Atheism isn't any more similar to Agnosticism than Theism is

I can’t lie, i was cracking up reading each of the votes. And then the use of ChatGPT for the last one had me giggling

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: jonrohith // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded:
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
As you have noted elsewhere, you believe your right to free speech is protected... While you may say whatever you wish in the comment section, assigning points via a vote is an earned privilege not a right.

While I do see improvement in some of your other votes, this recent one was a true vote bomb, assigning 7 points against all rhyme and reason. The essay written by ChatGPT does not help, as it implies intentional disrespect for the debaters.

Per the advice of the another moderator, you are no longer able to cast votes. After three weeks you may request restored access, but if opting to do such you should able able to state (in your own words) how you will improve your voting to comply with the local rules... In the interim, you may of course post comments on any debates you wish, to include how you would vote (which it effetely is if you wish it to be so, merely without risk of continued erroneous point allotments).

**************************************************

In the realm of formal debating, where structured argumentation meets rhetorical skill, the final judgment often rests on a single powerful process: the vote. Whether it’s a panel of adjudicators, a lone judge, or an informed audience, the decision to declare a winner hinges on a well-defined set of criteria and voting mechanisms. Unlike political elections, where votes reflect personal preferences or ideologies, voting in debates is rooted in logic, structure, delivery, and evidence.

Understanding how voting works in formal debates is crucial for both participants and observers. From school-level competitions to prestigious formats like British Parliamentary (BP), World Schools, and Lincoln-Douglas debates, each format has its own method of evaluation and voting. These systems ensure that outcomes are fair, consistent, and reflective of the quality of argumentation rather than popularity or emotional appeal.

This essay will explore the mechanisms of voting in formal debates, the roles of judges and adjudicators, common criteria for judgment, and how voting shapes the culture and evolution of debating itself. We will also discuss controversies, challenges in voting fairness, and the impact of bias, technology, and audience perception. Ultimately, this exploration will not only highlight how debate winners are chosen but also what it reveals about the values and principles underlying the art of argumentation.

📚 Full Outline for 20,000 Words (You can ask for each section one by one!)
I. History of Voting in Debates
Origins of competitive debating

Evolution of adjudication methods

From audience applause to structured judging

II. Popular Debate Formats and Their Voting Systems
British Parliamentary (BP)

Asian Parliamentary

Lincoln-Douglas

World Schools

Public Forum

MUN (Model UN and its informal vote systems)

III. The Role of Judges
Who can judge?

Judge training and certifications

Judge objectivity vs. subjectivity

IV. Criteria Used for Voting
Content (arguments and evidence)

Style (delivery and language)

Strategy (structure and rebuttals)

Speaker roles and responsibilities

V. How Voting is Conducted
Ballots and speaker scoring

Oral critiques and decisions

Split panels and consensus

VI. Audience Voting vs. Expert Voting
Pros and cons of public participation

Bias and emotional sway

Case studies from popular debates

VII. Bias and Fairness in Voting
Implicit biases in adjudication

Cultural and linguistic bias

Measures to reduce unfair voting

VIII. Technology in Debate Voting
Online debate platforms

Real-time scoring and transparency

AI-assisted judging?

IX. Voting Outcomes and Their Impact
Educational outcomes

Confidence and morale of debaters

Institutional reputation

X. Controversies and Case Studies
Famous debate vote scandals

Unfair outcomes and appeals

Protest and reform

XI. Future of Voting in Debates
Gamification

Inclusion of diverse judging panels

Hybrid formats

XII. Conclusion
Summary of importance

Lessons for real-life argumentation

Final thoughts on fairness and evolution

Wanna begin with Chapter I: History of Voting in Debates? Or do you want me to generate everything in chunks and compile it? Totally up to you! Just say the word. 😄

He did it 4 times here and done bad votes elsewhere.

"If you want my advise, just take his voting privs. 3 week ban from voting"

If he casts few more of terrible votes, then yeah. At this point, he alone is creating too much work for moderators.

If you want my advise, just take his voting privs. 3 week ban from voting.

A long time ago I had a single page table with the gists… And yeah, your summary is pretty good.

For the goalposts as you call them, sometimes a single one from each side would be enough, but usually two or three. … Yes, a voter not covering every point is fine.

Also, while not encouraged, a voter may have commentary of their opinions, so long as it’s clear that’s not what they’re basing their vote on (but yeah, if in doubt, exclude it). … It’s an interesting thing to consider because it’s a double edged sword, since more general feedback along those lines can be proof of having g read the debate (the most important thing we look for in a vote), but it can also highlight bias (which we also look for, but in this case to remove votes).

