> I strictly said to consult or ask me / fauxlaw before removing his vote second time , but you removed without asking us.
Why on earth would you be asked to clarify your writing of a vote cast by someone else?
> Clearly, I believed that jonrohith exceeded a minimum requirement, considering the volume of the citations given,
As has repeatedly been explained, three or more is the standard to begin considering sources (exceptions are allowed, but they need to be explained). That he insists outside the debate it was actually three, has no reliance on the content presented inside the debate which is what judges are supposed to grade.
> Those two citations consisted of much more than singular quotations of single sentences, which most references to sources amount to and are considered acceptable voting criteria.
You were given every opportunity to refine your vote to meet the standards for source allotments (or to withdraw giving bonus points for that), but you chose not to.
> I entirely disagree with a non-scoring range.
Irrelevant. While the rules for judging may be changed, until they are changed they are enforced as is. You (or anyone else) is more than welcome to initiate a referendum to refine the rules.
Honestly, I think much of why we don’t want sources given lightly, is that they’re significantly over valued in the current setup.
We probably need a better term than tied range, maybe non-scoring range? Like admitting someone was better, and not giving them extra points for it because it’s not by enough.
Because of recent developments we might be able to get the code changed. I’ve started a thread for this discussion:
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/12859-categorical-votes-optimal-points
Ironically, had you given that analysis for sources in either of your votes they would have stood (likely with a "borderline" tag, but still stood). When you revoted, it was a blink and you miss it level of refinement; not enough to justify that those sources were so great to invoke the "barring for exceptional cases" clause.
As for your view that the "Things not to award sources for" section is misleading, I'd be glad to see your proposed refinements to avoid anyone else misunderstanding them.
It’s pretty clear that you don’t know what cheating is.
David, whiteflame, and I all reviewed the reported votes. We removed any which fell short of the standard, and advised improvements. Said improvements did not include switching sides, nor to magically vote for David, whiteflame, or myself (that would have been cheating).
Had RM hacked the site to delete votes against him, that too would have been cheating. But no, the removals were performed by David and I.
As far as I know there was no vote petitioning via PMs.
So all the obvious ways to cheat are ruled out. What method of cheating are you suggesting occurred?
…
And since voting is closed, I can now say this without risk of influencing votes to be against you: the resolution calls for the goalposts of “not on basis of forfeiture” and you conceded that you should be given points explicitly on the basis of forfeitures! Do you have any clue how damning that is to your case? And it’s not like you misspoke, since you did not report votes which gave you those points.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 6 to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Same as before: https://www.debateart.com/debates/6207/comments/65158
The voting policy section on source allotments may be viewed at: https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#sources
To quote instead of paraphrase the rule: "Things not to award sources for (barring for exceptional cases): ... A lead of only a couple sources, even if only one side had any. While quantity isn’t the standard, there is a minimal threshold for consideration."
Ergo, this debate does not have a significant enough use of sources for sources to be awarded.
**************************************************
---fauxlaw's second vote---
As worded by the instigator [Pro], the Resolution may have better served the Pro BoP had he phrased the Resolution exactly as worded in his Round [R] 1 : "Debate must be voted on basis of arguments, not on [the] basis of forfeiture, alone." This is a sound argument because of the addition of a single word; "alone." because many votes are cast by members, including Mods, who should know better considering the current working in voting rules concerning the incident of forfeiture. Even with multiple-criteria designated debates, requiring voting on four specific criteria [argument, sourcing, legibility, conduct] the vote is rendered as a win by one opponent for the forfeiture of the other opponent. There is question among the members and moods if this is appropriate voted consequence. Nevertheless, the added "alone" makes for a significant argument point that is never truly defeated. Further, Pro weakens his argument by closing R1 with two questions posed to Con. Posing a question on a point of potential argument is much better made as an argument to which Con is obligated to successfully rebut to defeat it. An open-ended question does not accomplish that. At best the question will receive an open-ended answer, which may or may not fail as a rebuttal.
Due to Con's forfeiture of Round 1 by response - which is perceived by this voter as an intended vehicle to argue the point of a clouded forfeiture voting rule, and perhaps instigated by Pro's ill-advised questions, still fails the strict definition of a proper argument. Further there is no provided source to substantiate the strategy as a merit of argument, but certainly fails the sourcing requirement. Since Pro offered no source either for R1, it's a moot point. Pro begins and ends R2 with a repeat of his BoP, but that's all.
Con's R2 begins by defining forfeit, but uses a contractual legal definition having naught to do with this site’s debate protocol, and is therefore a useless argument. Con's R2 continues by sourcing the DA debate voting rules relative to forfeiture that, by its clouded discussion, appears to, and in practiced citing does result in a potential win for the fofeiter by loophole, as Pro later argues. But Con's R2 rebuttal does not display the strength to overwhelm Pro's R1 argument that forfeiture, alone, is not a valid argument and should be a loser, at least of conduct point. Con's R2 ends with an ill-advised question of his own which would also have served him better stated as an argument rather than an open-ended question; ill-advised for the same reason as given to Pro.
Pro's R3 begins by an accusation that Pro asked voters to not penalize Con for his R1 forfeit, but Pro’s rebuttal that he did not ask voters to vote that way, but asked Con the direct question about voting on forfeitures. Pro invited such an accusation because any statements made in a debate are presumed to be addressed to the eventual voters, in a edition to the opponent, which is one reason why asking direct questions to the opponent may be construed to be posed to voters, but the ruse by Con is too transparent by the accusation, and falls flat. Pro's R3 then offers cited examples of debates which purposefully corrupt use of forfeiture for ulterior reasons, further showing the flaws in the current rules of voting on forfeitures, alone. Pro finished R3 with a convoluted answer to Con's R2 question, but it was not worded clearly, but clearly enough for what follows... Con's R3 declares, based upon Pro's R3 answer to Con's R2 question, "Pro concedes the debate," and concludes with some descriptive justification. However, DA voting rules relative to concession say "If either side explicitly conceded the debate... [consequences discussed] ...This is invalid if the concession was not explicit" There is no "explicit" concession by Pro, and the rule declarers it cannot be called a concession if not explicitly expressed. It was not.
