Instigator / Con
7
1644
rating
64
debates
65.63%
won
Topic
#3023

THBT Violent Video Games Ought to be Censored

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
0
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...

Undefeatable
Tags
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
2
1687
rating
555
debates
68.11%
won
Description

Burden of proof is shared

Pro: There is a moral obligation to censor most, if not all, violent video games

Con: There is no moral obligation to censor most, if not all, violent video games

Ought: Having a moral obligation. [Ex. People Ought to be Treated Fairly]

Violent: using or involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something

Censor: examine (a book, movie, etc.) officially and suppress unacceptable parts of it.

Video Game: a game played by electronically manipulating images produced by a computer program on a television screen or other display screen.

-->
@RationalMadman
@whiteflame
@Undefeatable

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: whiteflame // Mod action: Not Removed (borderline)
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: arguments and sources to con.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:

Of course this is already outside the voting period. From the voting policy: "For cases of suspected malicious voting patterns, votes may be reviewed up to one month after voting has concluded." This is not such a case. However, I'll review what's there anyway...

The argument allotment makes sense, the voter bought the moral framework and value offered in artistic freedom, over the slippery slope. There's a couple things that could be nitpicked, but it would still pass muster without hesitation.

Sources gives a hesitation, due to not dotting the i's and crossing the t's so to speak. While it is clear on why the award, it does not spell out any specific source from con; even while mentioning better utilization. It does spell out a couple specific ones from pro, and names lack of applicability. I'd most likely still let it stand, even if I prefer seeing a source from each side named to make my job less difficult.
**************************************************

-->
@Barney
@MisterChris

Put a penalty mark on whiteflame for this RFD please. I report primarily for the sources point allocation.

-->
@Undefeatable

Like I said, it has less to do with the content of the sources than it does with their application to the debate. I rarely award source points, but I feel it's justified in this instance.

-->
@RationalMadman
@whiteflame

I’d scratch my head on sources as well, considering you (white flame) didn’t take a stance on my other video game debate where my sources were scrutinized severely by other debaters. Nice vote though. I wasn’t sure why madman took this strange approach

I’ll also note that none of my RFD is based in the interpretation that censorship must encompass more than what already is censored. Not sure where you’re getting that.

Well, now you’ve blocked me, not sure why. If you disagree, then so be it. I’m not here to court your favor. I’ve voted on four debates between you and Undefeatable, and voted for you on two of them. You’re welcome to think it should be more, but I have a very clear voting record and I’ve voted on a similar basis multiple times before. Undefeatable, of all people on this site, knows I’m not biased in his favor.

But hey, you do you. Guessing I’ll see a post in the forums about this at some stage.

-->
@whiteflame

I have had enough of you, this is the limit where I am done tolerating your bullcrap bias. Your RFD showed 0 brainpower applied to the Pro's case or understanding of my side even as a concept.

This is getting so ridiculous that you vote Sources based on even more bullshit than that. My sources were reliable and very well used. Censor did not mean 'more than already is', it is never once said this is the case in the resolution or description, you decided to not apply tabula rasa and be a prick with your vote.

This is it, I am done with you. I have tolerated your shit votes long enough, I used to admire you but you are now the ultimate bullshiter whether it's bsh1's debate agaisnt me or this. Sure, you are smart and you put effort in but that doesn't mean anything when you are just loading your opinion into an RFD that barely has anything to do with the actual case of Pro when you analysed it.

-->
@RationalMadman

Yes, because I’m so well known for posting insufficient reasoning for my notoriously short RFDs. I’m clearly afraid of having mods check my votes.

-->
@whiteflame

coward, voting so it can't be removed in last minute.

-->
@coal
@whiteflame
@MisterChris
@Theweakeredge

about one week left. Just who made the blunder of failing to participate in this debate, me, or Rational Madman? Let's see.

-->
@RationalMadman

Also kids aren't innocent.

-->
@Undefeatable

Going to show this to my mom. Maybe she will be less worried about me becoming a cold-blooded killer by playing a tactical shooter. LOL.

-->
@Undefeatable

I'll keep an eye on it. I've played my fair share of violent video games :P

-->
@bmdrocks21
@Intelligence_06
@Theweakeredge

feel free to think about this one.