**************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadmad // Mod action: Removed (or would be had the voting period not ended)
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 7 to con
>Reason for Decision: Encouraging suicide and bullying instigted entirely by Pro on a shit tier rated debate about arbitrary diet choices. Vote goes to Con wholeheartedly.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
Overwhelming misconduct can spill into arguments; but sources and legibility are not merited to punish other categories than themselves.
I personally wholly agree with the sentiment of the vote. The removal would be a statement against the slippery slope of vote bombs which resemble it.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Benjamin // Mod action: Not Removed (borderline and non-moderated debate)
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 2 to con, 3 to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
This debate clearly falls into one or more category of non-moderated debates, and the vote does not seem to be cast in malice. That said, there are issues with it, but in consideration of the lower standards and content of the vote (it references multiple parts of the debate, and gives points to both sides), I'm ruling it as borderline. By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#non-moderated-debates
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Benjamin // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: arguments to con.
>Reason for Decision:
CON should have defined the word indoctrination in the description, to prevent PRO from successfully arguing his case based on a different but still valid definition.
>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.
tl;dr: please toss in another line or two about how the fight over definitions played out (I get that it ultimately prevented pro from attaining BoP, but how con proved his as preferable is missing), or mention of other contentions.
**************************************************
> âlol not even remotely close to what was argued about Kurama and the fire bendingâ
Letâs see, Kurama mode ⊠perfect Jinchurik ⊠episode 329.
And what do you think your arguments on age and when Aang learned abilities was supposed to argue if not him not learning Fire until sometime at age 13? You had a whole list of monthsâŠ
> AFTER he kills Aang and already has won the battle
So after losing, his buddy might show up and kill the person who defeated him, and then kill him too⊠thatâs not his victory, thatâs him losing twice (and the other guy losing once, but both are dead so Iâll call it a draw). The other guy has something similar (pretty sure it doesnât kill him, but still not his victory).
A debate could be held on who has better friends who will come take over if they lose; for me at least it didnât override the comparison of the two actual fighters in question.
> â LOL WHAATâŠ. have you not ever watched the show lolâ
Ahh, found the heart of the matter. You seem to believe youâd have a winning argument if I was biased in favor of Naruto, and that I should have such bias⊠Iâm more familiar with Avatar, which slants things a little against it. Peaceful monk kid vs training to murder people for money kid, need I even say my default?
Figuratively, you're Naruto's spokesperson for the upcoming fight.
The other debater is the other guy's spokesperson.
You're each trying to get people to place their bets on your side.
"You can say Aang skills will dominate Naruto which is technically creating a script in which you claim you know the outcome of a fictional characterâs battle."
It's not a script, it's an impression given to me by the comparative arguments.
"Which skill exactly wins it for you?"
That would be the script you were just talking about. It's not about one lone skill alone to win a fight. Fights are dynamic things, which inevitably end up utilizing more than one skill, and unexpected things happen.
An old friend of mine had his rifle jam at the worst time, allowing an insurgent to close the distance. The fight ended up not being decided by shooting skills, even while on paper my friend should have won for being so much better at shooting...
To explain gumption just look to the previous paragraph. The tides shifted against my friend, and he had to deep clean his rifle afterwards.
I'm reminded of a debate I had several years ago, about who would win between Flash and Green Arrow. We're talking extraordinary super powers against some weirdo with a bow and arrow (pun intended). The points basically impaled Flash, over and over again.
Around the same time, someone successfully argued that Batman would defeat Darkseid.
It doesn't so much matter who /should/ win, what's more important is how well each is argued.
That said, I still have to give a proper review to durability as that might change the outcome if it was well argued (to be clear: I dismissed both sides due to plot armor, not just one)
Barney
04.16.2024 05:48PM
Reason:
While I'm more familiar with Avatar, I thought it would be an easy win for Naruto due to their Sexy Technique. Sadly, it did not even get mentioned.
A couple criticisms of the setup... Morality defines character, so these fights miss the point of themselves if that's wholly ruled out. Age, I liked the way it was argued, but picking a certain point in both shows would have avoided confusion (say end of season 1, or 20 episodes into each show?). Probably best to also say if they have their usual friends or not.