Is there a short version of voting guide here? Because many people are getting these votes wrong.

Is this one good? For start:

1. For Arguments point

-Set up goalposts relevant to topic, those goalposts must be mentioned in debate. Usually 5 to 10 most important goalposts is enough in a vote.
-See which side wins on what goalpost
-weight goalposts to see who won more goalposts or who won more higher quality goalposts

Important notice: dont add your own arguments which were not mentioned in debate to your vote.

If one person had multiple forfeits and forfeited 40% or more of debate, his arguments dont have to be considered as valid anymore.

2. For sources

Usually left tie if both sides used sources. If one side used sources while other didnt, then source point can be rewarded.

3. Legibility

Usually left tie unless one side was very difficult to read.

4. Conduct

Usually left tie unless one side does personal attacks or has forfeit.

I'm the main author of our voting rules, so feel free to ask me any questions:
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy

Suffice to say, revoting with the same allotments and them not explained, does not meet the standard. It feels like you're annoyed with other voters who weighted in on more categories... Giving unearned points to coddle someone, is frankly demeaning to their actual efforts.

"I thoroughly compared both con and pro, and i found that pro's argument was catchy, though con's argument was big it mostly included similar words and meanings, but pro given his words detailed and catchy so i give vote for argument and legibility to pro. conduct of pro was neat as he used words like you ,we . But con used more formal word like pro. Sources of con is not unique and it is like dictionary simple, i not consider as a source ,it is a definition .so it is tie on sources."

hereafter you can't delete my vote, I consider all arguments more than twice. It is my final vote . I can't provide essay as reason, i can only shortly tell my reason, there is no rule to produce reason as essay.

>Vote: jonrohith // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 5 to Pro (Arguments, Conduct, Legibility)
>Reason for Decision:
Pro stand in his topic firmly till end, I won't whether argument is big like essay. but pro's argument is short but clearly explained his views, but con is speaking more similarly throughout the debate like agnostic atheist . I not satisfied with con's source that sources are not unique ,they are simple.

Reason for Removal: it’s nice to see a longer RFD, but this is still insufficient. The voter doesn’t explain conduct that I can see, nor does he explain legibility. Arguments get some explanation, but the voter is required to assess the strength of specific arguments from both sides, not just state that one side “firmly” held to the topic and “clearly explained his views.” It’s also unclear what point the voter is making about Con’s sources or what the problem is with Con “speaking more similarly throughout the debate like agnostic atheist”. Was he off topic? It’s unclear.
**************************************************

Could you take a look at jonrohith's vote when you get a second? It doesn't appear to follow the voting policy.

>Vote: jonrohith // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 5 to Con (Arguments, Sources)
>Reason for Decision:
Atheism and agnosticism is different. con produced more links and arguments

Reason for Removal: This is not sufficient to award arguments. The voter cannot just say that one side is correct because they agree with them. They must point to specific arguments made by both debaters and state who did the best job making their case and why.
**************************************************

>Vote: same1234 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 6 to Con (Arguments, Sources, Legibility)
>Reason for Decision:
they were good

Reason for Removal: This is not an RFD. The voter must evaluate points made by both sides in the debate and establish why one point was better, not merely state that one side was "good."
**************************************************

Go ahead and delete them all, put your money where your mouth is. At least delete that last two.

Please do get the fuck out of my debates and threads

Please do notice the RO violations.

I just destroyed the great Thomas Aquinas, I have the right to insult him for that alone.

Personal insults are generally not allowed. There was a time when they were, until site got spammed with so much insults that there wasnt almost any debate in forums.

Then he can stay off my threads and debates or the RO can't be expected to work out.

"the problem is he is trying to get me banned"

You are kinda greatly helping him do that with all the insults there.

the problem is he is trying to get me banned while also going out of his way to post on all my threads and vote on all my debates despite a RO being put on me.

He literally said he wanted to be my best friend and that he no longer believed in cutting ties so easily the way he used to, but then he acted like a 5 year old with NPD over gifs of kittens and blocked me.

But yeah, not a big reason to start fight. I mean, people find different things as upsetting. But usually, either adapt to someone either just part ways. There is really no reason to continue fight which started over kittens.

Cats can drink milk. Just not too much. They actually love it. The internet says its bad for them, but I have never seen a cat get sick from milk. The only issue could be that they cant fully digest it.

Ohhh i see. So in other words, you were just joking around and then he got a little too defensive by overreacting?

