Religion is beneficial

"My opponent is friends with mods"

Mods have voted against me more times than for me, I think. 🤔

This debate has no hope. My opponent is friends with mods so obviously he will get votes nevertheless without any valid reason. Shitty website tbh.

I’m good with the vote because I hadn’t realized at the time that this had been posted that this debate would meet the standards of a full forfeit (>40% of the debate being forfeited), so the standard for a vote goes down significantly. That was my error for not recognizing it at the time.

Enjoy your travelling I will pray you get relieved of stress.

I did not repost my rfd to antagonise you. That is my genuine rfd in my own words. Any alteration will be a lie.

I demand Barney or David handle it if it gets reported please. I directly appeal your modding.

He literally copy-pasted my vote from another debate (excluding specific details to that debate), so it would be allowed if that was his reasoning, but will be removed whenever I get a chance (I’m traveling all day today) because he’s plagiarizing my vote rather than making his own.

You are welcome to vote in a similar way.

Is rizzler's current vote allowed? If yes, I wish to vote a similar way.

What about us holding a debater to sportsmanlike behaviour?

I disagree that holding you to the voting standards somehow encourages bad behavior. Removing your vote does not remove your capacity to add to it and repost it to meet those standards.

Deleting votes against him for that reason encourage that bad behavior

Exactly. He purposefully makes it so that Pro is unable to rebut any of his points. Con gives himself the advantage by intentionally turning a four round debate into a two round debate, meaning he not only gets the last word, but also stops Pro from being able to counter anything he says.

FF applies if someone argues 1 round and forfeits after.

He did identical backwards and left opponent 0 chance to rebuke. Your rules are wrong, not my vote at all.

In a real debate tournament Con would be DQd long term

>Vote: AdaptableRatman // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to Pro
>Reason for Decision:
If this was Rated maybe mods have issue with my vote.

I am ethically against final Round blitzkrieg strategy. It is feigning a forfeit, turned a 2 Round debate into a 1 Round debate.

Immoral, cunning not acceptable. I believe 0 new point raised in a final Round should be acknowledged in any situation outside a 1-Round debate (excpet on rebuttal to new points first speaker of last Round made but I am against that too unless they are direct rebuttal).

Reason for Removal: Both rated and unrated debates are held to the voting standards. The voter cannot just state and describe the reasons for their ethical qualms with one side's strategy and then award a winner selection. Regardless of any other reasons for awarding the point, the voter must assess arguments as part of their RFD. As the voter does not do so here, the vote is insufficient.
**************************************************

>Vote: TheRizzler // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to Pro
>Reason for Decision:
I agree with AdaptableRatman. The strategy by Con was very underhanded and sleazy.

Reason for Removal: The voter cannot simply lean on another voter's RFD for their purposes. The voter must provide all the necessary specifics for their own RFD to be sufficient.
**************************************************

>Vote: jonrohith // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to Con
>Reason for Decision:
Con gave his best arguments and detailed , con is forfeited in round 1 is not acceptable but pro also left round 2 by just saying ok, so that equalised both mistakes.

Reason for Removal: The voter does not sufficiently justify awarding the point here. Simply saying that one side has the "best arguments" and is "detailed" is not sufficient - the voter has to explain why those points are better than Pro's, which requires pointing to specific arguments from both sides.
**************************************************

Here is yet another vote by jonrohith that I believe to be unacceptable.

I have no issues with any votes, for or against me there. Complaining is too much work too.

I can ofcourse list my sources. But opponent didn't list his so I didn't either. If you think our claims are fake you can search it up yourself. Please vote cuz ratman is gay

The voting is unfair. Ratman hates me so obviously he will vote my opponent nevertheless . His reason for voting is absurd. And plus I cannot mention him because he blocked me. Either play it fair or don't play at all. I don't like this type of bs

"I know in an open voting system, sourcing is not required, but it still makes for convincing arguments when you have a credible citation behind you."

Sometimes I dont have enough time to look for sources.

Is there something about substantiating your opposing claims that denies you the right to offer scholastic sourcing for your claims? Your claims amount to declaring flat-earth theory without offering any credible source for your opinions. I point to flat-earth because it isn't in spite of claims. I know in an open voting system, sourcing is not required, but it still makes for convincing arguments when you have a credible citation behind you. I will not vote on this one.

I like a good opponent

Best of luck to you mate. Never lost an argument once in my life

I dont like losing my rating.

Why do you always debate unrated?