Therefore, the Vote;
Argument: Successful R1, R2 arguments by Pro. Po wins argument
Sources: Po offered better and more connected sources, such as offered in R3, to support his BoP as noted above. By contrast, Con’s only source was a dictionary definition of forfeit, but a definiton not related to a debate action of forfeit. Pro wins Sourcing
Legibility: Pro's R3 was a bit clouded, but Con's R2 was entirely illegible by forfeit. Tie
Conduct: Both Con's R1 forfeit, and R3 concession accusation, lose point. Pro wins conduct
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: vi_777 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 to pro, 1 to con
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
If there was more time, I'd probably do a little back and forth with basic questions about the debate to estimate bias and to allow implicit expansions of the vote such, but we we do not have the luxury to both do that and give you the opportunity to vote again should removal be necessary.
I'll also say that the vote is right on the line of borderline (flawed but acceptable) or slightly less, so please don't feel anything bad, this is more of a couching moment than anything.
I'm going to use some boilerplates for parts of this (wish I could color code or something)...
In essence, this vote was just too vague... This can be avoided in future by just commenting on the core contention from each side (and the main counterpoint or the lack thereof), listing a single source you found important (if voting sources), saying what conduct violation distracted you (if voting conduct)... You need not write a thesis, but some minimal level of detail is required to verify knowledge of what you're grading. ... To this, legibility is unexplained (and frankly, as neither committed any crimes against English, is almost guaranteed to deserve to be tied)
Arguments must always be reviewed even if left a tie (in which case less detail is required, but some reason for said tie based on the debate content must still be comprehensible within the vote).
Arguments go to the side that, within the context of the debate rounds, successfully affirms (vote pro) or negates (vote con) the resolution. Ties are possible, particularly with pre-agreed competing claims, but in most cases failing to affirm the resolution means pro loses by default.
Weighing entails analyzing the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments and their impacts against another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole. ... That last part is a touch of a problem for your vote, while it's not true that you made no mention of the contender's case, it was basically complete dismissal for an accused fallacy (which is sometimes enough, but his case had enough depth that something more should have been mentioned... perhaps how his side to the loopholes argument turned out or didn't turn out? There's more options that would work, that's just one I'd be curious to read).
Due to the above on arguments, I am sorry to say, but...
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 6 to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Arguments and conduct are finely measured for judgement, but not so much for sources.
Sources are optional and if awarded require a strong quality lead. Sources go to the side that better supported their case with relevant outside evidence and/or analysis thereof. If both sides have done their research due diligence, these points are usually tied.
A side with unreliable sources may be penalized, but the voter must specify why the sources were unreliable enough to diminish their own case (such as if the other side called attention to the flaws, thereby engaging with sources in a more effective manner with impacts to arguments; thereby flipping the source and harming the opposing argument).
Things not to award sources for (barring for exceptional cases):
• Common knowledge… E.g., that Wikipedia says JFK was the president of a country, which is unlikely to enhance any impacts (unless the other side is denying that).
• The subject of the debate… E.g., in a biblical debate, preferring one side’s analysis of the bible itself already speaks directly to the argument points, not exceptional sourcing.
• A lead of only a couple sources, even if only one side had any. While quantity isn’t the standard, there is a minimal threshold for consideration.
• Source spam without relevant analysis by the presenter. Sources are awarded for quality, not mere quantity.
• The voter’s own research on the topic.
**************************************************
---vi_777's original vote---
Pro’s Victory:
Clear stance: Pro consistently argued that debates must be judged on argument quality, not just forfeitures.
Detailed examples: He cited cases to prove how unfair wins can occur when forfeits are the main basis of judgment.
Nuanced distinction: He introduced the idea of "indirect forfeiture" (e.g., saying just “ok” or giving blank arguments), which broadened the debate.
Con’s misread: Con wrongly claimed Pro was saying not to penalize forfeits, but Pro never argued that — he just emphasized that arguments should outweigh procedural flaws.
Con’s Loss:
Forfeited one full round.
Misunderstood Pro’s position and built part of his rebuttal on a strawman.
In Round 3, Con conceded that forfeits can be penalized — which Pro never disagreed with. This showed a partial alignment with Pro’s position.
---Fauxlaw's Original Vote (1 of 2)---
The timing of this debate could not be more fortuitous considering the changes to this site that are forthcoming with transfer of ownership, and the potential modifications of site function following the change. The issue of debate argument and the consequence of one or more rounds forfeited by one or both opponents and how such consequence should affect the voted outcome. The created Resolution by the instigator is the perfect foil, for its two opposing Burdens of Proof [BoP] affect the current rule attitude about the success of presentation of argument as the primary, current carrier of voted point value in a multiple criterion debate, or the singular criterion in a winner selection debate, countered by the effect of the clouded judgment of forfeiture by one or both opponents in whole or in part as the opposing BoP, and as portrayed by possible modification of debate rules and voting protocol.
As worded by the instigator [Pro], the Resolution may have better served the Pro BoP had he phrased the Resolution exactly as worded in his Round [R] 1 : "Debate must be voted on basis of arguments, not on [the] basis of forfeiture, alone." This is a sound argument because of the addition of a single word; "alone." because many votes area cast by members, including Mods, who should no better considering the current working in voting rules concerning the incident of forfeiture. Evewn with multiple-criteria designated debates, requiring voting on four specific criteria [argument, sourcing, legibility, conduct] the vote is rendered as a wion by one opponent for the forfeiture of the other opponent. There is question among the members and moods if this is appropriate voted consequence. Never the less, the added "alone" makes for a significant argument point that is never truly defeated. Further, Pro weakens his argument by closing R1 with two questions posed to Con. Posing a question on a point of potential argument is much better made as an argument to which Con is obligated to successfully rebut to defeat it. An open-ended question does not accomplish that. At best the question will receive an open-ended answer, which may or may not fail as a rebuttal.
---Fauxlaw's Original Vote (2 of 2)---
Due to Con's forfeiture of Round 1 by response - which is perceived by this voter as an intended vehicle to argue the point of a clouded forfeiture voting rule, and perhaps instigated by pro's ill-advised questions, still fails the strict definition of a proper argument. Further there is no provided source tor substantiate the strategy as a merit of argument, but certainly fails the sourcing requirement. Since Pro offered no source either for R1, it's a moot point.
Pro legions and ends R2 with a repeat of his BoP, burr that's all.