Power:
Pro takes this in better showcasing the power of his infantry (infant soldier). Each major power given its own subheading and details thereof, and then "Chakra" as one just for comparison to the other side's limitation on it ("Naruto's chakra reserves are not a problem either since he is an Uzumaki and Jinchuriki" is not a good counter, since no one in the audience is likely to know what that means). The ultimate abilities on either is an interesting bit, because while apparently Naruto loses his intellect to use his, I am certain Aang loses control when in his (as con mentions). This bleeds into the whole age thing, for if Aang has X powers...
I should add that lumping a bunch of diverse powers all together in a single paragraph, makes them lose weight. Since age of power are so vital, a list of each of the tails and what it enables (plus when attained) would make this far easier to grade.
Age:
I'm left with the impression (largely from pro's source) that Aang is 12 through the vast majority of the show, and perhaps for the final fight he's turned 13. Con may have not intended to bet so much on this, but with the steady back and forth, instead of coming to a reasonable compromise (like fine I accept 70 episodes worth of training, let's get back to the debate), he stood by it until the end (even telling people to go find sources for it). When the first source I find (timeline of Aang) verifies that it all happened within a single year.
>Book One: Water (12 BG - 100 AG)
>Book Two: Earth (Spring 100 AG)
>Book Three: Fire (Summer 100 AG)
>Post war (100 AG - 102 AG)
Speed:
Con brings up super speed that Naruto has to best Kakashi... And pro counters that was 16 year old Naruto, whereas at 12 he was not nearly that advanced into superpowers.
Both seem to be able to run on water, but Naruto almost certainly has a faster top speed. It's a weird one, I believe con is thematically correct, but over doing one trait gives pro room to mitigate its impacts.
Instant Deaths:
They're boring. I'm reminded of One Punch Man, which is a comedy series. These two have their comedic moments to be sure, but are not comedy wherein they solve all their problems by flying through the main villain Invincible Style in the first episode.
Durability:
They both have plot armor, big surprise...
Gumption:
I'm left with the impression that Aang is less powerful, and overcomes greater challenges. That ultimately wins.
I treated this as who would win in a fight, not merely who is more over powered.
I actually think Naruto would take out Aang with a throwing star to the eye (or kunai if you prefer), but nothing like that shot up.
Gumption is not an explicit category in the debate. Looking back I did misuse the term, since endless gumption from a farmer would not overpower either of them. It was used to put my conclusions from the rest into one neat place, and make a point about grit and follow-through... The debate left me with the impression that Aang would fight from a power disadvantage, but would more likely than not win via skill (skill as shown by the debaters).
Durability is a weird concept on these shows.
Characters are always as durable as they need to be for the story, regardless of if a bystander would have survived it.
Iron Man shrugs off hits from tanks, but punches from a well preserved WWII veteran is a threat; at the same time, normal humans survive such punches instead of exploding (elevator scene comes to mind... if his strength was consistent, it would have been a scene from The Shining).
Plot armor makes examples of incredible durability non-initiative of lore unless it's explicitly stated to be a super power. That said, I was PMed a complaint of having not given fair weighing to durability, so I will be taking my vote down until I have a chance to re-review (have to get back to work right now)
Oh and plot armor explained:
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PlotArmor
A lot more detail is needed for sources, that is if they are warranted. Usually if both sides do their due diligence, sources should be tied. It needs a significant lead to win points from extra categories.
You have four hours remaining to revote. Nothing in the vote needs to be reworked, save for simply not penalizing conduct.
Conduct may still be mentioned as it was in the previous vote, since voters are allowed to comment on categories they ultimately do not award.
FYI, conduct isnât for minor differences, but rather a penalty for objectively awful behavior.
I believe whiteflame is reviewing your vote, he may or may not have feedback on arguments. Skimming your vote, arguments look ok to me (but again, I only skimmed)
Reason:
Both debaters aren't arguing the resolution. When I read or skim the debate, it is clear they are arguing over whether abortion is murder and therefore wrong or not wrong. That is not the subject of the debate, the subject of the debate is whether personhood begins at conception or not.
