computers perform better when on fire
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 6 votes and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 1
- Time for argument
- Two hours
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
FIRE SOULD WORK COMPUTERS TO THE MAx
"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)."
"While the sufficiency standard clearly points to appeals to the quantity of arguments not being enough, someone with a single line assertion against a warranted case with sources simply does not merit the same level of consideration. Similarly, someone who never advances their case beyond obvious non-sequiturs, or commits the not even wrong fallacy regarding the resolution, has also not earned detailed analysis beyond pointing that out. I.e., sufficiency goes both ways, A DEBATER MUST FIRST OFFER A SUFFICIENT ARGUMENT FOR SUFFICIENT CONSIDERATION TO OCCUR."
-DArt Voting Policy
Pro's argument consists of the following phrase.
"AS LONG AS YOU PLAY AMOGUS THEN THE MOST SUS THING TO DO IS SET COMPUTER ON FIRE AND IT GIVES ENERGY TO GET THE IMPOSTER DUB AT 999999999 FPS IN 4K"
This clearly meets in my eyes the definition of an insufficient argument.
Normally a forfeit vs an insufficient argument should end in a tie, however, the BoP shouldered by Pro with such a claim is so high that the victory should go to Con by default.
full forfeit
Despite that Pro made an ineffective argument, Con made nothing, therfore the victory belongs to Pro.
Forfeiture. Also, I need to reinstall that game to try out any new features.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA NOVICE GOT OUTPLAYED !!!!
Although the BoP is arguably on PRO, as a voter, I have a duty to vote based on what happened in the debate, not on my own subjective interpretation of it. Any attempt to justify otherwise would be fluffery.
PRO at least put an argument to support his point, while CON full forfeited. Therefore, PRO wins.
There goes the dream of being 1 on leaderboards.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: K_Michael // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con
>Reason for Decision: Pro's argument is highly conditional and fails to meet his original claim. He states that as long as one is playing Among Us than setting your computer on fire will increase performance. This claim isn't backed up by any evidence or even reasoning.
Con forfeited his argument, but Pro holds the BoP by making the positive claim.
Con wins.
>Reason for Mod Action:
This is a full forfeit debate given that one side did not present an argument at all. In the presence of arguments from both sides, the voter has leeway to discuss BoP and how it applies to a given side, as well as the presence or absence of warrants and evidence. This degree of scrutiny may still be warranted when the opponent forfeits their one and only opportunity to respond, but it is not sufficient reason to award points when compared with a full forfeit.
**************************************************
Novice is the Niemann
Why would you be mad at him? The only one being harmed by his forfeitures is himself - he could have won this debate by putting a single sentence mentioning BoP.
At this point I am not even going to hide the fact that I am mad at Novice. He is FFing various debates that he is 100% capable of winning. The only beneficiary to this interaction is Pro, who didn't even take this seriously.
And Novice is the Caruana - forever overshadowed?
This dude is the Niemann of this website. Oromagi is the Carlsen and I am the Nakamura.
I was using "sabotage" in a sarcastic way, apologies if that wasn't clear. I'm merely pointing out that you could have worded your vote in a slightly better way - then again, it probably doesn't matter, since full forfeit votes aren't moderated.
There is nothing about this that is sabotage? He FF'd. He is actually the one who should be ashamed here, thanks for the bullshit accusation.
If you're going to try and sabotage your closest rival, you could afford to be a bit more subtle about it.
k_michael's vote is 100% corrupt
FAX FR AMOGUS AND FORTNITE ARE GOATED FR RESPECT + 99999999!!!!!!!!!!!
honesly i kinda agree