Instigator / Pro
11
1469
rating
3
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#3011

Children the age of 12 years should not be harassed for their age on the internet by hypocrites (13 year olds) who had also been harassed for their age, and vowed to destroy those fucking gatekeepers the previous year.

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
6
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
1

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

RationalMadman
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
13
1687
rating
555
debates
68.11%
won
Description

Do not include the following for your arguments/objections:
Laws to "protect kids"
The government
War
Anything referring anybody older than 13
This is not about maturity, this is about the injustices we deal with online. Do not include anything related to maturity
People the age of 13 are not mature, based on the way they act towards people younger than them.

-->
@adfadsfdfasf

Per the voting policy, arguments must be weighted except in cases of disqualification; to which this was not.

-->
@Barney
@Nevets

You misunderstood his vote, why don't you read it again?

-->
@Barney

Next time I'll post 'you suck' instead of a forfeit. That means they have to consider arguments.

-->
@Nevets

Repeated forfeiture waives the need to consider arguments, and allows a conduct penalty without any argument consideration. If arguments are awarded, they must still be weighted.
It's the next level of forfeiture up ("full forfeitures") which allows any point assignments against them.

-->
@Barney

"Any unexcused forfeited round merits an automatic conduct loss, but arguments must still be voted on or justified as a tie. Repeated forfeitures waives the need to consider arguments (you still may, but by the choice of one side to miss at least 40% of the debate, the requirement ceases. And yes, this does apply to Choose Winner, which otherwise would not allow conduct to be the sole determinant).". https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy

I see no misunderstanding of the voting policy. According to the voting policy one forfeiture warrants an automatic conduct loss and a justification presented for arguments.

However two forfeitures (40% of a five round argument) can be considered an automatic argument loss.

I see no misunderstanding?

-->
@Barney

"And yes, this does apply to Choose Winner, which otherwise would not allow conduct to be the sole determinant)."

There is nothing short of an issue of competence of moderator when you think this should be the case.

-->
@RationalMadman
@Nevets
@adfadsfdfasf

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Nevets // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to pro, 1 to con.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:

Mild misunderstanding of the forfeiture policy. While the repeated forfeitures mean arguments don't need to be considered to grade conduct, they may not be awarded solely for the conduct lapse. If con had done a full forfeiture (only one set of arguments, forfeited every round thereafter), then arguments against him for it would be warranted.

---

Any unexcused forfeited round merits an automatic conduct loss, but arguments must still be voted on or justified as a tie. Repeated forfeitures waives the need to consider arguments (you still may, but by the choice of one side to miss at least 40% of the debate, the requirement ceases. And yes, this does apply to Choose Winner, which otherwise would not allow conduct to be the sole determinant).
Should either side forfeit every round or every round after their initial arguments (waiving is not an argument), the debate is considered a Full Forfeiture, and any majority votes against the absent side are not moderated (a vote may still be cast in their favor of the absentee, but is eligible for moderation to verify that it is justified via the normal voting standards).
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#forfeitures
**************************************************

Nevets
Added: 1 day ago
#1
Reason:
Argument - Any unexcused forfeited round merits an automatic conduct loss, but arguments must still be voted on or justified as a tie. Repeated forfeitures waives the need to consider arguments (you still may, but by the choice of one side to miss at least 40% of the debate, the requirement ceases. And yes, this does apply to Choose Winner, which otherwise would not allow conduct to be the sole determinant). - Pro
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy

Sources - Both produce sources and neither object - tie

S & G - Neither stands out as being under the influence of alcohol whilst typing - tie

Conduct - "Children the age of 12 years should not be harassed for their age on the internet by hypocrites (13 year olds) who had also been harassed for their age, and vowed to destroy those fucking gatekeepers the previous year.". The use of the eff word in the title was not a good start. If only Con had not forfeited 40% of the debate it was a certain victory. - Con

-->
@Theweakeredge

Ok I will remove my vote for you from your debate as I have no wish to votebomb your opponent.

-->
@Nevets

Interesting comparing this vote with the one on my debate - the dramatic irony is thus such a hypocritical thing to let breathe.

-->
@Nevets

FYI, you are still allowed to weigh arguments and vote on them if you so choose.

-->
@TheUnderdog

https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/rules/rulemaking-regulatory-reform-proceedings/childrens-online-privacy-protection-rule

-->
@adfadsfdfasf

I don't think DART should care what age you are on DART to be here. I'd rather have a well behaved 12 year old than a 13 year old that acts like an asshole. I have a dream that people are judged not by the number of their age, but by the content of their character.