We are not here to argue whether abortion is wrong or not wrong. Therefore, whoever stays on topic and argues the resolution the best will get the point for arguments.
Pro starts off appealing to examples of moral consistency and semantics. Personhood begins at conception because the lifeform is already human and will eventually develop to have consciousness, sentience, and emotions. If an action interferes with this potential by stopping it, then this action is defined as a harm. Pro argues that a fetus deserves the same moral consideration as an adult because their value and worth are not different. If killing an adult human or an infant is wrong, then the same is true for fetuses. Pro contends with the idea that abortion is acceptable, but euthanizing coma patients is murder by pointing out that any justification or argument someone applies to not killing a coma patient can also be used to save the life of a fetus. That intelligence and sentience do not determine whether a person is worthy of moral consideration.
(Pro doesn't give a strong justification for why murder is wrong and why humans fall into the category of personhoods, even if I buy that fetuses are human. We could also use a judging criteria for what to consider moral consideration. Proportional harm/benefit, context, and the method is too vaguely defined.)
Con begins very strongly. Con cleverly points out that Pro's own concept he gives for personhood is self-refuting. Specifically, the example where murdering a human is worse than murdering a pig. Con's point here is that pro's version of personhood contains qualities of exceptionalism that give it unfair privilege over other species. Con defines the qualities that constitute personhood.: Sentience, autonomy, and critical thinking. Con reasons that a zygote possesses none of these qualities and therefore has no moral value. Con's arguments also begin to go off-topic and are irrelevant, such as when he mentions that banning abortion harms women. This is outside the scope of the debate because this does nothing to tell me why or why zygotes aren't persons. Con's rebuttal against Pro's Uncertainty Principle does not refute the example. While Pro didn't define what he considers personhood, he did clearly describe an example of harm as something that ends life.) Con also breaks the conduct rule by describing Pro's example as moronic and name-dropping him directly to accuse him of lying.
Pro argues that all humans are persons, regardless of their stage of development. And that according to the social contract, a human killing another human is more immoral than a human killing another pig and that the consensus for moral value is not defined by an intelligence gap. Pro defends that fetuses are worthy of moral consideration by mentioning their potentiality. Con argues there is no reason to give moral consideration to imaginary future people, but Pro has refuted this by explaining that fetuses are already living people.
Given the debate, the victory does seem to be slightly in Pro's favor but only slightly, as this debate could have went any way. Pro didn't need to define killing as wrong, he needed to establish a criteria regarding what makes someone worthy of moral consideration and what doesn't. Con is the only one to do this, and if Pro didn't pushback with counter-examples and inconsistencies in society's morals, Con would have won this.
Conduct goes to Pro because there are a couple of times Con disrespects Pro in this discussion. Both sides scored equal on sources and legibility, as both provided a similar volume of links and had consistent spelling & grammar.
If either of you get a little time, the first vote on this could do with a review.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/5383-child-marriages-should-be-illegal-for-bestkorea?open_tab=votes&votes_page=1&vote_number=1
Neither side uses the phrase Imago Dei. Even if you donât like that phrase, it lends credibility⊠kinda like a debate over that guy in a top hat who liked the theater and didnât like slavery; knowing the name Abraham Lincoln can condense so far much.
Timothy should not be used as biblical evidence. If youâre going to use fan fiction, why not hot erotic fan fiction?
It took me a bit to understand what con is going for. Iâll probably come back and finish reading then vote, after Iâve had a beer or two.
Exactly komrade, further we shall all receive equal shares of the food. Some of us are just more equal than others... And by giving it to me, I shall ensure it trickles down to everyone; even those in Ukraine shall be fed in this manner... Well, fed their "equal" share, which is in no way genocide.
Good to know that with one act of doing nothing, I can lengthen my ____.
---
A better way to request votes is to post this debate to: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3492-vote-requests
It's no guarantee of course, but is a little more likely to be seen.