Con's R2 begins bay defining forfeit, Burt uses a contractual legal definition hang naught to do with this sites debate protocol, and is therefore a useless argument. Con's R2 continues by sourcing the DA debate voting rules relative to forfeiture that, by its clouded discussion, appears to, and in practiced citing does result in a potential win for the fofeiter by loophole, as Pro later argues. But Con's R2 rebuttal does not display the strength to overwhelm Pro's R1 argument that forfeiture, alone, is not a valid argument and should be a loser.
Con's R2 ends with an ill-advised question of his own which would also have served him better stated as an argument than an open-ended question; ill-advised for the same reason as given to Pro.
Pro's R3 begins by an accusation that Pro asked voters to not penalize Con for his R1 forfeit, but pro rightly reb its that he did not ask voters to v toe that way, but asked Con the direct question about voting on forfeitures. Pro invited such an accusation because any statements made in a debate are presumed to be addressed to the eventual voters, in a edition to the opponent, which is one reason why asking direct questions to the opponent may be construed to be posed to voters, but the ruse by Con is too transparent by the accusation, and falls flat. Pro's R3 then offers cited examples of debates which purposefully corrupt use of forfeiture for ulterior reasons, further showing the flaws in the current ruled of voting on forfeitures, alone. Pro finished R3 with a convoluted answer to Con's R2 question, but it was not worded clearly, but clearly enough for what follows...
Con's R3 declares, based upon pro's RT3 answer to Con's R2 question, "Pro concedes the debate," and concludes with some descriptive justification. However, DA voting rules relative to concession say "If either side explicitly conceded the debate... [consequences discussed] ...This is invalid if the concession was not explicit" There is no "explicit" concession by Pro, and the rule declarers it cannot be called a concession if not explicitrely expressed. It was not.
Therefore, the Vote;
Argument: Successful R1, R2 arguments by Pro. Po wins argument
Sources: pro offered better and mores connected sources tor supports his BoP as noted above. Pro wins Spurcing
Legibility: Pro's R3 was a bit clouded, but Con's R2 was entirely illegible by forfeit. Tie
Conduct: Both Con's R1 forfeit, and R3 concession accusation, lose point.
pro wins conduct
I've literally been called "a tornado of change" at the office. I love change... That said, asking experienced people the why to aspects of rules, will help you both here and in your future professional life.
I'm getting ready to head to a renaissance faire, but someone remind me and I'll vote.
I am quite interested to see if con caught that this debate is worded as the absolute "must" instead of the more ambiguous "ought" or "should." Which is to say this debate clearly wants to be a policy proposal, but is worded slightly off from that.
Also, while I don't think it would pass with how ingrained users are at this point, referendums can be launched to change rules.
I've retired from debating, but I'm actually not sure if I ever argued the other side to this issue (I do know that I have voted in favor of it often enough).
The wiki I started does have a lot of thoughts from me on the broad topic: https://debate.miraheze.org/wiki/Abortion_Arguments (I do need to get it better organized, I got sidetracked while building the subpages for pro-choice and anti-abortion, as much as some of their arguments are mapped out)
That said, assuming pro does not forfeit, I'd base much of my case around a scarecrow argument of twisting their case to be for all stages of pregnancy, and then lean in on the later half (not to say late term abortions, since those are so rare it's widely accepted it's for serious complications). Of course ham up the likelihood of the fetus feeling pain (not to say at all stages, since we know in early pregnancies they lack the mechanical ability to suffer). I think I'd also take an odd path of parroting certain politicians about the need for a servant class to bolster social security and such. Further, I'd of course talk shit about pedo politicians doing social experiments which result in so much teen pregnancy.
That said, one of my biggest opinions on this topic which is hard to properly incorporate into a debate is the need for prerequisite laws for anti-abortion laws to not be evil. >40% of abortions are for women below the poverty level, so things like free health care for anything baby related, would ease that burden, thereby making abortion less desirable (honestly, people who actually oppose abortion ought to focus on that).
Actually, that wouldn't be a bad way to go about this debate. Lean in on the SHOULD, with an alternative policy which would create a better world in which casual abortion is senseless.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Mieky // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded:
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
The vote does mention their opinion, but is literally voting against their opinion so that proves a lack of bias. Further, this is effectively a single round debate, which are really hard for the instigator to win given they make no defenses to their points.
**************************************************
I don't think I'll get around to voting on this one, as I am not enough of a fan of the film series to stay engaged with the borderline scattershot arguments (there were good points in there, but from what I read it felt like there wasn't a clear trajectory)
That said, here are the thoughts I wrote down as I started to read it...
Creators:
While the description addresses it already, pro immediately opens with an attack against dogmatic loyalty to their narrative. I am not sure what them being trans has to do with anything, but honestly this debate couldn't be held in a meaningful fashion if we did not entertain that the writers could be wrong.
This also reminds me of an issue at Marvel Comics: https://debate.miraheze.org/wiki/Was_Cyclops_Right%3F#Marvel_Is_God
The philosophy of Matrix:
Risks scope creep, but interesting. AS would be the one if there is only one (an over simplification, I am not trying to write paragraphs on each element).
Birthplace:
The description really could have done with whatever the prophecy is... But if it's key that the one is born in the matrix, then AS seems a closer match by that standard.
More religious talk:
I know those movies borrow from theology, but it pretty well invites dismissal to go so straight into that in the opening round (as much as it should be foreshadowed). Points like what hairstyle a character has, IMO miss the point of the debate and distract from it. This area gets mistaken for a Gish Gallop (I will add that trying to refine the resolution into one with the same meaning, seemed fruitless); but I do not consider it to be one, merely one that drifted off into too many side issues.
A set of The One:
Con does well comparing this to The Read Pirate Roberts, as a series of The One, which likewise matches what's said in the movies, even if they are shown to all have his face (incidentally, I don't think the MTV parody was unfair: https://youtu.be/HeSrJO4ISwo?si=9o1R0LbUEDVd6RII&t=353).
Trinity:
Con lands a very good point with The Oracle insisting the Trinity will fall in love with The One.
"Neo"
Con's point about the name was however weak, as it's going back to the authors being a bit uninspired.
FYI, the resolution could be better. "Can" is really ambiguous, since anything can happen (such as R. Kelly filmed himself raping an underage girl, and the jury believed his lawyer that it was possible she was the devil so acquitted him). "Most likely" is far better.
