THBT: WiKiPEDIA is a MORE RELIABLE SOURCE for INFORMATION than FOX NEWS

Thank you. This site certainly does represent many schools of thought. It has been helpful in forcing me to be more consistent and clear in presenting both conservatism and Christianity.

Dang. Well done, king slayer!

I like to see good conservative debaters on the site.

now its your turn to end your win streak!

Thanks! And a 95 win streak is an amazing feat for oromagi. Like you said, that is probably the longest streak we will see.

Congratulations! You ended the longest win streak we are likely to ever see. 95 confirmed, or even 98 if you count the forgone conclusions in the voting period.

That I think this debate is deserving of attention, should only speak highly of both you and your opponent. That I deleted votes in obvious disregard for the voting standards, is nothing against you. If in the next hour or two vote bombs come in against you (I doubt it will happen, Oro isn’t the type to try to rig things) those will be deleted as well.

Ah I see. Since I did not instigate the debate, I will leave any proposed changes to be suggested by oromagi since the instigator frames the debate. While not flashy, I have no problem leaving the description as it was presented. Thanks for the suggestion though.

As a side, since it appears I will likely win, I feel like it would be hard for me to propose any changes that would not be self-aggrandizing.

ikr, and it wasn't even whiteflame who did him in.

Oro is losing!!!
NANI?!?!?!?! :O

I am gonna try to put this debate(or maybe better, even YOU) on the HoF.

This is a historic debate, and that description is kinda bland.

Ah yes. Because a debate about defining the BoP results in personal opinion on a conduct vote. DART 2020

Well I appreciate that, thank you

It shouldn't impact the debate. All the more reason to question the reason the question was posed to begin with. But given that I did promise that I would keep the commentary strictly focused on the content of the debate, let me congratulate you on a well-argued position. You, for the many reasons I already listed, were quite adept at identifying the onuses, and satisfying your own. Your arguments were concise, focused, and straight-to-the-point. Well done, Fruit_Inspector.

Don't worry, I'm not too concerned the amount of notifications. I was just wondering if I was missing some context about what impact changing the debate description would have.

He's been oddly interested in *bumping* this debate, having done it several times and then deleting his comments afterwards. If I were to guess, his question--unprompted--would be yet another attempt at *bumping* this debate during the voting period. One would imagine that if you or oromagi were concerned with the content of the short description, you would've brought it to his attention. My response to these "antics" to my chagrin have been less than savory.

Let me apologize to you, and oromagi, if my feud with the moderation has flooded you with unnecessary notifications. From here on out, I'll keep the commentary strictly focused on the content of the debate.

Just out of curiosity, was there an issue that prompted this question? I haven't read through all of the comments and am wondering if this has something to do with the controversy regarding Athias' vote, or something else. Thanks

The current short description reads: “ Required rating=1000 Anybody is welcome to accept this debate”

Would you both like it changed to any statement about this debate or something? Such changes can be easily made so long as this is still in the voting period.

""Predetermining the BoP" was something CON could have disputed, but he did not."

Neither party has to "dispute" the other person's conduct in order for it to be considered in a vote. If so, then please show me in the Voting Policy where it states that.

"There is no "unfairness" about something mutually agreed to, as long as neither party is being pressured by an outside factor."

When was it "mutually agreed"? You mean there's a tacit agreement made by both parties upon accepting the debate? Once again, according to the guideline, I DON'T HAVE to demonstrate that it was either "excessive" or in breech in of mutually agreed upon rules, so long as I can substantiate that it was unfair--an option discretely presented in the guideline, notably through the disjunction "OR."

"Your argument itself is nonsensical"

Your disagreement does not inform "nonsensical."

" your own personal whim about what a debate should or shouldn't be"

Aren't you the doing the same thing you allege that I'm doing? Weren't you the one who said debate was about "cornering your opponent"? And on whose "whim" should MY VOTE be based? I never employ "whim" when it concerns participating in or analyzing debate.

"It is literally one of the most basic functions of debate to outline what you believe to be the BoP for you and your opponent to the judge."

No, it most certainly IS NOT. Just because you see it practiced here commonly doesn't mean that it is a "basic function" of debate. The burden of proof will always be determined by the proposition itself. Satisfying the burden is contingent on the affirmation or negation.