Been over a month, no other mod is getting to it... But of course anyone is welcome to appeal.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Barney // Mod action: Not Removed (non-moderated debate)
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to con
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
This debate clearly falls into one or more category of non-moderated debates, and the vote does not seem to be cast in malice. Therefore, no intervention is merited.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#non-moderated-debates
**************************************************
Please stop. You can initiate a rap battle and have all that hate inside the rounds, but the comments section does not have the same protections for what would otherwise be targeted harassment.
This isn't proclaiming you can't make a witty remark at someone's expense (note that no one else is tagged...). The issue isn't wit, it's poison.
The fancy uppercut would help in combat situations. Saying one option doesn't help except for one thing, leaves the other option worse for not even having one thing listed.
Please add a touch more comparative detail to your votes.
Your vote has been deleted for vagueness. This wasnât much of a debate, so little more is needed, but the debate isnât an obvious foregone conclusion to allow for such little consideration.
Not sure the context, but there is no rule against quotation.
Possibly thematically related, anyone who has âhonorâ as a common part of their vocabulary, cannot stand to be quoted, because itâs an insult to their honor to accuse them of saying the things they said.
Thank you for the detailed vote. And even more so for agreeing with me that my conduct was atrocious, plus ridiculously immature (which I didn't think of the maturity level, but it's a fair assessment).
Your vote is also a great example of what I believe to be optimal thought process for voting on closely matched debates.
I will say it was such a minor removal to not go into the moderation log (how we denote a habit to build toward removing voting privileges). It was done in part to encourage greater (or in this case any) detail in future.
> "He was saying my songs made him feel better."
I don't know eastern spiritually to know that, nor was there enough context for me to figure it out. The vote was a little like Vickie's plan in The Good Place of "Needles!"
But yes, me not understanding the vote (at least one within this category), means I should have passed it onto another moderator. If there was then a joint "WTF is this even trying to say?" then removal would have been appropriate. Which is a long way to say: Yes I over moderated, and that was wrong of me. Sorry.
As has been mentioned before, FishChaser is welcome to revote. A single note beyond an eastern spiritually buzzword (which did not come up in the debate) would be plenty to improve it.
Were he to revote with literally the same vote, it would be an implicit appeal of the prior decision (especially given some of the comments), so another moderator would have to make the new determination.
To the person who reported this debate: I agree with all negative sentiments toward it.
Muslims idolize a warlord who was also a pedo. This violates the rule:
âYou may not engage in or promote the sexual exploitation of minors.â
However rules are somewhat context dependent. The context of both a mythological/historical figure, and that of a debate, makes it something that would be unhealthy for the site if we limited debates to topics we donât find repugnant.
At the same time, the topic is so ugly that itâs hard for the comments to be worse than the base level it creates.
Additionally, while Iâm pretty sure I used to have less chill and banned some deplorable users for being deplorable⊠It can be beneficial for certain things to be exposed to the harsh light of day, so that they may be figuratively lynched by logic.
I'd add at least a couple key metrics to the description, as well as the disclaimer that both count as anime.
The obvious K to this topic is that Korea = Best; therefore nothing else can be. đ
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadmad // Mod action: Removed (or would be had the voting period not ended)
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 7 to con
>Reason for Decision: Encouraging suicide and bullying instigted entirely by Pro on a shit tier rated debate about arbitrary diet choices. Vote goes to Con wholeheartedly.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
Overwhelming misconduct can spill into arguments; but sources and legibility are not merited to punish other categories than themselves.
I personally wholly agree with the sentiment of the vote. The removal would be a statement against the slippery slope of vote bombs which resemble it.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Benjamin // Mod action: Not Removed (borderline and non-moderated debate)
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 2 to con, 3 to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
This debate clearly falls into one or more category of non-moderated debates, and the vote does not seem to be cast in malice. That said, there are issues with it, but in consideration of the lower standards and content of the vote (it references multiple parts of the debate, and gives points to both sides), I'm ruling it as borderline. By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#non-moderated-debates
**************************************************
Less so than being pro life.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Benjamin // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: arguments to con.