Here's how I would rewrite this resolution:
"Meowbah would most likely beat Allah or Jesus Christ in a fight. Ameow. Inshallah."
The quick report button is a privilege, which you lost when you chose to spam reports against comment made by anyone you dislike. You may have thought this makes the reports more important, but it hides important ones under the backlog. In the past this has literally caused bad votes to not be deleted in time (once the timer ends, we cannot delete them).
You still have the right to make manual reports. This is done much as you already have, tag one or more moderators, let them know what you are reporting and most importantly why.
In this case, when I revoted I preemptively reported it on your behalf, as you are sure to report anything which doesn't favor you.
--- Original RFD ---
I'm going to do the unconventional route on an analogy: Pro argues Kylo Ren is the greatest Sith Lord of all time, way better than Darth anything... Bases his case around episodes 1-6 having never been filmed, so there were no previous Sith Lords, in fact Vader was made up in the 4th century! And then con basically points to Kylo Ren being Darth Vader's emo grandson, along with the episode number 7 being the 7th in the series (albeit, owned by Disney, so a rather obvious regurgitation of previous content).
Moving on to R2, pro insists con must prove the Kylo Ren didn't appear in episode 7, and that Mickey Mouse is illiterate so couldn't have possibly copied any concepts from the previous films... Con is politice about this, but to continue changing out material into the analogy, he reminds us that one need not have read/watched StarWars to have heard of Luke Skywalker.
...
Change StarWars to Abrahamic religions, and the above summarizes the debate. Getting deeper is like digging up and beating the skeleton of a horse, with such extra highlights as pro attempting to move the goalposts by complaining that just because con used sources to prove that Allah is plagiarized from Yahweh, doesn't mean con has proven Allah is a hoax.
Had pro not based his entire case around Allah being the first Abrahamic religion, this could warrant deeper analysis, but he bet the farm on con not knowing really basic history.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: tigerlord // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro
>Reason for Decision: Everything con said is irrelevant to the resolution and whatever he said against islam is not backed by evidence so no credibility at all.
Instead pro remain asking him to present the argument about resolution which con failed. Even pro remain sentimental just like con to not substantiate facts but he was on topic and tried to make some arguments but con on the other hand failed completely. That is why vote goes to pro. As it's one point criteria so the decision is more easy. If it would have been multiple criteria then the decision would have been very difficult. Both sides did it poorly.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
This vote essentially treated the debate as a foregone conclusion (which would be fine had one side simply not attempted to argue anything; but at a glance that is not the case); about the only redeeming trait on it is acknowledging weakness from the favored side (even while still coddling them via voting for them just for being on the preferred side of the issue, without being able to explain anything good about their argument).
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: pierree // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to con
>Reason for Decision: The Con was very solid with the arguments, the conduct and the Legibility and pro tried so hard to be able to beat him but pro's arguments weren't solid at all and lacks in civic common sense and respect. Case closed.
>Reason for Mod Action:
In essence, this vote was just too vague... This can be avoided in future by just commenting on the core contention (and the main counterpoint or the lack thereof), listing a single source you found important (if voting sources), saying what conduct violation distracted you (if voting conduct)... You need not write a thesis, but some minimal level of detail is required to verify knowledge of what you're grading.
This is very slightly short of borderline, so is closer to a mistake correction. Further, pro did forfeit much of the debate, so a vote based on that would not be judged.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>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. 😄
Regarding the reported vote, I believe it to be borderline, but borderline is ok.
AI wasn't such a factor when the rules were written, but it intuitively falls under cheating (most closely I'd say plagiarism), for which voters are allowed to determine the weight of the impacts. Further, it shows it read the debate with catching con's lack of a reply to the accusation.
Thank you for asking... Given the unfortunate reasons for the ban, the RO isn't really in effect anymore. So while any resumed interaction ought to be handled with care, you may resume interactions much the same as had the RO reached the natural end of its lifespan.
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).
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."
Your vote has been removed.
It was as follows: "As I taken biology group in high class, I have some knowledge on diseases. Yes STD are cruel and they are life threatening. But Banning a human emotional activity is not possible, Even during pandemic government asked to wear mask, not banned to talk. So taking precautions, testing for std is required and we can limit ,kissing to only one people like wife. Banning a emotion is not possible. and during physical relations wearing condoms, taking pills are useful. If you felt any changes ,consult a doctor ,we can cure many diseases in early stage."
The very beginning of informs me that you're not meaning to cast a vote, but rather state your opinion on the topic separate from how the debaters argued it; which is what the comment section is for, not the vote section.
You may of course revote, but please ensure your vote reflects analysis of what the debaters discussed.
I thought I had replied already, so sorry for the delay…
The vote in question reads to me like it’s focused heavily on the con side so as to give advice and help con do better in future. That said, it does give a sufficient amount of detail in the pro side as well, even if it’s much less than what’s offered to con.
The source allotment could be nitpicked but to what ends? With only one debater using any, it feels like a foregone conclusion.
I saw this too late, but my vote would have favored your argument. This is effectviely a single round debate in which you named some valid harms (distractions, etc); and while normally single round debates are won by con since you cannot defend against any point they raise, the "for students" mitigates cons whole case (teachers can still have phones for various emergencies).
Regarding conduct, you forfeited twice, so any votes against you based on that are valid for a conduct allotment (and in Winner Take All, that's enough).
That said, argument votes in your favor are still allowed.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#forfeitures
He accomplished more than nothing as president, so with her never rising to that station that could prove tricky for pro.
Much appreciated that you said that in gest…
But yes, so unfair, we’re going to do better than delete them and meowete them! 🤣🐈⬛
> I strictly said to consult or ask me / fauxlaw before removing his vote second time , but you removed without asking us.
Why on earth would you be asked to clarify your writing of a vote cast by someone else?
> Clearly, I believed that jonrohith exceeded a minimum requirement, considering the volume of the citations given,
As has repeatedly been explained, three or more is the standard to begin considering sources (exceptions are allowed, but they need to be explained). That he insists outside the debate it was actually three, has no reliance on the content presented inside the debate which is what judges are supposed to grade.
> Those two citations consisted of much more than singular quotations of single sentences, which most references to sources amount to and are considered acceptable voting criteria.
You were given every opportunity to refine your vote to meet the standards for source allotments (or to withdraw giving bonus points for that), but you chose not to.
> I entirely disagree with a non-scoring range.