"You're not just "interpreting things differently," you're challenging one of the well-established norms of debate."

It is a "norm" here. It IS NOT a norm of debate. And please point out where in the guidelines it expressly forbids one from "challenging one of the well-established norms..."

"BoP is defined by your POSITION & ROLE relative to the resolution (i.e. are you PRO or CON. Are you the one making the claim or the one challenging it?). This is again the implicit norm for debate, and challenging it in your vote is uncalled for."

You've just imputed a contradiction. If this is the case, then the Burden of Proof cannot be left to the outline of that which "you believe to be the BoP for you and your opponent to the judge."

You guys once again are making stuff up. I've read through the guidelines, and I've read the policies. There's nothing in them which expressly forbids my awarding conduct on that basis that I chose.

"Predetermining the BoP" was something CON could have disputed, but he did not. He accepted a debate with a BoP outlined in the description and did not dispute it in the arguments, which means he was fully consensual in that agreement.

There is no "unfairness" about something mutually agreed to, as long as neither party is being pressured by an outside factor.

Your argument itself is nonsensical and based on your own personal whim about what a debate should or shouldn't be. It is literally one of the most basic functions of debate to outline what you believe to be the BoP for you and your opponent to the judge. You're not just "interpreting things differently," you're challenging one of the well-established norms of debate.

I will also add that "the BoP is defined by the resolution" is false. BoP is defined by your POSITION & ROLE relative to the resolution (i.e. are you PRO or CON. Are you the one making the claim or the one challenging it?). This is again the implicit norm for debate, and challenging it in your vote is uncalled for.

Reason for Decision (continued):

Lastly, the Contender, albeit concise, does an adept job at clarifying the onuses they each bear by the end of third Round. PRO was attempting to move the goal post by focusing on accuracy without connecting it back to either his proposition or even his own definition (i.e. "reliable.") The Contender doubles down in round 3 and let's everyone know that over which they are debating: "Which is more reliable?" And according to the definition submitted by PRO, reliable would be described as "better suit[ed] or fit to be relied on; more worthy of dependence, reliance or trust; more dependable, more trustworthy." A definition, which should be noted was taken from "Wiktionary" which shares a parent company with Wikipedia. I say that because it is reasonable to presume that Wikipedia's definition of "reliable" would also have been taken from "Wiktionary." PRO did not do a sufficient job in meeting the description of his own definition, which suggests that the sources of information would be more "trustworthy," "dependable," etc. The contender remains focused on his burden and satisfies his onus by demonstrating that Wikipedia suggests of itself that it isn't a reliable source of information at all.

Thus, the winner of this debate in my view is without doubt, Fruit_Inspector.

Reason for Decision:

This was a rather interesting debate between PRO, oromagi, and CON, Fruit_Inspector.

Now on to the reasons for my decision.

Spelling and Grammar: They were both pretty fine with regard to this aspect of the debate.

Conduct: I award no distinction in conduct under protest.

Better sources: I also awarded the better sources point to the contender. As meticulous as PRO is in providing sources, the sources are meaningless if they do not INFORM the truth of one's position. Many of the sources PRO provided fail to account for the integrity of their own information. That is, they don't provide any methodology as to how they gauged the accuracy or inaccuracy of their subject's information, much less its reliability, "trustworthiness and dependability," the objective of this debate. Some were opinion pieces (e.g. Washington Post article.) Not to mention, particularly with the POLITIFACT links, their links to the information they cited led nowhere. It led to a page which stated, "Here's a fact: You ended up in the wrong place!" PRO did not do his due diligence in verifying his own sources. The contender on the other hand, while providing fewer sources, cited information directly relevant to his argument. And upon examining his sources, there were no dead links among them. This is clearly a case of quality over quantity, so I awarded the point to the Contender, alone.