>Reason for Decision:
CON should have defined the word indoctrination in the description, to prevent PRO from successfully arguing his case based on a different but still valid definition.
>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.
tl;dr: please toss in another line or two about how the fight over definitions played out (I get that it ultimately prevented pro from attaining BoP, but how con proved his as preferable is missing), or mention of other contentions.
**************************************************
To be crystal clear, the reported vote has not been reviewed.
It along with this debate falls into some grey areas, so will take some consideration.
Welcome to the site.
You should add definitions of those two terms into the description, as well as clarifying there which side you are arguing is worse.
Do you have any interest in doing a Hall of Fame writeup for this debate?
I was revoting for proper analysis, but then work went crazy, and then my computer turned itself off at random.
I will get around to it.
Itâs a real shame, I was giving a ton of advice on different arguments to either side.
Most likely youâll win arguments due to the extent of Wylted dropping things. Plus the forfeiture counts against him. Sources might favor him.
Forfeiture aside, someone being banned usually doesnât impact what arguments they did or did not make.
You two should redo this one at a time with less distractions.
> âlol not even remotely close to what was argued about Kurama and the fire bendingâ
Letâs see, Kurama mode ⊠perfect Jinchurik ⊠episode 329.
And what do you think your arguments on age and when Aang learned abilities was supposed to argue if not him not learning Fire until sometime at age 13? You had a whole list of monthsâŠ
> AFTER he kills Aang and already has won the battle
So after losing, his buddy might show up and kill the person who defeated him, and then kill him too⊠thatâs not his victory, thatâs him losing twice (and the other guy losing once, but both are dead so Iâll call it a draw). The other guy has something similar (pretty sure it doesnât kill him, but still not his victory).
A debate could be held on who has better friends who will come take over if they lose; for me at least it didnât override the comparison of the two actual fighters in question.
> â LOL WHAATâŠ. have you not ever watched the show lolâ
Ahh, found the heart of the matter. You seem to believe youâd have a winning argument if I was biased in favor of Naruto, and that I should have such bias⊠Iâm more familiar with Avatar, which slants things a little against it. Peaceful monk kid vs training to murder people for money kid, need I even say my default?
Figuratively, you're Naruto's spokesperson for the upcoming fight.
The other debater is the other guy's spokesperson.
You're each trying to get people to place their bets on your side.
"You can say Aang skills will dominate Naruto which is technically creating a script in which you claim you know the outcome of a fictional characterâs battle."
It's not a script, it's an impression given to me by the comparative arguments.
"Which skill exactly wins it for you?"
That would be the script you were just talking about. It's not about one lone skill alone to win a fight. Fights are dynamic things, which inevitably end up utilizing more than one skill, and unexpected things happen.
An old friend of mine had his rifle jam at the worst time, allowing an insurgent to close the distance. The fight ended up not being decided by shooting skills, even while on paper my friend should have won for being so much better at shooting...
To explain gumption just look to the previous paragraph. The tides shifted against my friend, and he had to deep clean his rifle afterwards.
I'm reminded of a debate I had several years ago, about who would win between Flash and Green Arrow. We're talking extraordinary super powers against some weirdo with a bow and arrow (pun intended). The points basically impaled Flash, over and over again.
Around the same time, someone successfully argued that Batman would defeat Darkseid.
It doesn't so much matter who /should/ win, what's more important is how well each is argued.
That said, I still have to give a proper review to durability as that might change the outcome if it was well argued (to be clear: I dismissed both sides due to plot armor, not just one)
Barney
04.16.2024 05:48PM
Reason:
While I'm more familiar with Avatar, I thought it would be an easy win for Naruto due to their Sexy Technique. Sadly, it did not even get mentioned.
A couple criticisms of the setup... Morality defines character, so these fights miss the point of themselves if that's wholly ruled out. Age, I liked the way it was argued, but picking a certain point in both shows would have avoided confusion (say end of season 1, or 20 episodes into each show?). Probably best to also say if they have their usual friends or not.
