Diet Battle
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 11 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
No information
From the voting policy:
"If you spot some true rubbish that invalidates their argument or the spirit of debate, call it out with a vote against them on conduct (or more as warranted by the comparative arguments) and move on."
Pro wishing con would die and calling him the N-word, is an wholly unacceptable tactic (pro, consider this your written warning). Trying to be so vile that the other side is likely to abandon the debate (or at least the topical arguments therein), while not explicitly spelled out in the voting policy, is still cheating. Worse, we can never know the circumstances of strangers online, and what damages out of the blue statements like that could cause.
Thankfully in this case, con had fortitude and wit.
>> "That is too much cholesterol and furthermore you are fat, ugly and should die."
>"I might be offended if I wasn't convinced you're a bloated diabetic that's chronically constipated and repulsive to look at.
> Furthermore, you should get better taste in food before you actually do end up dying from that garbage."
The second is IMO how to handle such insults inside a debates (note the de-escalation, and pulling things back to the topic). It is also far better criticism of the others diet, so it wins the argument point from me as well.
Encouraging suicide and bullying instigted entirely by Pro on a shit tier rated debate about arbitrary diet choices. Vote goes to Con wholeheartedly.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadmad // Mod action: Removed (or would be had the voting period not ended)
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 7 to con
>Reason for Decision: Encouraging suicide and bullying instigted entirely by Pro on a shit tier rated debate about arbitrary diet choices. Vote goes to Con wholeheartedly.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
Overwhelming misconduct can spill into arguments; but sources and legibility are not merited to punish other categories than themselves.
I personally wholly agree with the sentiment of the vote. The removal would be a statement against the slippery slope of vote bombs which resemble it.
**************************************************
My diet brings all the boys to the yard and they're like it's better than yours.
To be crystal clear, the reported vote has not been reviewed.
It along with this debate falls into some grey areas, so will take some consideration.
Almost all mod teams have a bias in any arena
Alright I'm quitting this site now. I know ya'll ain't gonna miss me. Enjoy your biased mods RM.
😂😂😂😂 you like Barney's vote more eh
I report RMs vote for ignoring anything relating to diet and giving argument/conduct/grammar points for something that is solely a conduct issue.
RM thinks diet is "arbitrary" even though it is a scientific fact that diet impacts health, he is an idiot and his vote shouldn't be allowed.
You actually got a chukkle out of me with that one-
Eight trigrams 64 facepalms.
Facepalm