Irrelevant. While the rules for judging may be changed, until they are changed they are enforced as is. You (or anyone else) is more than welcome to initiate a referendum to refine the rules.
Honestly, I think much of why we don’t want sources given lightly, is that they’re significantly over valued in the current setup.
We probably need a better term than tied range, maybe non-scoring range? Like admitting someone was better, and not giving them extra points for it because it’s not by enough.
Because of recent developments we might be able to get the code changed. I’ve started a thread for this discussion:
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/12859-categorical-votes-optimal-points
These debates have a built in oddity:
Soundness of such a thing really can't be proven, only validity. A high level of validity, well above the base level to be sure, but still validity.
Of course to attack the soundness, the validity is the best target.
But if the setup says "valid" then it's like going for a cheap win, and will be mocked for it.
It's almost like we need a to differentiate between lowercase and uppercase Validity and Soundness.
Anyways, I'll plan on voting.
Also,
https://debate.miraheze.org/wiki/Validity_vs._Soundness
Ironically, had you given that analysis for sources in either of your votes they would have stood (likely with a "borderline" tag, but still stood). When you revoted, it was a blink and you miss it level of refinement; not enough to justify that those sources were so great to invoke the "barring for exceptional cases" clause.
As for your view that the "Things not to award sources for" section is misleading, I'd be glad to see your proposed refinements to avoid anyone else misunderstanding them.
It’s pretty clear that you don’t know what cheating is.
David, whiteflame, and I all reviewed the reported votes. We removed any which fell short of the standard, and advised improvements. Said improvements did not include switching sides, nor to magically vote for David, whiteflame, or myself (that would have been cheating).
Had RM hacked the site to delete votes against him, that too would have been cheating. But no, the removals were performed by David and I.
As far as I know there was no vote petitioning via PMs.
So all the obvious ways to cheat are ruled out. What method of cheating are you suggesting occurred?
…
And since voting is closed, I can now say this without risk of influencing votes to be against you: the resolution calls for the goalposts of “not on basis of forfeiture” and you conceded that you should be given points explicitly on the basis of forfeitures! Do you have any clue how damning that is to your case? And it’s not like you misspoke, since you did not report votes which gave you those points.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 6 to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Same as before: https://www.debateart.com/debates/6207/comments/65158
The voting policy section on source allotments may be viewed at: https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#sources
To quote instead of paraphrase the rule: "Things not to award sources for (barring for exceptional cases): ... A lead of only a couple sources, even if only one side had any. While quantity isn’t the standard, there is a minimal threshold for consideration."
Ergo, this debate does not have a significant enough use of sources for sources to be awarded.
**************************************************
---fauxlaw's second vote---
As worded by the instigator [Pro], the Resolution may have better served the Pro BoP had he phrased the Resolution exactly as worded in his Round [R] 1 : "Debate must be voted on basis of arguments, not on [the] basis of forfeiture, alone." This is a sound argument because of the addition of a single word; "alone." because many votes are cast by members, including Mods, who should know better considering the current working in voting rules concerning the incident of forfeiture. Even with multiple-criteria designated debates, requiring voting on four specific criteria [argument, sourcing, legibility, conduct] the vote is rendered as a win by one opponent for the forfeiture of the other opponent. There is question among the members and moods if this is appropriate voted consequence. Nevertheless, the added "alone" makes for a significant argument point that is never truly defeated. Further, Pro weakens his argument by closing R1 with two questions posed to Con. Posing a question on a point of potential argument is much better made as an argument to which Con is obligated to successfully rebut to defeat it. An open-ended question does not accomplish that. At best the question will receive an open-ended answer, which may or may not fail as a rebuttal.
Due to Con's forfeiture of Round 1 by response - which is perceived by this voter as an intended vehicle to argue the point of a clouded forfeiture voting rule, and perhaps instigated by Pro's ill-advised questions, still fails the strict definition of a proper argument. Further there is no provided source to substantiate the strategy as a merit of argument, but certainly fails the sourcing requirement. Since Pro offered no source either for R1, it's a moot point. Pro begins and ends R2 with a repeat of his BoP, but that's all.
Con's R2 begins by defining forfeit, but uses a contractual legal definition having naught to do with this site’s debate protocol, and is therefore a useless argument. Con's R2 continues by sourcing the DA debate voting rules relative to forfeiture that, by its clouded discussion, appears to, and in practiced citing does result in a potential win for the fofeiter by loophole, as Pro later argues. But Con's R2 rebuttal does not display the strength to overwhelm Pro's R1 argument that forfeiture, alone, is not a valid argument and should be a loser, at least of conduct point. Con's R2 ends with an ill-advised question of his own which would also have served him better stated as an argument rather than an open-ended question; ill-advised for the same reason as given to Pro.
Pro's R3 begins by an accusation that Pro asked voters to not penalize Con for his R1 forfeit, but Pro’s rebuttal that he did not ask voters to vote that way, but asked Con the direct question about voting on forfeitures. Pro invited such an accusation because any statements made in a debate are presumed to be addressed to the eventual voters, in a edition to the opponent, which is one reason why asking direct questions to the opponent may be construed to be posed to voters, but the ruse by Con is too transparent by the accusation, and falls flat. Pro's R3 then offers cited examples of debates which purposefully corrupt use of forfeiture for ulterior reasons, further showing the flaws in the current rules of voting on forfeitures, alone. Pro finished R3 with a convoluted answer to Con's R2 question, but it was not worded clearly, but clearly enough for what follows... Con's R3 declares, based upon Pro's R3 answer to Con's R2 question, "Pro concedes the debate," and concludes with some descriptive justification. However, DA voting rules relative to concession say "If either side explicitly conceded the debate... [consequences discussed] ...This is invalid if the concession was not explicit" There is no "explicit" concession by Pro, and the rule declarers it cannot be called a concession if not explicitly expressed. It was not.
Therefore, the Vote;
Argument: Successful R1, R2 arguments by Pro. Po wins argument
Sources: Po offered better and more connected sources, such as offered in R3, to support his BoP as noted above. By contrast, Con’s only source was a dictionary definition of forfeit, but a definiton not related to a debate action of forfeit. Pro wins Sourcing
Legibility: Pro's R3 was a bit clouded, but Con's R2 was entirely illegible by forfeit. Tie
Conduct: Both Con's R1 forfeit, and R3 concession accusation, lose point. Pro wins conduct
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: vi_777 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 to pro, 1 to con
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
If there was more time, I'd probably do a little back and forth with basic questions about the debate to estimate bias and to allow implicit expansions of the vote such, but we we do not have the luxury to both do that and give you the opportunity to vote again should removal be necessary.
