Instigator / Con
7
1495
rating
47
debates
48.94%
won
Topic
#898

There is no such thing as ghosts

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

Sparrow
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
4
1687
rating
555
debates
68.11%
won
Description

No information

-->
@Pinkfreud08

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

>Points Awarded: Tied.

>Reason for Decision: Honestly, this debate hurt my head overall and was too confusing for me to make a detailed decision. Honestly, neither sides convinced me, especially with RM weird conceding but also not conceding implications.

>Reason for Mod Action: To justify a no-points awarded vote, the voter must offer some reason specific to the debate itself which explains why they were unable to award points. Because this RFD could've been C/P'd to any debate on the site, it is not sufficiently context-specific.
************************************************************************

-->
@bsh1
@Barney

Does this one intrigue you?

-->
@Barney

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

Points awarded: 2 points to pro for s/g and conduct

RFD: This debate was just a grammar lesson. The only arguments were about the grammar, and the instigator failed to understand or dispute.
Arguments tied. I won't outright reward the K with argument points, but there were no normal arguments to counter until the final round (at which point I discount them for not being a natural part of the debate).
Conduct for forfeiture.

Reason for mod action: The conduct is sufficient; however, the S/G is not. In order to award s/g, the voter must

Give specific examples of S&G errors
Explain how these errors were excessive
Compare each debater's S&G from the debate
S&G errors are considered excessive when they render arguments incoherent or incomprehensible.

None of this was done in the RFD.

The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
The voter should also review this: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346?page=1&post_number=4

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

-->
@Pinkfreud08

*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Pinkfreud08 // Mod Action: Removed

Points awarded: 4 points to pro for s/g and arguments; 1 point to con for conduct

RFD: Conduct point:
- Countering Ragnar's poor conduct point since ff 1 round shouldn't be reason enough to award conduct points.
FF the majority of the rounds, however, should be.
I must also award pro the point for spelling and grammar since he/she's arguments at least were readable unlike Con's whom I couldn't read clearly.

Reason for mod action: Counter votes are removed. Further, forfeiting 1 round is sufficient reason to award conduct; however it would not be sufficient to award only conduct.

The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
The voter should also review this: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346?page=1&post_number=4

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

-->
@Debaticus

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

Points awarded: 3 points to pro for spelling and sources

RFD: Cannot vote for arguments, because they were both very hard to understand. I personally could argue this debate on either side, and I would like to.

Reason for mod action: This account is ineligible to vote. They should check their DMs for more information.

The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
The voter should also review this: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346?page=1&post_number=4

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

-->
@Sparrow

I would like to argue this on either side because it seems pretty interesting.

-->
@oromagi

Will you like to vote?
Please.

-->
@Ramshutu

RationalMadman avatar
You tried to troll a new user into an unwinnable position. Instead you had a grammatically impossible debate resolution for Pro to uphold.

Con*** not Pro

Sparrow already lost the grammar vote lol.