Anyone who disagrees with me is wrong. I am always right.

I was unaware anything could be awarded as a penalty. Do you guys enjoy quiet riots, or maybe a supporter of military intelligence.
With respect to the art of debate. I thought anyone could offer a vote, without that vote being publicly eviscerated over formality and semantics.
Nevertheless, I didn't realize the knowledge base surrounding voting etiquette was so substantial and endless bureaucratic formalities. So, I will refrain from participating in any debate, vote, comment, or otherwise here at this site. Thanks for the new knowledge. Take care.

P.S Squabbling over technicalities and semantics is for Congress. It has no place over content and concepts. Solutions should be the objective of any debate. Not whoever gets the most formality points. Without a resolution to any topic,what would be the point.

Peace.

There seems to be a lot of activity in this segment.

Its obvious that RationalMadman wins with or without removal of those votes.

Still, removal of unfit votes is necessary to serve as an example of how to vote and how not to vote.

Alright, thank you for the advice. I'll do that in the future.

I appreciate your giving insight into why you reported that vote and I encourage you to keep doing so in the future. That being said, please do so via PM rather than publicly posting a comment. It reveals that you were the one who submitted the report (which can lead to arguments in the comments), and it clogs up the comments, particularly if we end up discussing the reason for the report at any length.

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: jaay // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Pro, 2 points to Con

>Reason for Decision:

1. Convincing argument. I gave the to pro.
a. Defining truth. The burden of proof is cons. Establishing definitions and concepts, won't prove pro isn't right about everything. Because con would have to prove truth is not subjective. Truth to one, is false to someone else. Even if they are lying, or believe they are telling the truth.
2. Reliable sources.
a. Pro stated that he was the source of all resource. Truth won't be found in a person in pro's position. Con used multiple resources to attempt proof. Pro however, had only one source. Himself.
3. Both participants used spelling and Grammer equally accurate.
4. Better Conduct.
a. This was a tough vote. They both had intriguing arguments that wasn't met with hostility or name-calling. However, because pro was the initiator of such an aggressive and immovable stance. The chasing was on con. pro's strategy was similar to a matador. Shaking a red banner in order to entice con to charge him. Pro casually moving out of the way, leaving con unsure of his own sense of direction.
Great job to you both, and good luck.

>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter doesn't explain why he's placing the burden of proof on Con, either by his own logic or by the logic of the debaters. The voter also appears to be imposing a burden that is not present in either side's arguments onto Con: "con would have to prove truth is not subjective." Imposing an external burden onto Con requires the voter to intervene pretty excessively. The conduct point is also unclear. The voter seems to be attributing their own unique standard for awarding conduct based on who he thought was in control of the flow of the debate, which is not a sufficient standard for awarding conduct. From the voting standards, conduct may only be:

"Awarded as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, such as extreme unsportsmanlike or outright toxic behavior which distracted from the topical debate. Common examples are repeatedly using personal attacks instead of arguments, committing plagiarism or otherwise cheating."
**************************************************

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Sir.Lancelot // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 6 points to Con

>Reason for Decision: This doesn't really require that much of an explanation.

Pro makes bold claims but provides no valid justification to even defend any of these statements.
Meanwhile, Con remains logically consistent and offers rebuttals, demonstrating that the Burden of Proof is on Pro. Con also provides valid definitions to support said rebuttals.
Pro barely acknowledges Con's argument for that matter and even admits he skimmed it while only persisting in his self-asserted statements that he possesses the authority to decide fundamentally what is right or wrong.

Con wins.

>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote is borderline with regards to arguments and sources, the former because the voter does talk about BoP and the lack of support for Pro's statements. Normally, voters should provide some specific analysis of arguments made by each side, but given the focus on BoP and general failings in that regard, this would still stand as an instance of a foregone conclusion. Similarly, while the voter doesn't explicitly state that they are awarding points based on the citing of definitions that clarify the debate, it's still pretty clear that that's the reason for awarding sources. On conduct, however, the voter provides only limited justification and it is insufficient. A debater's decision not to acknowledge an opposing argument is not sufficient reason to award this point, nor is his persistence in supporting the resolution, no matter how authoritative he claims to be.
**************************************************

Ok, I'm supposed to explain what the issue is with the vote I reported (jaay's vote).

First of all, he awarded arguments points in an act of fluffery. Nowhere in the debate was the concept of "objectivity" or "subjectivity" of truth directly mentioned. Therefore, awarding arguments based on this is incorrect.

Second of all, he awarded conduct points for no reason other than PRO having a provocative resolution.

My bad.

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: jaay // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Pro

>Reason for Decision: Pro's argument chose specifically to not specify anything that he is right about or anything others are wrong. He insisted on "Living Authentically" while maintaining his "bad faith" in the Con's position as well as everyone's position. Keeping true to Existentialism.

Best.Korea's pro stance was based on the philosophy of existentialism. In which Plato and Aristotle began explaining how a person is predestined to have a purpose. However, the philosophy changed over time,

“Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does” – John-Paul Sartre

Sartre spoke of the burden of too much freedom. Existentialists considered that people will have so much freedom that they must find their way, which Sartre called "Living Authentic."

Modern Existentialists began defining "absurdity" as the search for answers in an answerless world. It’s the idea of being born into a meaningless place that then requires you to make meaning. That authority isn't true authority, because authority are people just like you, trying to find answers that have no answers.

If you choose to live by someone else’s rules, be that anywhere between religion and the wishes of your parents, then you are refusing to accept the absurd. Sartre named this refusal “bad faith”, as you are choosing to live by someone else’s definition of meaning and purpose – not your own.

Because Best.Korea only specified all things, he by being pure to existentialism only he can define what is right and what is wrong. The con was fighting a war that has been raging for thousands of years.

However, if I may Best.Korea. With all due respect to the brilliance your argument implies. There is a flaw in the these teachings. A flaw like many flaws that are built into the design of the philosophy behind the meaning of life. Like the Death Star in Star wars. Once exploited, everything falls apart.
That is the perspective of the collective. Imagine. If you were observing the earth from a microscope. Zoom out to see the planet, then zoom more to see the universe our earth exists in. Then, Imagine a giant observing you. Observing earth. Then, so and so on. At some point, our universe is no longer even an observable particle. We are as theoretic as the giants I speak about now. In a cycle of infinite giants we could observe in a microscope as they could observe us. Zooming in and/or out into perpetual infinite.

Now. How do you feel about being right or wrong? Would it matter to the collective?
In other words, in doesn't matter to argue if someone is right or wrong about everything. Without considering the collective, there would be nothing to be right or wrong about. If a tree falls in the Forrest and swears to God it happened. Would it matter to Forrest? If there was no forest, would the tree even exist to tell it's tale of woe?

All we are, is all we all are.
-Kurt Cobain.

>Reason for Mod Action:
This vote appears to be a stream of consciousness about the philosophy of the debate, which doesn't include much in the way of analysis regarding the given arguments. The voter seems to entirely transform Pro's arguments by largely claiming that Pro implied these philosophers and their teachings in his argument without explanation, throws out a single line about Con's argument that doesn't appear to assess it at all, and then awards arguments and conduct without any apparent rhyme or reason. This belongs in a forum post or in the comments; it is not a vote.
**************************************************

I was never much of a comedian, but okay.

this is almost funny

Just remind me to block you again after the debate is done.

Its done

Please unblock me so that I can accept this debate.