I'll also say that the vote is right on the line of borderline (flawed but acceptable) or slightly less, so please don't feel anything bad, this is more of a couching moment than anything.
I'm going to use some boilerplates for parts of this (wish I could color code or something)...
In essence, this vote was just too vague... This can be avoided in future by just commenting on the core contention from each side (and the main counterpoint or the lack thereof), listing a single source you found important (if voting sources), saying what conduct violation distracted you (if voting conduct)... You need not write a thesis, but some minimal level of detail is required to verify knowledge of what you're grading. ... To this, legibility is unexplained (and frankly, as neither committed any crimes against English, is almost guaranteed to deserve to be tied)
Arguments must always be reviewed even if left a tie (in which case less detail is required, but some reason for said tie based on the debate content must still be comprehensible within the vote).
Arguments go to the side that, within the context of the debate rounds, successfully affirms (vote pro) or negates (vote con) the resolution. Ties are possible, particularly with pre-agreed competing claims, but in most cases failing to affirm the resolution means pro loses by default.
Weighing entails analyzing the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments and their impacts against another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole. ... That last part is a touch of a problem for your vote, while it's not true that you made no mention of the contender's case, it was basically complete dismissal for an accused fallacy (which is sometimes enough, but his case had enough depth that something more should have been mentioned... perhaps how his side to the loopholes argument turned out or didn't turn out? There's more options that would work, that's just one I'd be curious to read).
Due to the above on arguments, I am sorry to say, but...
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 6 to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Arguments and conduct are finely measured for judgement, but not so much for sources.
Sources are optional and if awarded require a strong quality lead. Sources go to the side that better supported their case with relevant outside evidence and/or analysis thereof. If both sides have done their research due diligence, these points are usually tied.
A side with unreliable sources may be penalized, but the voter must specify why the sources were unreliable enough to diminish their own case (such as if the other side called attention to the flaws, thereby engaging with sources in a more effective manner with impacts to arguments; thereby flipping the source and harming the opposing argument).
Things not to award sources for (barring for exceptional cases):
• Common knowledge… E.g., that Wikipedia says JFK was the president of a country, which is unlikely to enhance any impacts (unless the other side is denying that).
• The subject of the debate… E.g., in a biblical debate, preferring one side’s analysis of the bible itself already speaks directly to the argument points, not exceptional sourcing.
• A lead of only a couple sources, even if only one side had any. While quantity isn’t the standard, there is a minimal threshold for consideration.
• Source spam without relevant analysis by the presenter. Sources are awarded for quality, not mere quantity.
• The voter’s own research on the topic.
**************************************************
---vi_777's original vote---
Pro’s Victory:
Clear stance: Pro consistently argued that debates must be judged on argument quality, not just forfeitures.
Detailed examples: He cited cases to prove how unfair wins can occur when forfeits are the main basis of judgment.
Nuanced distinction: He introduced the idea of "indirect forfeiture" (e.g., saying just “ok” or giving blank arguments), which broadened the debate.
Con’s misread: Con wrongly claimed Pro was saying not to penalize forfeits, but Pro never argued that — he just emphasized that arguments should outweigh procedural flaws.
Con’s Loss:
Forfeited one full round.
Misunderstood Pro’s position and built part of his rebuttal on a strawman.
In Round 3, Con conceded that forfeits can be penalized — which Pro never disagreed with. This showed a partial alignment with Pro’s position.
---Fauxlaw's Original Vote (1 of 2)---
The timing of this debate could not be more fortuitous considering the changes to this site that are forthcoming with transfer of ownership, and the potential modifications of site function following the change. The issue of debate argument and the consequence of one or more rounds forfeited by one or both opponents and how such consequence should affect the voted outcome. The created Resolution by the instigator is the perfect foil, for its two opposing Burdens of Proof [BoP] affect the current rule attitude about the success of presentation of argument as the primary, current carrier of voted point value in a multiple criterion debate, or the singular criterion in a winner selection debate, countered by the effect of the clouded judgment of forfeiture by one or both opponents in whole or in part as the opposing BoP, and as portrayed by possible modification of debate rules and voting protocol.
As worded by the instigator [Pro], the Resolution may have better served the Pro BoP had he phrased the Resolution exactly as worded in his Round [R] 1 : "Debate must be voted on basis of arguments, not on [the] basis of forfeiture, alone." This is a sound argument because of the addition of a single word; "alone." because many votes area cast by members, including Mods, who should no better considering the current working in voting rules concerning the incident of forfeiture. Evewn with multiple-criteria designated debates, requiring voting on four specific criteria [argument, sourcing, legibility, conduct] the vote is rendered as a wion by one opponent for the forfeiture of the other opponent. There is question among the members and moods if this is appropriate voted consequence. Never the less, the added "alone" makes for a significant argument point that is never truly defeated. Further, Pro weakens his argument by closing R1 with two questions posed to Con. Posing a question on a point of potential argument is much better made as an argument to which Con is obligated to successfully rebut to defeat it. An open-ended question does not accomplish that. At best the question will receive an open-ended answer, which may or may not fail as a rebuttal.
---Fauxlaw's Original Vote (2 of 2)---
Due to Con's forfeiture of Round 1 by response - which is perceived by this voter as an intended vehicle to argue the point of a clouded forfeiture voting rule, and perhaps instigated by pro's ill-advised questions, still fails the strict definition of a proper argument. Further there is no provided source tor substantiate the strategy as a merit of argument, but certainly fails the sourcing requirement. Since Pro offered no source either for R1, it's a moot point.
Pro legions and ends R2 with a repeat of his BoP, burr that's all.
Con's R2 begins bay defining forfeit, Burt uses a contractual legal definition hang naught to do with this sites debate protocol, and is therefore a useless argument. Con's R2 continues by sourcing the DA debate voting rules relative to forfeiture that, by its clouded discussion, appears to, and in practiced citing does result in a potential win for the fofeiter by loophole, as Pro later argues. But Con's R2 rebuttal does not display the strength to overwhelm Pro's R1 argument that forfeiture, alone, is not a valid argument and should be a loser.
