Skimming over this, pro doesn't understand their basic BoP, and is instead opting to waste time complaining about such things as you used the word "brand" when they would not. This leaves the debate as barely more than a foregone conclusion.
You mean 9 year olds, at least in Iraq where they take Muhammad seriously… Granted, at least they don’t allow old dudes to marry 6 year olds and groom them until they’re 9 before raping them, as Muhammad did.
But in fairness, I’ve seen it argued that she was a prodigy, and he was mentally handicapped, resulting in an inversion of who raped who.
> the con's arguments were really inconsistent and demonstrates the total absence of Marxism literature, or at least what communism really is without basing it on heard things.
You awarded 6 points for that. It is better than the previous vote in the comments, but it has much of the same flaws. That said, at least it implies knowing the topic under discussion.
> "I mentioned use of AI to generate citations, so there's no need to undermine my work by labelling it as plagiarized."
It's not the citations which concerned me. It was main paragraphs bearing several AI tells; to which, the worst was a problem where the AI did not understand the context of what it was replying to, so outputted some lofty sounding phrases vaguely to the topic but missing the mark of what it was supposed to be addressing.
That said, and as I indicated in my vote, I still considered the merits of the arguments you submitted (normal plagiarism I would have likely just given all points to the other side).
> "Poisoning the well = when someone presents negative information about a person before they speak, to bias the audience against them."
You're confusing poisoning the well with a hybrid fallacy of ad hominem attacks and poisoning the well (easy error to make).
Granted, you are correct that I mislabeled it. What you did was a form of scarecrow argument known as a phantom argument (scarecrow is distorting possibly beyond recognition, phantom is to outright invent).
Just going to say it, I'm too biased about personhood not existing independent of sentience, that I cannot fairly vote on this debate (I can often get past my bias, but this is too much of a key issue, and my beliefs are too strong that I find myself accepting con's premises perhaps too easily). I'm pretty sure I've literally used pro's severed hand example to demonstrate that mere unique human DNA (I believe I had the rest of the body incinerated, I don't think pro did that), does not equal a person any more than cancer cells do.
Anyways, here's the start to a RFD which will not be moving forward. It was to follow single argument lines, which is why it seems to skip so much; the missed argument lines would have been added (or at least most of them).
---RFD---
Okay, this is a topic I've intentionally avoided. So pretty cool to see two great debaters showing me what can be done with it...
"There are two ways in which someone can behave in an immoral manner:
*Direct harm: This action has a direct adverse effect on some other person.
*Neglecting a moral duty: Someone ought to do something (like follow an agreed-on contract) but fails to do so."
This seems like it'll be key.
Uncertainty Principle:
Pro argues that assuming unborn is a person (which he does), a person may be harmed by abortion. Assuming 73 years of life, vs 1 year of inconvenience, therefore women ought to endure pregnancies.
At first glance, it looks like con did not reply, but he clarifies that his argument "The Fetus’ Personhood" addresses it. So con argues that personhood requires some non-negligible interests (he uses a fly as an example).
Pro counters that a disembodied head or a hand lack interests even if they had them before (nice bit of engaging with con's own nuance), showing that it it self evident they are not people. Ergo a fetus is a person?
These mod decisions may be appealed, but do understand that unless a specific flaw is pointed out, we're largely looking for an impression which matches our own skimming of the debate (and to that it need not draw the same conclusions).
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Umbrellacorp // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 2 to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Bones // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to con
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Savant // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 2 to pro, 3 to con (effectively 1 to con)
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Savant // 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.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Umbrellacorp // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Please don't be discouraged.
The problem here can be traced to the very first rule in the voting policy "Strive to be fair."
At risk of summoning a Nitpick Troll: There's a BoP requirement to making a judgement, and a pretty low one; it's to show that one has read the debate with an open mind that either side could win or lose. In this case, one of the debaters doesn't recognize his argument in your vote; he even names key factors which were not directly present in his argument but are in the vote. If he loses fine, but it is not fair if he (without having abysmal grammar) can't simply recognize his arguments in the judgements.
