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

Here's that debate.

You're welcome, even though it didn't turn out in your favor. I note, however, that you remain at the top on the leaderboard. Congratulations for that. Undefeated is not all it's cracked up to be [I can afford to say that, having lost]. The ruthlessness, fairly and nobly applied will return, I am certain.

Thank you! That means a lot coming from someone with your reputation

Thanks for voting, fauxlaw!

Thanks for voting!

Congratulations, Fruit_Inspector! Well argued.

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.