Instigator / Pro
11
1777
rating
79
debates
76.58%
won
Topic
#2957

Exodus happened

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
9
Better sources
4
6
Better legibility
2
3
Better conduct
2
2

After 3 votes and with 9 points ahead, the winner is...

Nevets
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
20
1557
rating
35
debates
52.86%
won
Description

This is not about whether or not God was involved, but about whether or not the story is true or fiction. Questions about religious themes must be discarded in favour of historical questions. Breaking this theme, for example by criticising the role of God in the story, will lead to a conduct loss -- this is a voting rule.

The expanding resolution can be summed up as so:

"The story of the Israelites leaving Egypt due to miraculous circumstances is not a made-up myth"

Miraculous: extremely unlikely and/or impossible

Myth: a story not based on real events

History: real events

-->
@Barney
@Benjamin

I did not report it in order to have it removed. I reported it so that it is noted that this user has already previously voted against me three times now. On the first occasion the user did so only two minutes after I expressed an alternative opinion regarding religion on the forum, and in order to vote against me he had to ignore the advice in the voting policy that 40% of a debate being forfeited can be considered an argument loss if so choosing. The person even awarded spelling and grammar to the other side, ignoring the fact that in one of the rounds the person appeared to have been under the influence of alcohol during the reply as almost every single word contained a typographical error. Also it was a borderline fluff vote as it included writing arguments against one side (me) which were not present nor implied within the debate. Secondly he person then had another vote removed for votebombing which coincidentally only came around five minutes after I had yet again expressed an alternative religious opinion on the forum. And in this debate the user made a "third" borderline vote and needlessly expressed intentions to attempt to actually award the victory to Benjamin. I say needlessly because he had absolutely no reason to voice those intentions. However this vote also contains elements of a fluff vote as it contains his own arguments which were never raised by Benjamin nor myself. Although the voting policy does appear to allow for a voter to award a tie even in the instance that one player has actually conceeded, it is yet again borderline, and at the end of this voters vote he has made it quite clear that he intended to award Benjamin with the crucial point that would see him win the debate and has went to the voting policy only to find out that the policy will not actually allow him to award Benjamin with a victory, and so he ends it (nope, not gonna do that). However the intentions are surely quite clear. This voter has now ignored two forfeitures, had a vote removed for vote bombing and ignored a concession in order to vote against me. So the reason I reported this is so that it is noted for my future debates that I may have a user that is actually voting against me due to bias. P.S I have no idea why the voter decided to include his intentions to award Benjamin with the conduct point. But he did and the intentions are clear... I have no problems with Benjamin however.

-->
@Nevets
@Benjamin

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded:
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:

Preempting possible complaints: This being a concession debate, it's easy to get a ton of votes for a good safety net for the presumptive winner. The vote in question is tied but looks like it gives a lot of detail. If that detail was slightly abusive to the presumptive winner, then be glad the voter in question now has no power to cast a vote which assigns points (if it called him a bunch of names or something, let me know and I'll reevaluate).

The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.

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 repeated forfeitures allowing conduct only with no further explanation.
**************************************************

-->
@fauxlaw

Oh boy, your votes are truly epic. I wonder why anyone bothers to read debates when they could instead be reading your votes.

-->
@Benjamin

Your position is the correct one. Keep running in circles and add on more logic or credibility to your arguments. Think about the crux of Con's ideas.

-->
@Undefeatable

Is this the time for giving up?

-->
@Benjamin

Once the debate is over, I'll point em' all out. Until then, its your opponent's responsibility to do so.

-->
@Theweakeredge

Please point me towards a factual mistake in my argument. If you are only referring to the general cherry-picking of topic and information, then you must understand that I deliberately try to debate false statements. Like the Earth being flat. Of course, I cherry-pick in these kinds of debates.

-->
@Benjamin

As I said, your cherry picking has improved, as you just now demonstrated. If you truly don't know what the word means in regards to debate, I would advise that you brush up on your fallacies. You deliberately choose "the most desirably" quotes or sources for your points while completely ignoring info to the contrary, not to mention that half of your sources don't even back you up... which isn't cherry-picking its more like... lying.

-->
@Theweakeredge

Thank you for the compliment, Theweakeredge.

"""
Definition of cherry-pick [merriam-mebster]
intransitive verb

: to select the best or most desirable
"""

If you used the word in a negative sense, please elaborate on what I am doing wrong.

-->
@Benjamin

I see your cherry picking has only improved, lmao

-->
@Benjamin

Too vague. Are we including the slavery, the 40 year war, the amount of people (millions), etc.?