Instigator / Con
14
1764
rating
43
debates
94.19%
won
Topic
#697

Ramshutu dishonestly votes against RM

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
0
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
0

After 2 votes and with 8 points ahead, the winner is...

Ramshutu
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
6
1697
rating
556
debates
68.17%
won
Description

Ramshutu has been accused, by RM, of Grudge voting - voting RM down for reasons other than the genuine intent of the voting guidelines or otherwise making bad votes on a variety of different debates against RM.

These are defined as follows:

1.) “Grudge vote” - an intentional vote against a person due to some personal dislike or animosity rather than a genuine view that they lost a debate.

2.) “Voting RM down against the intent of the CoC”, awarding a vote against RM where the Vote adheres to the CoC, but deliberately omits, distorts or dismisses major facts, arguments or points presented in order to unfairly award points to the other side.

3.) “Bad votes” constitutes votes that contain either extreme or exceptional errors or omissions, or contain major flaws in reasoning or logic over and above what is reasonable to expect in a debate vote.

Pro has burden of proof to demonstrate at least one of these claims are true.

- Debaters must not relitigate the debates in question, IE: this is not about whether the debate position was correct, but where the debate vote was correct.
- RM may not clarify or paraphrase what he meant by something in a debate to challenge vote logic: the votes were not placed against what was in his head - but against what was written. RM must show that the interpretation/logic used by the voter was not a reasonable logical interpretation of the debate text or a logical review of the arguments made - not of that the vote didn’t grasp the argument he was trying to make.
- con waives first round, pro waives final round.
- pro may not make any new accusations in this debate.
- If voters judge these rules to have been substantially violated, arguments and conduct points maybe assigned automatically against the violating side citing the rule violation.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Our_Boat_Is_Right // Mod action: Removed

>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con for conduct

> Reason for Decision: "Now he can shut up about me not accepting a debate on the topic and realise that unfair rules in a debate can rig it for a winner easily.
Please stop harasssing me with your bullshit 'waaa waa you rap too well' votes in all troll debates too."
This use of profanity and toxicity towards con was rude and disrespectful because pro attacks con half-mockingly. This was also unacceptable because in the rules it says "con waives first round, pro waives final round." RM does not waive final round, makes a couple rebuttals, and mocks pro without pro having the chance to respond.

>Reason for Mod Action: This is mostly sufficient, and there is an easy fix to bring it in full compliance with the standards for awarding conduct. The voter must simply compare Con's conduct with Pro's. That's probably another sentence, so it's no biggie.
************************************************************************

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

No, you cannot copy and paste another person's RFD.

Also, see below.

-->
@RationalMadman

The voter does not need to award all points on the ballot, nor do they need to provide any reason for not awarding points, generally speaking. Lacking the "attention span" to do so is perfectly permissible.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Our_Boat_Is_Right // Mod action: Removed

>Points Awarded: Pro did not waive the last round and used profanity towards Con. All the others were tied because I don't have the attention span to completely analyze a full debate.

>Reason for Mod Action: Upon review, the voter did not (1) references specific instances of poor conduct or (2) explain how that poor conduct was "excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate." To cast a sufficient vote, the voter should cite a specific use of profanity and should then briefly explain why the use of profanity was excessively rude.
************************************************************************

-->
@RationalMadman

Yeah, I probably did rush to judgement on that one. I'll interpret your remarks as a request to review my decision.

-->
@David
@bsh1

Would it technically be legal for me to copy and paste another vote and use as proof for my vote because I would agree with everything he said?

-->
@bsh1

"All the others were tied because I don't have the attention span to completely analyze a full debate."

This is sufficient?

Kid are you FUCKING KIDDING ME? You god damn feeble excuse of a mod.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Our_Boat_Is_Right // Mod action: Not Removed

>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con for conduct

>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
************************************************************************

-->
@Type1

*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Type1 // Mod Action: Removed

Points awarded: 7 points to con

RFD: RM is a liar and an idiot. RM forfeited a round and is just plain wrong because he raped his own mother.

Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the standards set forth by the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules

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

-->
@Type1

That was not needed?
Do you want to get banned?

“con waives first round, pro waives final round.”

https://www.debateart.com/debates/679?open_tab=comments&comments_page=1&comment_number=12

lol.

Oops typo last line! Meant pro (got turned around due to a bunch of RFDs I’m writing)

Thanks. It will pass the CoC don't worry. :) now, admit it is grudge and revenge.

Then, it won't pass the CoC. ;)

So stay silent, just vote against me and say BoP not met and a quick reason why. boom you pass CoC LOL!!!!!!!

Don't see how the contender won when he hasn't fulfilled his burden of proof.

Intellectual dishonest bucket of jews.

I think he votes with a great deal of objectivity. This seems like a dubious topic with ill intent behind it. Furthermore, you might be poisoning the well here because if anybody is going to give you a vote with your level of contention, it's this guy for sure.

Judging by those highly fallacious syllogisms you used in that other debate, I'm willing to bet that the problem with how he votes lies within you.

Some people who get voted against by the most objective voters might consider the fact that their arguments need improvement.

You seem to have went the external route and "blamed it on the system"

There's an old saying.

"Don't kill your golden goose"

I think it applies here.