Power:
Pro takes this in better showcasing the power of his infantry (infant soldier). Each major power given its own subheading and details thereof, and then "Chakra" as one just for comparison to the other side's limitation on it ("Naruto's chakra reserves are not a problem either since he is an Uzumaki and Jinchuriki" is not a good counter, since no one in the audience is likely to know what that means). The ultimate abilities on either is an interesting bit, because while apparently Naruto loses his intellect to use his, I am certain Aang loses control when in his (as con mentions). This bleeds into the whole age thing, for if Aang has X powers...
I should add that lumping a bunch of diverse powers all together in a single paragraph, makes them lose weight. Since age of power are so vital, a list of each of the tails and what it enables (plus when attained) would make this far easier to grade.
Age:
I'm left with the impression (largely from pro's source) that Aang is 12 through the vast majority of the show, and perhaps for the final fight he's turned 13. Con may have not intended to bet so much on this, but with the steady back and forth, instead of coming to a reasonable compromise (like fine I accept 70 episodes worth of training, let's get back to the debate), he stood by it until the end (even telling people to go find sources for it). When the first source I find (timeline of Aang) verifies that it all happened within a single year.
>Book One: Water (12 BG - 100 AG)
>Book Two: Earth (Spring 100 AG)
>Book Three: Fire (Summer 100 AG)
>Post war (100 AG - 102 AG)
Speed:
Con brings up super speed that Naruto has to best Kakashi... And pro counters that was 16 year old Naruto, whereas at 12 he was not nearly that advanced into superpowers.
Both seem to be able to run on water, but Naruto almost certainly has a faster top speed. It's a weird one, I believe con is thematically correct, but over doing one trait gives pro room to mitigate its impacts.
Instant Deaths:
They're boring. I'm reminded of One Punch Man, which is a comedy series. These two have their comedic moments to be sure, but are not comedy wherein they solve all their problems by flying through the main villain Invincible Style in the first episode.
Durability:
They both have plot armor, big surprise...
Gumption:
I'm left with the impression that Aang is less powerful, and overcomes greater challenges. That ultimately wins.
P.S.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SdpjexsU7M
Addendum to my vote:
I treated this as who would win in a fight, not merely who is more over powered.
I actually think Naruto would take out Aang with a throwing star to the eye (or kunai if you prefer), but nothing like that shot up.
Gumption is not an explicit category in the debate. Looking back I did misuse the term, since endless gumption from a farmer would not overpower either of them. It was used to put my conclusions from the rest into one neat place, and make a point about grit and follow-through... The debate left me with the impression that Aang would fight from a power disadvantage, but would more likely than not win via skill (skill as shown by the debaters).
Durability is a weird concept on these shows.
Characters are always as durable as they need to be for the story, regardless of if a bystander would have survived it.
Iron Man shrugs off hits from tanks, but punches from a well preserved WWII veteran is a threat; at the same time, normal humans survive such punches instead of exploding (elevator scene comes to mind... if his strength was consistent, it would have been a scene from The Shining).
Plot armor makes examples of incredible durability non-initiative of lore unless it's explicitly stated to be a super power. That said, I was PMed a complaint of having not given fair weighing to durability, so I will be taking my vote down until I have a chance to re-review (have to get back to work right now)
Oh and plot armor explained:
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PlotArmor
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfmKTe0QrKE
A lot more detail is needed for sources, that is if they are warranted. Usually if both sides do their due diligence, sources should be tied. It needs a significant lead to win points from extra categories.
If you miss one more round you'll automatically lose, AKA dicked it up.
I read that wrong. My bad!
You have four hours remaining to revote. Nothing in the vote needs to be reworked, save for simply not penalizing conduct.
Conduct may still be mentioned as it was in the previous vote, since voters are allowed to comment on categories they ultimately do not award.
FYI, conduct isnât for minor differences, but rather a penalty for objectively awful behavior.
I believe whiteflame is reviewing your vote, he may or may not have feedback on arguments. Skimming your vote, arguments look ok to me (but again, I only skimmed)
Hero_In_Instatute
04.12.2024 09:44PM
Reason:
Both debaters aren't arguing the resolution. When I read or skim the debate, it is clear they are arguing over whether abortion is murder and therefore wrong or not wrong. That is not the subject of the debate, the subject of the debate is whether personhood begins at conception or not.
