Very dishonest and proof of dishonesty on a platform.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
I had created a biblical debate here stipulating that Bible , chapter and verse must be presented verbatim to prove the subject matter.
The person that does not fulfill that loses the debate outright. The persons that vote , award points to the person that did not meet the debate conditions is with just as dishonest or slow to comprehend.
A biblical debate between Smallwood Muhammad and Bishop E.W. Tookes can be found on YouTube.
The debate was before a mass of folks that understood that each speaker had to bring scripture to prove their point.
The scripture brought said expressly what was needed to refute all other arguments. The masses served as witnesses of this and acknowledged what was not brought.
Now this is a straightforward on the nose type of topic. It's suspected to be highly non-disputable but that means it's true and nobody coming on to debate.
- Given the seemingly incoherent description, we simply place the entire burden on pro and default the resolution to the contender. Thus mall bears the burden of proof for however we shall reasonably interpret the resolution of this debate.
- It is resolved as "very dishonest and proof of dishonesty on a platform."
- I posit that we interpret the debate to showcase evidence of dishonesty within the debate art platform in one of the instigator's previous debates.
- Mall seems to have failed to make an affirmative argument that proves some form of systemic dishonestly with respect to his experiences on the platform. Dishonestly that is, of course, "very dishonest."
- Dropped. Extend.
- As typical the instigator bears the entire burden of the debate. Mall can of course challenge my perfectly reasonable interpretation of a seemingly incomprehensible topic (the description touches on some biblical points that seem purposeless) but this is the current basis of our debate.
- No real sources, but entertainment for readers to make up for the bore of this engagement. It relates to our current circumstances as they are previous debates between me and the instigator.
- In addition, a supplementary image that describes his performance in both debates.
- Mall has failed to make an affirmative argument, and thus, uphold his burden of proof. The resolution defaults to con who has effectively won the debate.
- Dropped. Extend.
I’ll bite: what rule do you believe this vote violates?
I didn't really expect you to actually remove troll votes (despite this seemingly being against the rules?), give and take, my expectations have been fulfilled sufficiently by your current actions.
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter covers arguments given by both debaters and how the debaters engaged with one another, factoring those elements into his vote. That is sufficient to meet the voting standards.
I just need one vote here if you would mind. It is a short debate and will not waste your time in ideal.
Hmm, frankly I thought rational madman was being dramatic as usual. There is no way I am encountering this level of incompetence, surely? This would be my typical line of thought, but having experienced the specific people on this site, I don't know anything that escapes their realm of possibility. This form of conduct is, of course, is nothing but typical from the moderator in the comments section, and I suspect the new voter is simply upset about something and is espousing his frustrations upon myself and I will ask around for someone who has a a greater degree of intelligence quotient.
Removed vote: Barney
Voter request (yes mine, I reconsidered).
Utter BoP failure, which con rightly identifies and extends throughout the debate.
Pro on the other hand has a complaint, but he jumps to assuming everyone else would understand the implications and impacts, without bothering to share the actual evidence (a link to whatever debate is being complained about for example).
IMO it's fine.
Does anyone else want to answer the question?
No, too scared.
try again, with a defensible resolution
perhaps something slightly more narrow in scope
like, "THBT: PEOPLE CAN DISREGARD ANY AND ALL VOTING RULES INCLUDED IN THE DEBATE DESCRIPTION WITHOUT THEIR VOTES BEING REMOVED BY THE MODERATION TEAM"
I have no idea what is going on...but quite the interesting vote, interesting in a way that does not give credence towards it's analysis of course.
I ask to you is my RFD okay, yes or no