Instigator / Con
14
1616
rating
32
debates
62.5%
won
Topic
#910

Voter suppression in Georgia, does it exist?

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
12
Better sources
4
8
Better legibility
3
4
Better conduct
4
0

After 4 votes and with 10 points ahead, the winner is...

David
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
24
1485
rating
92
debates
45.65%
won
Description

I believe that the voter suppression in Georgia simply does not exist. Good luck to my opponent.

-->
@DarthVader1

Its no problem at all, a lot of people make a similar mistake :)

-->
@Ramshutu

Oh sorry,I did not know that I have to read the rules of conduct to vote on a debate that intrigues me. Thanks for telling that.

-->
@DarthVader1

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: DarthVader1 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to pro for arguments and conduct
>Reason for Decision: “The conduct point goes to Con since Pro forfeited not just one but two rounds.

The spelling and grammar was both reasonably good for both participants.
The sources were also convincing for both sides.

Pro's arguments were not impressive. I was particularly confused at the ballot tossing. Can he prove that the ballots tossed out all belonged to a specific group,or were just randomly thrown out?”

>Reason for Mod Action: First and foremost, the voter is illegible to vote. In order to be eligible to vote, Accounts must have read the site's COC AND completed at least 2 non-troll debates without any forfeits OR posted 100 forum posts. When they have done these things, they will regain the eligibility to vote.

Conduct is sufficient, but argument points are insufficiently justified.
To award argument points, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision. The voter completes none of these steps.
************************************************************************

-->
@Pinkfreud08

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

>Points Awarded: 4 points to pro for arguments and conduct

>Reason for Decision: “I would like to start off by thanking both opponents for this debate

POOR CONDUCT

Pro has FF 2 of the 4 rounds, that's poor conduct.

I'd like for other voters to also consider this when voting as well.”

>Reason for Mod Action: Conduct is sufficient, but argument points are insufficiently justified.

To award argument points, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision. The voter completes none of these steps.
************************************************************************

-->
@Kitty_Slay_Dragons

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

>Points Awarded: 6 points to pro for arguments, sources and S&G

>Reason for Decision: Pro had better grammar, sources and spelling.

>Reason for Mod Action: This vote is insufficient on all three counts; as well as the voter being ineligible to vote (the voter must have 2 non troll debates or 100 posts in order to vote)

The voter insufficiently justifies argument, sources, and grammar points. To award argument points, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision. The voter completes none of these steps. To award sources points, even where one side did not use sources, the voter must (1) explain how the side which did use them used them well (how the sources impacted the debate), (2) directly evaluate at least one source from the debate, and (3) state that one side did not use sources (comparison). The voter completes just one of these steps. Finally, to award S/G points, the voter must (1) give specific examples of S/G errors, (2) explain how these errors were excessive, and (3) compare each debaters' S/G. The voter completes just one of these steps.

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

-->
@TheRealNihilist

I can defend it.

-->
@Kitty_Slay_Dragons

Vote not properly explained

-->
@Dr.Franklin

If you did understand your positions you would be able to defend it but guess that is not the case because you can't even answer simple questions and rebuttals to your position. You just provide comments which show how little you thought about what you believe.

-->
@Pinkfreud08

I would like to think Pinkfreud08 for voting and encourage others to vote as well

-->
@TheRealNihilist

I do understand my positions

-->
@Dr.Franklin

Yet you can mention it. Wonder why and failed to even try to understand your own positions. Really makes me think how little you have actually understood your own positions instead of just parroting from people you watch.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

There is a difference between a political debate and whether the earth is flat or round

-->
@Dr.Franklin

Clearly don't know what you are talking about and it shows.
Am I wrong about the existence about gravity? Okay so by the statement you just made you are wrong.

It also pretty much states someone can believe in flat Earth and say after their false information in my opinion for you to not have a problem with it.

This is all on top of you not understanding your positions correctly. When I get to that stage you either give non-sequitur comments or give up because you are too much of a coward to delve into why you actually hold the stances and if you actually agree with what you say.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

You are ALWAYS wrong omar,in my opinion

-->
@Dr.Franklin

This is the problem with you. When I ask you to think outside or actually think about the position you hold. You give up or move back to non-sequitur comments. If you actually answered my questions it would help you understand your side better but guess you don't care about that. I take it as that your stance is faulty and actually understanding your positions would show how bad it is but maybe I am wrong.

-->
@Dr.Franklin

Just add "seeing" in between

Is ________ something

Missed it out.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

Omar, Im sorry but his conversation is over, a debate is a battle of opinions. Supported by facts,statistics and other factors. No one is right.Bye

-->
@Dr.Franklin

So do you have an example that you agree with then add it in the question?

Here is the question.

Is something like A different to saying something about B and tell me the difference?

-->
@TheRealNihilist

It was a example.

-->
@Dr.Franklin

Now tell me. Is seeing something like gun defense different to saying something about voter suppression and tell me the difference?

-->
@TheRealNihilist

opinion: I think Voter suppression existed in the US

Fact: Guns stop 80k to 2 million violent crimes per year

-->
@Dr.Franklin

Example of a fact.

What is a difference between an opinion and a fact?

-->
@TheRealNihilist

Nothing except facts.

-->
@Dr.Franklin

What do you consider to be right or wrong?

Example would be helpful.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

I dont know, its a opinion, I think it is, but Its not wrong or right. What is murder too. Murdering yourself via Euthanasia

-->
@Dr.Franklin

Is murder wrong?

-->
@TheRealNihilist

No they don't once again, millions of people debate gun control. In one debate one side had better arguments, the other isn't right.

right-true or correct as a fact.

A opinion isn't right

-->
@Dr.Franklin

When someone does something better. They have the right way of doing things. It might just be in that very narrow concept or might be the best way of doing things. Your example of gun control doesn't prove your point.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

No, just because someone had better arguments they won the debate, not they were right. Millions of people debate gun control. Someone could win the debate but the loser isn't wrong either

-->
@Dr.Franklin

Correct is another way of saying you are right.

Thinking both of you are right doesn't matter. It matters who made the best argument by being logically consistent. If one does not be logically consistent they are wrong.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

If I disprove Virtuoso, then i am correct, we both think we are right so no one is objectively wrong.

-->
@Dr.Franklin

What a joke. Making a non-sequitur comment doesn't address what I say. I'll apply it to the context of the debate because I know it is difficult for you to understand anything.

This debate is about whether or not voter suppression exists.
If Virtuoso proves it exists he is correct.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

This is a debate not objective morality

-->
@Dr.Franklin

Do you believe in God?
Do you believe in objective morality?

If you do. You believe in right or wrong.

If not tell am I wrong about the sun being the moon?

-->
@TheRealNihilist

when will you learn that neither side is wrong or right, they just disagree.

-->
@David

Easy win. Don't think I need to explain how to debunk his only good argument because even if it still goes unchallenged the argument for your side is much better and you did a really good job at laying it out. Don't expect your opponent to understand he is wrong. Take it from me he has a history of it.

Arguments coming soon. Sorry for the delay

-->
@Barney

Exactly what I was thinking!

-->
@David

Attack on two fronts!

-->
@David

Only run a k if there is a genuine harm.

-->
@Barney

Thanks. The question is whether or not I should run a k

-->
@David

You beat me to accepting by mere seconds! Anyway, best of luck to you.

-->
@Dr.Franklin

The nation or part of the US?