This is not to say you must always understand arguments perfectly, but your reply in the comments on the matter of bodily autonomy, reads as if you skimmed and assumed that was the direction (in fairness, for abortion debates 9 times out of 10 you'll be correct); likewise on the feel of skimming you wrote it as if con ignored pro's arguments, when he'd got a whole section at the bottom of R1 labeled Rebuttals.
Lastly, I should mention that they set this to shared BoP. Normally primary BoP rests with pro, they either prove something, or they lose (ties are very rare). But with shared BoP, they each have to build a framework, and attack the other persons. Needless to say, this gets complicated. Also, the morality instead of legality gets compilated. Them being two of the best debaters on the site, and talking somewhat lengthily gets compilated as well... All that means you've been brave to try to make sense of it, but it may be a bit much for the time being (not barring you from voting on it, just sharing a thought).
There's other factors, but I need to get a few hours of sleep.
And boilerplates...
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.
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
**************************************************
---Umbrella's former vote---
My vote: Pro
Pro: Consistently maintained a clear line of moral reasoning.
Con: Good direct rebuttals but less precise about why uncertainty is not sufficient.
Reasons:
Pro's “uncertainty principle” was never fully dismantled. Con challenged it but didn’t show it was unreasonable.
The autonomy defense was strong from con but relied on 'asserting' that bodily autonomy beats potential personhood without fully showing why that moral perspective outweighs the
precautionary harm.
Pro suggested and maintained a layered ethical framework (FLO, special obligations, uncertainty) throughout the debate.
Whereas con primarily offered counter-assertions and did not develop a comparable alternative moral framework.
I think Pro’s arguments were more compelling on balance. Pro demonstrated that even under uncertainty about personhood, the moral risk of abortion equates to potentially committing severe harm (comparable to homicide).
Con did effectively argue for autonomy, but he did not sufficiently counter the moral weight of the 'precautionary principle' or establish why bodily autonomy rejects that moral uncertainty.
Plus, con’s engagement with the 'Future-Like-Ours' argument was more dismissive than refutative.
Thus in my opinion, pro stood to their burden more convincingly.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Umbrellacorp // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
Seriously, the vote works hard to go well above expectations.
To avoid increased member conflict, I'll also note that neither pro nor con reported the vote.
**************************************************
Sorry I haven't gotten around to voting, I actually really meant to put the time in already, but there was drama drama drama elsewhere on the site.
I have not fully read it yet, but from the parts I did skim over a vote from me will most likely be a tie. This is a very high quality debate, with competing non-mutually exclusive BoPs, that is a hard recipe to win under. I may shift as I read it in depth, but just giving a little advanced notice of early thoughts.
As you may recall, the previous debate on a related subject had a lengthy and outright evil description.
While arguments could attain that level of evil, with none published (yet) they have not. There's dozens of strategies con could use which are not taken straight from terrorist propaganda.
Further, they'd probably need to get even worse, since the desire for legit discussions is self evident from their actively levels elsewhere on the site.
And of course, this debate was created after the moderation team agreed we may have overstepped in the severity of punishment, so to merit a permaban each, they'd need to reach some extreme levels of deplorability.
...
That said, yes, the moderation team is aware of this debate, and will be checking in on the content of it.
We'll review it in greater detail. I know for a fact that whiteflame is currently reading this debate (or was, there's some drama which likely pulled him away). I suspect after he finishes reading it, he'll be able to give a more informed opinion of the vote. The previous ruling on arguments, was made without any of us having yet read the debate.
That said, please try not to jump to the worst conclusions about voters (especially new ones). This debate in particular is extremely complicated, so a voter is more likely confused than intentionally rage baiting.
A far better tactic is to request they clarify a key point or two, such as what gave them the impression you argued from bodily autonomy? Answers (or lack thereof) may inform moderation decisions, or even result in someone requesting to re-vote on their own.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Umbrellacorp // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The argument award is fine, but the legibility should be a tie.