We are not here to argue whether abortion is wrong or not wrong. Therefore, whoever stays on topic and argues the resolution the best will get the point for arguments.
Pro starts off appealing to examples of moral consistency and semantics. Personhood begins at conception because the lifeform is already human and will eventually develop to have consciousness, sentience, and emotions. If an action interferes with this potential by stopping it, then this action is defined as a harm. Pro argues that a fetus deserves the same moral consideration as an adult because their value and worth are not different. If killing an adult human or an infant is wrong, then the same is true for fetuses. Pro contends with the idea that abortion is acceptable, but euthanizing coma patients is murder by pointing out that any justification or argument someone applies to not killing a coma patient can also be used to save the life of a fetus. That intelligence and sentience do not determine whether a person is worthy of moral consideration.
(Pro doesn't give a strong justification for why murder is wrong and why humans fall into the category of personhoods, even if I buy that fetuses are human. We could also use a judging criteria for what to consider moral consideration. Proportional harm/benefit, context, and the method is too vaguely defined.)
Con begins very strongly. Con cleverly points out that Pro's own concept he gives for personhood is self-refuting. Specifically, the example where murdering a human is worse than murdering a pig. Con's point here is that pro's version of personhood contains qualities of exceptionalism that give it unfair privilege over other species. Con defines the qualities that constitute personhood.: Sentience, autonomy, and critical thinking. Con reasons that a zygote possesses none of these qualities and therefore has no moral value. Con's arguments also begin to go off-topic and are irrelevant, such as when he mentions that banning abortion harms women. This is outside the scope of the debate because this does nothing to tell me why or why zygotes aren't persons. Con's rebuttal against Pro's Uncertainty Principle does not refute the example. While Pro didn't define what he considers personhood, he did clearly describe an example of harm as something that ends life.) Con also breaks the conduct rule by describing Pro's example as moronic and name-dropping him directly to accuse him of lying.
Pro argues that all humans are persons, regardless of their stage of development. And that according to the social contract, a human killing another human is more immoral than a human killing another pig and that the consensus for moral value is not defined by an intelligence gap. Pro defends that fetuses are worthy of moral consideration by mentioning their potentiality. Con argues there is no reason to give moral consideration to imaginary future people, but Pro has refuted this by explaining that fetuses are already living people.
Given the debate, the victory does seem to be slightly in Pro's favor but only slightly, as this debate could have went any way. Pro didn't need to define killing as wrong, he needed to establish a criteria regarding what makes someone worthy of moral consideration and what doesn't. Con is the only one to do this, and if Pro didn't pushback with counter-examples and inconsistencies in society's morals, Con would have won this.
Conduct goes to Pro because there are a couple of times Con disrespects Pro in this discussion. Both sides scored equal on sources and legibility, as both provided a similar volume of links and had consistent spelling & grammar.
If either of you get a little time, the first vote on this could do with a review.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/5383-child-marriages-should-be-illegal-for-bestkorea?open_tab=votes&votes_page=1&vote_number=1
Of course you're both welcome to nominate anyone you'd like for that task.
This debate is going into the HoF, would anyone care to provide a write-up on it?
This debate is going into the HoF, would anyone care to provide a write-up on it?
Initial thoughts:
Neither side uses the phrase Imago Dei. Even if you donât like that phrase, it lends credibility⊠kinda like a debate over that guy in a top hat who liked the theater and didnât like slavery; knowing the name Abraham Lincoln can condense so far much.
Timothy should not be used as biblical evidence. If youâre going to use fan fiction, why not hot erotic fan fiction?
It took me a bit to understand what con is going for. Iâll probably come back and finish reading then vote, after Iâve had a beer or two.
Exactly komrade, further we shall all receive equal shares of the food. Some of us are just more equal than others... And by giving it to me, I shall ensure it trickles down to everyone; even those in Ukraine shall be fed in this manner... Well, fed their "equal" share, which is in no way genocide.
