ?
hold on, I intend to vote pro not tie so can you remove it?
it's a pewdiepie reference
>Reported Vote: Intelligence_06 // Mod action: Not Removed (non-moderated debate)
>Points Awarded: 0:0; Tied.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
There are three types of tied votes:
(1) Ones which allot zero points. They have no meaningful impact on the debate outcome, and are thus only moderated if warranted for other reasons.
(2) Ones which cancel themselves out. While the category assignments may serve as feedback to the debaters, there is no still meaningful impact for moderation consider. These are in essence the same as the previous type.
(3) Votes which leave arguments tied, but assign other categories. While these need not meet the sufficiency standards for an argument vote, they must still evaluate arguments enough to justify no clear winner. There is however an exception for >=50% forfeitures allowing conduct only with no further explanation.
Further reading: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1718/moderation-and-tied-votes
This debate has been deemed non-moderated. Therefore, no moderation action is appropriate for this vote.
Full Forfeitures, explicit concessions, subjective competitions, truisms, and comedy (even if facetious) are not eligible for moderation (barring certain exceptions).
I will not vote on this absurdity. Neither participant deserves a win; Con, because all rounds were forfeited, nor Pro because no argument, was ever posted, regardless of claim to do so in description, but also by r1 waive, and by blatant refusal to post an argument in r3, expecting a forfeiture by Con. Is this an acceptable "debate?" Not in my book. I'm surprised those who voted accept the behavior of Pro while denigrating the behavior of Con. I refer anyone's criticism to my post #1.
It’s an F, therefore it’s Fawful
No. The falafel is not awful. It is either fawful or it is foul.
No. I will win the debate.
Oh, so no matter how hard he tries(Which he most likely wouldn't), you will still win conduct.
Forfeiting three times merits a loss
I suggest you make an actual argument in R5, because if CON comes back and makes something extravagant he can still win the argument point.
Unless you are sure that CON will ff.
Why should zoos be abolished completely? I mean, I am with pro here.
'acceptation' is a word that means formal approval, not accepting of something in terms of a challenge.
Thanks, I'll use that.
"I will waive the first round and my opponent the last. Upon acceptation, my opponent agrees to the terms above. Upon voting, voters agree to accept the terms above regarding losses."
Yeah I think I did. Perhaps you are reading the short description?
I suggest adding any vital terms to the description, otherwise the debate can turn into a dance around ambiguity... Such as what would abolished completely look like? And are sanctuaries considered zoos?
And now that it's in the description, your waive rule is fine if not ideal.
Oh something you may find useful: https://tiny.cc/DebateArt
I think the instigator of a debate should take the lead in the debate. It looks like a coward, otherwise. It's YOUR debate. Stand for it. Either you trust yourself with a valid argument, or you don't. You want to see your opponent's cards, wait for his play. He waits for yours, yeah?
no you didn't, nothing says waiving in this description.
Yeah I know. but i fixed it.
actually erict outplayed you hard with that round-1 mirrored waiving, you never said it in the description and he had every right to.
I disagree. Waiving is a perfectly fine way to have your opponent have the first word, and you have the last. As with EricT, he was being an idiot.
If you only want a 4-round debate, specify a 4-round debate. Waiving is a joke.