In gist, conduct and legibility are only for extreme poor performance by the other side, rather than just being marginally better. On a debate with two extremely talented debates like this, everything other than arguments is almost certainly within the tied range.
And boilerplate explanation...
Legibility is an optional award as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, wherein sections of the debate become illegible or at least comparatively burdensome to decipher.
Examples:
• Unbroken walls of text, or similar formatting attempts to make an argument hard to follow.
• Terrible punctuation throughout.
• Overwhelming word confusion, or regularly distracting misspellings.
• Jarring font and/or formatting changes.
**************************************************
--- Umbrellacorp's original vote ---
My vote: Pro
Pro: Consistently maintained a clear line of moral reasoning.
Con: Good direct rebuttals but less precise about why uncertainty is not sufficient.
Reasons:
Pro's “uncertainty principle” was never fully dismantled. Con challenged it but didn’t show it was unreasonable.
The autonomy defense was strong from con but relied on 'asserting' that bodily autonomy beats potential personhood without fully showing why that moral perspective outweighs the
precautionary harm.
Pro suggested and maintained a layered ethical framework (FLO, special obligations, uncertainty) throughout the debate.
Whereas con primarily offered counter-assertions and did not develop a comparable alternative moral framework.
I think Pro’s arguments were more compelling on balance. Pro demonstrated that even under uncertainty about personhood, the moral risk of abortion equates to potentially committing severe harm (comparable to homicide).
Con did effectively argue for autonomy, but he did not sufficiently counter the moral weight of the 'precautionary principle' or establish why bodily autonomy rejects that moral uncertainty.
Plus, con’s engagement with the 'Future-Like-Ours' argument was more dismissive than refutative.
Thus in my opinion, pro stood to their burden more convincingly.
Further reason for decision of best legibility: pro’s writing was clearer, better structured, and easier to follow.
Plus: Arguments were numbered and labeled (“1. Uncertainty,” “2. FLO,” etc.). I don't know how much this counts.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Mieky // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
Additionally, the biggest concern moderation has is that people read the debate prior to voting (overwhelming bias is second), and since the voter quoted the debaters, they have clearly put the work in.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Umbrellacorp // Mod action: Not Removed (non-moderated debate)
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 5 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
That said I do see mention of in the comments of the source allotment. This debate was conceded, so any majority award in favor of the person for whom to debate was conceded to, are not moderated. Otherwise, the source award would fall below the standard (and honestly, this debate doesn't get source heavy, so it's usually best to leave it a tie even if it's a tie leaning in one direction).
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Umbrellacorp // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
**************************************************
I got into an informal debate with a church minister recently concerning a closely related topic. Effectively it was whether or not Christianity teaches us to question/analyze or to have pure obedience.
I don’t think he’d dealt with a well executed kritik before. That said, I’d call it a bit of a stalemate… I could not back up my claims scripturally, and he was reduced to moving the goalpost for being nether Catholic nor Jewish. We did however agree that various Abrahamic splinter groups are brainwashed and are obedient the wrong thing.
Moderators are not bots, but we do use boilerplate descriptions for some of the most common vote removal reasons.
That said, we actually do appreciate you putting the time and effort to vote. The policy we enforce is necessary to minimize issues perceived unfairness… Imagine you debate your favorite topic, you make what you believe are excellent thought provoking points, and then voters talk about their opinion of the topic without addressing what you wrote… That would suck right? While that’s taking it a few steps further than what you mean to do, but hopefully it still works as an analogy for you of what feeling to avoid.
>Reported Vote: Umbrellacorp // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to Pro (Arguments)
>Reason for Decision:
Reason: Con does not understand the topic nor does he understand the arguments made from pro. Due to his innability to counter-argue he loses my vote in this debate.
I hope this vote is robotic enough to not get removed.