Good to know that with one act of doing nothing, I can lengthen my ____.
---
A better way to request votes is to post this debate to: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3492-vote-requests
It's no guarantee of course, but is a little more likely to be seen.
Been over a month, no other mod is getting to it... But of course anyone is welcome to appeal.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Barney // Mod action: Not Removed (non-moderated debate)
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to con
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
This debate clearly falls into one or more category of non-moderated debates, and the vote does not seem to be cast in malice. Therefore, no intervention is merited.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#non-moderated-debates
**************************************************
You may wish to clarify in the description.
Oh God, just saw some of the reports...
Please stop. You can initiate a rap battle and have all that hate inside the rounds, but the comments section does not have the same protections for what would otherwise be targeted harassment.
This isn't proclaiming you can't make a witty remark at someone's expense (note that no one else is tagged...). The issue isn't wit, it's poison.
The fancy uppercut would help in combat situations. Saying one option doesn't help except for one thing, leaves the other option worse for not even having one thing listed.
Please add a touch more comparative detail to your votes.
-> "đ€· đ€·"
I can interpret this emoji to be hands raised in concession. The debate was conceded, so voted against the conceding side are generally not moderated.
The person who reported it was neither of the debaters, so not sure if they ever called you that... But I agree with the sentiment.
-> â Cash out.â
Itâs an FF debate, so the vote is fine. There are limitless ways to say full forfeiture, and theyâre all valid.
-> â what. pro offered zero proofâ
Your vote has been deleted for vagueness. This wasnât much of a debate, so little more is needed, but the debate isnât an obvious foregone conclusion to allow for such little consideration.
Minor nitpick: Here those are referred to as extensions, rather than forfeitures.
Not sure the context, but there is no rule against quotation.
Possibly thematically related, anyone who has âhonorâ as a common part of their vocabulary, cannot stand to be quoted, because itâs an insult to their honor to accuse them of saying the things they said.
200 character limit⊠very tight
Thank you both for the quality votes!
Thank you for the detailed vote. And even more so for agreeing with me that my conduct was atrocious, plus ridiculously immature (which I didn't think of the maturity level, but it's a fair assessment).
Your vote is also a great example of what I believe to be optimal thought process for voting on closely matched debates.
https://youtu.be/vBJPlhnF3ao?si=EwW_U9cjdGnog-rd
> "I disagree with the removal."
I will say it was such a minor removal to not go into the moderation log (how we denote a habit to build toward removing voting privileges). It was done in part to encourage greater (or in this case any) detail in future.
> "He was saying my songs made him feel better."
I don't know eastern spiritually to know that, nor was there enough context for me to figure it out. The vote was a little like Vickie's plan in The Good Place of "Needles!"
But yes, me not understanding the vote (at least one within this category), means I should have passed it onto another moderator. If there was then a joint "WTF is this even trying to say?" then removal would have been appropriate. Which is a long way to say: Yes I over moderated, and that was wrong of me. Sorry.
As has been mentioned before, FishChaser is welcome to revote. A single note beyond an eastern spiritually buzzword (which did not come up in the debate) would be plenty to improve it.
Were he to revote with literally the same vote, it would be an implicit appeal of the prior decision (especially given some of the comments), so another moderator would have to make the new determination.
> "because it seems like not all will fit"
A clear implicit argument against child marriage.
To the person who reported this debate: I agree with all negative sentiments toward it.
Muslims idolize a warlord who was also a pedo. This violates the rule:
âYou may not engage in or promote the sexual exploitation of minors.â
However rules are somewhat context dependent. The context of both a mythological/historical figure, and that of a debate, makes it something that would be unhealthy for the site if we limited debates to topics we donât find repugnant.
At the same time, the topic is so ugly that itâs hard for the comments to be worse than the base level it creates.
Additionally, while Iâm pretty sure I used to have less chill and banned some deplorable users for being deplorable⊠It can be beneficial for certain things to be exposed to the harsh light of day, so that they may be figuratively lynched by logic.
Both people are being major dicks to each other. Thankfully neither of them is underage.