Con's R2 ends with an ill-advised question of his own which would also have served him better stated as an argument than an open-ended question; ill-advised for the same reason as given to Pro.
Pro's R3 begins by an accusation that Pro asked voters to not penalize Con for his R1 forfeit, but pro rightly reb its that he did not ask voters to v toe that way, but asked Con the direct question about voting on forfeitures. Pro invited such an accusation because any statements made in a debate are presumed to be addressed to the eventual voters, in a edition to the opponent, which is one reason why asking direct questions to the opponent may be construed to be posed to voters, but the ruse by Con is too transparent by the accusation, and falls flat. Pro's R3 then offers cited examples of debates which purposefully corrupt use of forfeiture for ulterior reasons, further showing the flaws in the current ruled of voting on forfeitures, alone. Pro finished R3 with a convoluted answer to Con's R2 question, but it was not worded clearly, but clearly enough for what follows...
Con's R3 declares, based upon pro's RT3 answer to Con's R2 question, "Pro concedes the debate," and concludes with some descriptive justification. However, DA voting rules relative to concession say "If either side explicitly conceded the debate... [consequences discussed] ...This is invalid if the concession was not explicit" There is no "explicit" concession by Pro, and the rule declarers it cannot be called a concession if not explicitrely expressed. It was not.
Therefore, the Vote;
Argument: Successful R1, R2 arguments by Pro. Po wins argument
Sources: pro offered better and mores connected sources tor supports his BoP as noted above. Pro wins Spurcing
Legibility: Pro's R3 was a bit clouded, but Con's R2 was entirely illegible by forfeit. Tie
Conduct: Both Con's R1 forfeit, and R3 concession accusation, lose point.
pro wins conduct
Those would make good lines of reasoning in your case.
I've literally been called "a tornado of change" at the office. I love change... That said, asking experienced people the why to aspects of rules, will help you both here and in your future professional life.
I'm getting ready to head to a renaissance faire, but someone remind me and I'll vote.
I am quite interested to see if con caught that this debate is worded as the absolute "must" instead of the more ambiguous "ought" or "should." Which is to say this debate clearly wants to be a policy proposal, but is worded slightly off from that.
Also, while I don't think it would pass with how ingrained users are at this point, referendums can be launched to change rules.
Fairly likely someone will. It's not even a hard topic for con to win, especially since there are other schemes available besides reparations.
I've retired from debating, but I'm actually not sure if I ever argued the other side to this issue (I do know that I have voted in favor of it often enough).
The wiki I started does have a lot of thoughts from me on the broad topic: https://debate.miraheze.org/wiki/Abortion_Arguments (I do need to get it better organized, I got sidetracked while building the subpages for pro-choice and anti-abortion, as much as some of their arguments are mapped out)
That said, assuming pro does not forfeit, I'd base much of my case around a scarecrow argument of twisting their case to be for all stages of pregnancy, and then lean in on the later half (not to say late term abortions, since those are so rare it's widely accepted it's for serious complications). Of course ham up the likelihood of the fetus feeling pain (not to say at all stages, since we know in early pregnancies they lack the mechanical ability to suffer). I think I'd also take an odd path of parroting certain politicians about the need for a servant class to bolster social security and such. Further, I'd of course talk shit about pedo politicians doing social experiments which result in so much teen pregnancy.
That said, one of my biggest opinions on this topic which is hard to properly incorporate into a debate is the need for prerequisite laws for anti-abortion laws to not be evil. >40% of abortions are for women below the poverty level, so things like free health care for anything baby related, would ease that burden, thereby making abortion less desirable (honestly, people who actually oppose abortion ought to focus on that).
Actually, that wouldn't be a bad way to go about this debate. Lean in on the SHOULD, with an alternative policy which would create a better world in which casual abortion is senseless.
You should have probably specified lead character. Compare her to say Jar-Jar, and she ain't all bad...
That said, I find defenses of her being the greatest star pilot who ever lived to be quite laughable.
Instant win if you don't forfeit again.
It was reported.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Mieky // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded:
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
The vote does mention their opinion, but is literally voting against their opinion so that proves a lack of bias. Further, this is effectively a single round debate, which are really hard for the instigator to win given they make no defenses to their points.
**************************************************
https://www.debateart.com/forum/personal/topics/new
The forum would be better for this.
As a debate, it implies 1v1, and someone having a better way than whatever you offer.
In the forum, it can have any number of participants.
American culture can be many things. Even hurting our image to many countries, strengthens it to others.
Don't get me wrong, he's a jackass, but the defining the issues can take nuance in order to have a meaningful debate.
I don't think I'll get around to voting on this one, as I am not enough of a fan of the film series to stay engaged with the borderline scattershot arguments (there were good points in there, but from what I read it felt like there wasn't a clear trajectory)
That said, here are the thoughts I wrote down as I started to read it...
Creators:
While the description addresses it already, pro immediately opens with an attack against dogmatic loyalty to their narrative. I am not sure what them being trans has to do with anything, but honestly this debate couldn't be held in a meaningful fashion if we did not entertain that the writers could be wrong.
This also reminds me of an issue at Marvel Comics: https://debate.miraheze.org/wiki/Was_Cyclops_Right%3F#Marvel_Is_God
The philosophy of Matrix:
Risks scope creep, but interesting. AS would be the one if there is only one (an over simplification, I am not trying to write paragraphs on each element).
Birthplace:
The description really could have done with whatever the prophecy is... But if it's key that the one is born in the matrix, then AS seems a closer match by that standard.
More religious talk:
I know those movies borrow from theology, but it pretty well invites dismissal to go so straight into that in the opening round (as much as it should be foreshadowed). Points like what hairstyle a character has, IMO miss the point of the debate and distract from it. This area gets mistaken for a Gish Gallop (I will add that trying to refine the resolution into one with the same meaning, seemed fruitless); but I do not consider it to be one, merely one that drifted off into too many side issues.
A set of The One:
Con does well comparing this to The Read Pirate Roberts, as a series of The One, which likewise matches what's said in the movies, even if they are shown to all have his face (incidentally, I don't think the MTV parody was unfair: https://youtu.be/HeSrJO4ISwo?si=9o1R0LbUEDVd6RII&t=353).