>Reason for Mod Action:
It’s not about robotic, it’s about showing analysis of the debate in question. You don’t need to comment on every line inquiry, but even being able to name the main contention from each side and why it succeeded or failed would do fine. For this debate, if con’s main contention was that he couldn’t understand pro’s standpoint to argue against it, then spell that out a bit (along with what said contention was) and you’d probably be fine.
**************************************************
Congratulations on finding a clause which mentions forfeiture. You’re still leagues away from identifying any which say I should delete any debate which fails to meet my quality standards.
As someone who keeps complaining that I’m infinitely corrupt, this is frankly bizarre that you’re also complaining that I’m so very corrupt as to refuse to abuse my moderation powers.
Your imagination is a wonderful thing, but when it disagrees with easily verified facts like this, it may be prudent accept the facts (or even suggest future refinements).
The main CoC doesn’t mention the word forfeiture, and the part of the voting policy you are trying—and failing—to quote specifically says:
“A forfeiture occurs when either side in a debate is a true no show for a round, allowing the timer to expire. It is not to be confused with merely waiving a round, or having an abysmally poor argument (see Foregone Conclusions below)”
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Umbrellacorp // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro
>Reason for Decision: I will vote for pro even though i do not agree with his stance, but his arguments are considerable. Con fumbles hard here. There are a few potent and irrefutable arguments (with real life examples) to be made supporting his position and i can't find any of them in his arguments. Instead he turns it into some kind of a written rant, but that is none of my business.
>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.
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Mieky // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro
>Reason for Decision: even though he forfeited a round he still in my opinion had the best agreements and rebuttals he shut down most of Cons points with the 2 agreements he had.
>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.
**************************************************
Skimming over this, pro doesn't understand their basic BoP, and is instead opting to waste time complaining about such things as you used the word "brand" when they would not. This leaves the debate as barely more than a foregone conclusion.
> marry 12 year olds?
You mean 9 year olds, at least in Iraq where they take Muhammad seriously… Granted, at least they don’t allow old dudes to marry 6 year olds and groom them until they’re 9 before raping them, as Muhammad did.
But in fairness, I’ve seen it argued that she was a prodigy, and he was mentally handicapped, resulting in an inversion of who raped who.
> the con's arguments were really inconsistent and demonstrates the total absence of Marxism literature, or at least what communism really is without basing it on heard things.
You awarded 6 points for that. It is better than the previous vote in the comments, but it has much of the same flaws. That said, at least it implies knowing the topic under discussion.
> Pro was overall more persuasive, with stronger rhetoric.
You gave 7 points for that… It is not even sufficient justification for the argument award, and doesn’t even touch any of the others.
Whelp, that's a compelling case so far...
> "I mentioned use of AI to generate citations, so there's no need to undermine my work by labelling it as plagiarized."
It's not the citations which concerned me. It was main paragraphs bearing several AI tells; to which, the worst was a problem where the AI did not understand the context of what it was replying to, so outputted some lofty sounding phrases vaguely to the topic but missing the mark of what it was supposed to be addressing.
That said, and as I indicated in my vote, I still considered the merits of the arguments you submitted (normal plagiarism I would have likely just given all points to the other side).
> "Poisoning the well = when someone presents negative information about a person before they speak, to bias the audience against them."
You're confusing poisoning the well with a hybrid fallacy of ad hominem attacks and poisoning the well (easy error to make).
Granted, you are correct that I mislabeled it. What you did was a form of scarecrow argument known as a phantom argument (scarecrow is distorting possibly beyond recognition, phantom is to outright invent).
Because it’s a really good debate, as evidenced by the divisive voting.
Just going to say it, I'm too biased about personhood not existing independent of sentience, that I cannot fairly vote on this debate (I can often get past my bias, but this is too much of a key issue, and my beliefs are too strong that I find myself accepting con's premises perhaps too easily). I'm pretty sure I've literally used pro's severed hand example to demonstrate that mere unique human DNA (I believe I had the rest of the body incinerated, I don't think pro did that), does not equal a person any more than cancer cells do.