He added me on discord and talked all this shit about how we should forgive each other and have a proper friendship but then we started talking about if cats should drink milk or not (even without lactose) and I kept sending him these adorable gifs of kittens drinking milk and he got all upset over it and said I was mocking him by sending them. Then he started acting like a prick and basically expecting me to kiss his ass and beg forgiveness and he blocked me on discord and on this website when I refused.

I currently understand that you and Adaptable have serious tension right now, but I'm not exactly sure how it started.
Can you tell me what happened from your perspective?

new rule: no one should be able to vote unless they demonstrate an understanding of both side's arguments. Sick of losing debates because of people who can't comprehend what I say due to their own stupidity.

Lol

delete his vote please and don't let him vote again, it's obvious that he just wants to vote against me as much as he can

Delete my vote please so I can revote 6 points to Con.

All the votes on this debate are garbage but this latest one blatantly should be deleted. I think all 3 should be deleted because none of them even demonstrate that they understood my arguments.

Your votes won’t be deleted, I promise.
They will be immune to deletion or moderation, as they are protected under tournament privilege.

The angle that I used were the only available sides to this that I thought were sensible.

The only other acceptable option would be to kritik the resolution, as neither theism or atheism are closer to agnosticism.
Semantically, theism and atheism are two sides of the same coin. The common assumption is that agnosticism is the middleground between the two, but that’s a mistake. Because then it would be a contradiction to be both an agnostic and an atheist, or an agnostic and a christian.

However, agnosticism exists in an entirely separate category from atheism or theism. Neither are closer to agnosticism.
It would be impossible for me to argue the Pro or Con side from a semantic angle, as I would just be bullshitting and have to make it look convincing.

The angle I used was the weakest.
But I knew it would work because it was the most sensible and exploitable. It allowed me to bend the rules without breaking them

Learn to pander to those people then

because there are only a handful of people who reliably will even vote on debates

It's like the logic I was using went completely over their heads. I noticed while we were debating though that I was genuinely seeing it in a flawed way when I created the proposition but instead of noticing it and doubling down you used an angle that I see as much weaker and never would have used if I was con in this debate.

Extreme atheism and extreme theism are both equally far away from being agnostic, but moderate atheism is genuinely able to be agnostic while moderate theism is only able to be half agnostic. I came up with this by combining our definitions and realizing both of our definitions can be more or less true depending how extreme the atheism/theism is.

I may join the tournament, because I am probably going to quit or take a break from debating since what I see as logical arguments don't seem to register in the minds of voters here, but that doesn't mean I can't vote and show people how that should be done (I'll probably get my votes deleted for being too logic-based though)

Why ask the same people to vote if you didn't like the way they voted before?

I do approve of the way Adaptable and Barney voted here.
But I do recall a lot of the frustration towards the voting here in general being justified

I recall being as frustrated as you are now in the past while reading votes.
There are a mix of high and low-quality votes on DART, but there is a lot of disapproval towards the way voting is done now. And it's probably because there isn't an emphasis on learning how to vote, which is just as important as debating IMO.

I created in a tournament in the forums where participants compete through high-quality votes. I believe if you were to join, your perspective could help establish a better voting criteria & framework because the current voting policies as they exist, are a little too underdeveloped in the advice they could give.

Two garbage votes again. There is a way that Lancelot could have actually cooked me and you STILL vote against me even though he used the stupidest fucking argument possible and just appealed to "popularity" instead. This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that logic means nothing on this website.

Thank you guys!

I could have given 6 to Con but I figured I should just let the ridiculous description-rule on semantics be upheld.

Not sure about your conclusion in your #5, but it is true that a good debate is good for health, but this one isn't that. I upchucked just reading the Resolution. Stop this nonsense of semantic argument. You take care of semantics by defining your Resolution terms up front, not by making them a matter of forfeit. So, now that bias has taken me out of an unbiased voter on this one, maybe next time. But, honestly, give up your semantic "argument," which isn't.

voting is good for your health

how does allowing con to derail the debate with silly word games mitigate that? If I allow semantic arguments it won't be used for clarification, it will be used for intellectual dishonesty. This doesn't mean that semantics can't be discussed to clarify what your argument actually is, it just can't be used as the basis for an argument.

But if Pro says common sense dictates one thing and Con says it dictates another, is it just up to the voter to decide? Wouldn't that allow for bias in voting, something you've expressed concern about in the past?

Common sense does. Semantics arguments are almost never helpful or intellectually honest on this website, they are nothing but cheap tactics to derail the intended debate and render a coherent position absurd by redefining it.

"semantic arguments are forbidden"

Ok so who decides what anything means?