Trinity:
Con lands a very good point with The Oracle insisting the Trinity will fall in love with The One.
"Neo"
Con's point about the name was however weak, as it's going back to the authors being a bit uninspired.
Do not try and bend the voter. That's impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth. There is no voter.
FYI, the resolution could be better. "Can" is really ambiguous, since anything can happen (such as R. Kelly filmed himself raping an underage girl, and the jury believed his lawyer that it was possible she was the devil so acquitted him). "Most likely" is far better.
Here's how I would rewrite this resolution:
"Meowbah would most likely beat Allah or Jesus Christ in a fight. Ameow. Inshallah."
Dear Mr. Slave,
The quick report button is a privilege, which you lost when you chose to spam reports against comment made by anyone you dislike. You may have thought this makes the reports more important, but it hides important ones under the backlog. In the past this has literally caused bad votes to not be deleted in time (once the timer ends, we cannot delete them).
You still have the right to make manual reports. This is done much as you already have, tag one or more moderators, let them know what you are reporting and most importantly why.
In this case, when I revoted I preemptively reported it on your behalf, as you are sure to report anything which doesn't favor you.
--- Original RFD ---
I'm going to do the unconventional route on an analogy: Pro argues Kylo Ren is the greatest Sith Lord of all time, way better than Darth anything... Bases his case around episodes 1-6 having never been filmed, so there were no previous Sith Lords, in fact Vader was made up in the 4th century! And then con basically points to Kylo Ren being Darth Vader's emo grandson, along with the episode number 7 being the 7th in the series (albeit, owned by Disney, so a rather obvious regurgitation of previous content).
Moving on to R2, pro insists con must prove the Kylo Ren didn't appear in episode 7, and that Mickey Mouse is illiterate so couldn't have possibly copied any concepts from the previous films... Con is politice about this, but to continue changing out material into the analogy, he reminds us that one need not have read/watched StarWars to have heard of Luke Skywalker.
...
Change StarWars to Abrahamic religions, and the above summarizes the debate. Getting deeper is like digging up and beating the skeleton of a horse, with such extra highlights as pro attempting to move the goalposts by complaining that just because con used sources to prove that Allah is plagiarized from Yahweh, doesn't mean con has proven Allah is a hoax.
Had pro not based his entire case around Allah being the first Abrahamic religion, this could warrant deeper analysis, but he bet the farm on con not knowing really basic history.
I confess, during this debate I totally cheated! That's why neither pro nor con defeated me during it.
FSM is way more logical... Not to say God isn't logical, just not as logical.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: tigerlord // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro
>Reason for Decision: Everything con said is irrelevant to the resolution and whatever he said against islam is not backed by evidence so no credibility at all.
Instead pro remain asking him to present the argument about resolution which con failed. Even pro remain sentimental just like con to not substantiate facts but he was on topic and tried to make some arguments but con on the other hand failed completely. That is why vote goes to pro. As it's one point criteria so the decision is more easy. If it would have been multiple criteria then the decision would have been very difficult. Both sides did it poorly.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
This vote essentially treated the debate as a foregone conclusion (which would be fine had one side simply not attempted to argue anything; but at a glance that is not the case); about the only redeeming trait on it is acknowledging weakness from the favored side (even while still coddling them via voting for them just for being on the preferred side of the issue, without being able to explain anything good about their argument).
**************************************************
Your vote is fine. I was reflecting on your report of Jon's vote made in comment #1.
And I agree that it is not automatic cheating.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: pierree // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to con
>Reason for Decision: The Con was very solid with the arguments, the conduct and the Legibility and pro tried so hard to be able to beat him but pro's arguments weren't solid at all and lacks in civic common sense and respect. Case closed.
>Reason for Mod Action:
In essence, this vote was just too vague... This can be avoided in future by just commenting on the core contention (and the main counterpoint or the lack thereof), listing a single source you found important (if voting sources), saying what conduct violation distracted you (if voting conduct)... You need not write a thesis, but some minimal level of detail is required to verify knowledge of what you're grading.
This is very slightly short of borderline, so is closer to a mistake correction. Further, pro did forfeit much of the debate, so a vote based on that would not be judged.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>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. 😄
Regarding the reported vote, I believe it to be borderline, but borderline is ok.
AI wasn't such a factor when the rules were written, but it intuitively falls under cheating (most closely I'd say plagiarism), for which voters are allowed to determine the weight of the impacts. Further, it shows it read the debate with catching con's lack of a reply to the accusation.
For a nothing debate like this, every vote (including yours) meets or exceeds the voting standard.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
Thank you for asking... Given the unfortunate reasons for the ban, the RO isn't really in effect anymore. So while any resumed interaction ought to be handled with care, you may resume interactions much the same as had the RO reached the natural end of its lifespan.
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).
"It should be a tie , so i vote for con"
Removed which you already seem to support.
Well said!
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."
Your vote has been removed.
It was as follows: "As I taken biology group in high class, I have some knowledge on diseases. Yes STD are cruel and they are life threatening. But Banning a human emotional activity is not possible, Even during pandemic government asked to wear mask, not banned to talk. So taking precautions, testing for std is required and we can limit ,kissing to only one people like wife. Banning a emotion is not possible. and during physical relations wearing condoms, taking pills are useful. If you felt any changes ,consult a doctor ,we can cure many diseases in early stage."
The very beginning of informs me that you're not meaning to cast a vote, but rather state your opinion on the topic separate from how the debaters argued it; which is what the comment section is for, not the vote section.
You may of course revote, but please ensure your vote reflects analysis of what the debaters discussed.
I thought I had replied already, so sorry for the delay…
The vote in question reads to me like it’s focused heavily on the con side so as to give advice and help con do better in future. That said, it does give a sufficient amount of detail in the pro side as well, even if it’s much less than what’s offered to con.
The source allotment could be nitpicked but to what ends? With only one debater using any, it feels like a foregone conclusion.
Done
I saw this too late, but my vote would have favored your argument. This is effectviely a single round debate in which you named some valid harms (distractions, etc); and while normally single round debates are won by con since you cannot defend against any point they raise, the "for students" mitigates cons whole case (teachers can still have phones for various emergencies).
Regarding conduct, you forfeited twice, so any votes against you based on that are valid for a conduct allotment (and in Winner Take All, that's enough).
That said, argument votes in your favor are still allowed.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#forfeitures