Anyways, here's the start to a RFD which will not be moving forward. It was to follow single argument lines, which is why it seems to skip so much; the missed argument lines would have been added (or at least most of them).
---RFD---
Okay, this is a topic I've intentionally avoided. So pretty cool to see two great debaters showing me what can be done with it...
"There are two ways in which someone can behave in an immoral manner:
*Direct harm: This action has a direct adverse effect on some other person.
*Neglecting a moral duty: Someone ought to do something (like follow an agreed-on contract) but fails to do so."
This seems like it'll be key.
Uncertainty Principle:
Pro argues that assuming unborn is a person (which he does), a person may be harmed by abortion. Assuming 73 years of life, vs 1 year of inconvenience, therefore women ought to endure pregnancies.
At first glance, it looks like con did not reply, but he clarifies that his argument "The Fetus’ Personhood" addresses it. So con argues that personhood requires some non-negligible interests (he uses a fly as an example).
Pro counters that a disembodied head or a hand lack interests even if they had them before (nice bit of engaging with con's own nuance), showing that it it self evident they are not people. Ergo a fetus is a person?
These mod decisions may be appealed, but do understand that unless a specific flaw is pointed out, we're largely looking for an impression which matches our own skimming of the debate (and to that it need not draw the same conclusions).
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Umbrellacorp // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 2 to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Bones // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to con
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Savant // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 2 to pro, 3 to con (effectively 1 to con)
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Savant // 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.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Umbrellacorp // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Please don't be discouraged.
The problem here can be traced to the very first rule in the voting policy "Strive to be fair."
At risk of summoning a Nitpick Troll: There's a BoP requirement to making a judgement, and a pretty low one; it's to show that one has read the debate with an open mind that either side could win or lose. In this case, one of the debaters doesn't recognize his argument in your vote; he even names key factors which were not directly present in his argument but are in the vote. If he loses fine, but it is not fair if he (without having abysmal grammar) can't simply recognize his arguments in the judgements.
This is not to say you must always understand arguments perfectly, but your reply in the comments on the matter of bodily autonomy, reads as if you skimmed and assumed that was the direction (in fairness, for abortion debates 9 times out of 10 you'll be correct); likewise on the feel of skimming you wrote it as if con ignored pro's arguments, when he'd got a whole section at the bottom of R1 labeled Rebuttals.
Lastly, I should mention that they set this to shared BoP. Normally primary BoP rests with pro, they either prove something, or they lose (ties are very rare). But with shared BoP, they each have to build a framework, and attack the other persons. Needless to say, this gets complicated. Also, the morality instead of legality gets compilated. Them being two of the best debaters on the site, and talking somewhat lengthily gets compilated as well... All that means you've been brave to try to make sense of it, but it may be a bit much for the time being (not barring you from voting on it, just sharing a thought).
There's other factors, but I need to get a few hours of sleep.
And boilerplates...
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.
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
**************************************************
---Umbrella's former vote---
My vote: Pro
Pro: Consistently maintained a clear line of moral reasoning.
Con: Good direct rebuttals but less precise about why uncertainty is not sufficient.
Reasons:
Pro's “uncertainty principle” was never fully dismantled. Con challenged it but didn’t show it was unreasonable.
The autonomy defense was strong from con but relied on 'asserting' that bodily autonomy beats potential personhood without fully showing why that moral perspective outweighs the
precautionary harm.
Pro suggested and maintained a layered ethical framework (FLO, special obligations, uncertainty) throughout the debate.
Whereas con primarily offered counter-assertions and did not develop a comparable alternative moral framework.
I think Pro’s arguments were more compelling on balance. Pro demonstrated that even under uncertainty about personhood, the moral risk of abortion equates to potentially committing severe harm (comparable to homicide).
Con did effectively argue for autonomy, but he did not sufficiently counter the moral weight of the 'precautionary principle' or establish why bodily autonomy rejects that moral uncertainty.
