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

There is no such thing as ghosts

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
3
0
Sources points
2
2
Spelling and grammar points
1
1
Conduct points
1
1

With 1 vote and 3 points ahead, the winner is ...

Sparrow
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Science
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender / Pro
4
1629
rating
348
debates
65.66%
won
Description
~ 0 / 5,000

No information

Added:
--> @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.
************************************************************************

Added:
Contender
--> @bsh1 @Ragnar

Does this one intrigue you?

Added:
--> @Ragnar

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

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

Added:
--> @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

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

Added:
--> @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

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

Added:
--> @Sparrow

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

Added:
Contender
--> @oromagi

Will you like to vote?
Please.

Added:
Contender
--> @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

Added:

Sparrow already lost the grammar vote lol.