Better Arguments: Now, it is my firm belief that CON won this in the first round. And CON won this debate by citing the apparent paradox. Wikipedia itself suggests that it isn't a reliable source of information, which CON pointed out and sourced. So logically, we can only scrutinize the affirmation or negation of Wikipedia's statement. If Wikipedia is stating the truth, then Wikipedia isn't a reliable source of information at all. (CON Wins.) If Wikipedia is stating a falsehood, then Wikipedia is on some level inaccurate (weakens PRO's argument.) PRO addresses this paradox with a non sequitur, "we are comparing the relative reliability of two entities." CON does well to address this in round two when he states, "My argument is ultimately not about where Wikipedia is compared to Fox News on a scale of source reliability. My argument is ultimately that Wikipedia cannot even be categorized as a reliable source for information. It cannot even be placed on the scale of reliability because it doesn’t belong there at all." PRO continues with the non sequitur statements in Round 3 (that Wikipedia isn't a source of information at all, WHICH CON DOES NOT ARGUE,) and CON again does well to address them.

Furthermore, PRO does not do a sufficient job at all in outlining the reason BIAS =/= reliable, OBJECTIVE = reliable, ACCURACY = reliable. He defines neither objective nor bias, which for his argument bred confusion since he used the term "objective" in two different contexts (e.g. "FOX starts with a political OBJECTIVE and organizes facts to forward that goal," and "...hundreds of competing individual interest is not more likely to deliver OBJECTIVE information than state or corporate controlled sources.") PRO continued to misrepresent CON's arguments, as well as his own sources: PRO claimed that there were HUNDREDS of articles written about the inaccuracies of FOX NEWS in Round Two, but cites an NYT article about President Trump's statements about FOX NEWS, the accuracy of which were being scrutinized, not FOX NEWS itself.

To be continued...

"The whole point of debate is to try to corner your opponent. I will restate: "Docking conduct points for Oromagi cornering their opponent through debate framework is like telling a construction worker they can not use a hammer."

No. The whole point of debate is to substantiate the affirmation or negation of a proposition. "Cornering" is for pugilism.

You guys are making up your own rules. You removed my vote because it didn't "follow" voting guidelines, and now you're subjecting my vote to a standard that's not present in the guideline. Read the guideline again: "Demonstrate how this poor conduct was either excessive, unfair, OR (once again OR) in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate. That means I don't have to demonstrate that it was either "excessive" or in breech of mutually agreed upon rules. I can choose anyone of those reasons, so long as I can substantiate it. And in this case, I chose to acknowledge how "unfair" it was to predetermine the "burden of proof" since it manipulates the construction of either party's argument.

You don't have to "agree" with me, but I DID EXPLAIN my reasons. And I've seen conduct points awarded in a similar fashion.

Keep in mind, the statement "As long as it fits voter guidelines." (I will also add, that under context I was specifically talking about argument point allocation. If the voter had assigned conduct willy nilly, that would have been removed too)

According to the guidelines, docking conduct generally needs to be under the pretense of a brazen and obvious violation. I read this debate, there was nothing even approaching a violation of conduct.

Like seldiora quotes from the ext. moderation policies:

"Misconduct is excessive when it is extremely frequent and/or when it causes the debate to become incoherent or extremely toxic. In the case of awarding conduct points solely on the basis of forfeits, there is an exception to these steps: a debater may award conduct points solely for forfeited rounds, but only if one debater forfeited half or more of their rounds or if the voter also awards argument points (or explains their decision not to award argument points in a manner which meets the argument points voting standards)."

The whole point of debate is to try to corner your opponent. I will restate: "Docking conduct points for Oromagi cornering their opponent through debate framework is like telling a construction worker they can not use a hammer."

"I am tired of repeating this, but it looks like I'll need to once again: users are allowed to assign points in any way they see fit as long as they adhere to DART voting guidelines.

To quote our Moderation Extended Policies and Interpretations:
"It is not moderation's job to judge the rightness or wrongness of the verdict reached. That means that interpretive differences (including what meanings can be deduced or inferred from the text) are not with the scope of reviewable content in a vote. There is one exception to this: the voter actually lying about or blatantly misstating (intentionally or not) what transpired in the debate such that no reasonable person, reading carefully, could reach the conclusion they reached."

Mods can step in to prevent decisions that are so blatantly unfair no rational person can approve of it, but otherwise our interpretive ability is severely handicapped."

When you stated this, was it a lie? Please explain how my award of conduct was "indisputably" in violation of CoC rules.