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
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
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.
I don't even know what the topic is trying to present, but I am pretty clear that Pro entirely failed to properly embrace it because all he did was asking one single question, then claim the question went unanswered as an actual point when Pro made no connection between that point and what the topic is. There is nothing arguing of "dishonesty" in that statement.
IDK but I am pretty sure that "proof of dishonesty on a platform" is in the topic and unmentioned in Pro's arguments. Con successfully acknowledges that such an argument was not made as a result the topic is never proven. Con wins.
I am not sure how else to explain this vote than to tell you that in Round 2, Con linked to the direct evidence (Baptism debate) required to prove the resolution true, in fact he linked to 2 separate occasions where the reader has full flexibility to interpret it that way and proved himself dishonest and poorly conducted within the debate, adding to the allegations that Pro is claiming to experience, incapable to answer the single question Pro asked all first 2 Rounds which Pro points out is highlighting dishonesty.
I am not certain that Con actually made a single argument other than to mock Pro and link to evidence that literally categorically saved Pro's case under the very intepretation that Con had provided. Both debaters agreed to a debate description that stated that seeking truth was paramount here, not winning, which then extended to establish that the Baptism debate was the focus and that Mall felt his opponent hadn't properly studied/explored the Bible within it.
This vote, to me, cannot go to Con unless I want to be a coward about things.
Pro failed to make an argument and only made any comment of substance in the final round, but even then it was just declaring that Con's arguments somehow proved Pro right. It is hard to argue that Pro made any effort at making a real argument to support the resolution, which just leaves Con's untouched case as the only real effort. As such, points have to go to Con.
Yes indeed.
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).
Reason:
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.
💀💀💀💀
(https://media.giphy.com/media/4KECfnmTXCFaTSi68X/giphy.gif)
I ask to you is my RFD okay, yes or no