Plus, con’s engagement with the 'Future-Like-Ours' argument was more dismissive than refutative.
Thus in my opinion, pro stood to their burden more convincingly.
> “great debate guys”
Votes cast on debates must give sufficient analysis for any and all point awarded.
This debate is now lifted for the next 24 hours.
Elaborate please?
I invoked the foregone conclusion clause (6 words vs several paragraphs, the outcome is assured), then gave feedback and side commentary.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Umbrellacorp // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
Seriously, the vote works hard to go well above expectations.
To avoid increased member conflict, I'll also note that neither pro nor con reported the vote.
**************************************************
I highly disagree. Also, you should make this at least two rounds, otherwise you will have no chance to defend your case.
Sorry I haven't gotten around to voting, I actually really meant to put the time in already, but there was drama drama drama elsewhere on the site.
I have not fully read it yet, but from the parts I did skim over a vote from me will most likely be a tie. This is a very high quality debate, with competing non-mutually exclusive BoPs, that is a hard recipe to win under. I may shift as I read it in depth, but just giving a little advanced notice of early thoughts.
As you may recall, the previous debate on a related subject had a lengthy and outright evil description.
While arguments could attain that level of evil, with none published (yet) they have not. There's dozens of strategies con could use which are not taken straight from terrorist propaganda.
Further, they'd probably need to get even worse, since the desire for legit discussions is self evident from their actively levels elsewhere on the site.
And of course, this debate was created after the moderation team agreed we may have overstepped in the severity of punishment, so to merit a permaban each, they'd need to reach some extreme levels of deplorability.
...
That said, yes, the moderation team is aware of this debate, and will be checking in on the content of it.
We'll review it in greater detail. I know for a fact that whiteflame is currently reading this debate (or was, there's some drama which likely pulled him away). I suspect after he finishes reading it, he'll be able to give a more informed opinion of the vote. The previous ruling on arguments, was made without any of us having yet read the debate.
That said, please try not to jump to the worst conclusions about voters (especially new ones). This debate in particular is extremely complicated, so a voter is more likely confused than intentionally rage baiting.
A far better tactic is to request they clarify a key point or two, such as what gave them the impression you argued from bodily autonomy? Answers (or lack thereof) may inform moderation decisions, or even result in someone requesting to re-vote on their own.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Umbrellacorp // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The argument award is fine, but the legibility should be a tie.
In gist, conduct and legibility are only for extreme poor performance by the other side, rather than just being marginally better. On a debate with two extremely talented debates like this, everything other than arguments is almost certainly within the tied range.
And boilerplate explanation...
Legibility is an optional award as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, wherein sections of the debate become illegible or at least comparatively burdensome to decipher.
Examples:
• Unbroken walls of text, or similar formatting attempts to make an argument hard to follow.
• Terrible punctuation throughout.
• Overwhelming word confusion, or regularly distracting misspellings.
• Jarring font and/or formatting changes.
**************************************************
--- Umbrellacorp's original vote ---
My vote: Pro
Pro: Consistently maintained a clear line of moral reasoning.
Con: Good direct rebuttals but less precise about why uncertainty is not sufficient.
Reasons:
Pro's “uncertainty principle” was never fully dismantled. Con challenged it but didn’t show it was unreasonable.
The autonomy defense was strong from con but relied on 'asserting' that bodily autonomy beats potential personhood without fully showing why that moral perspective outweighs the
precautionary harm.
Pro suggested and maintained a layered ethical framework (FLO, special obligations, uncertainty) throughout the debate.
Whereas con primarily offered counter-assertions and did not develop a comparable alternative moral framework.
I think Pro’s arguments were more compelling on balance. Pro demonstrated that even under uncertainty about personhood, the moral risk of abortion equates to potentially committing severe harm (comparable to homicide).
Con did effectively argue for autonomy, but he did not sufficiently counter the moral weight of the 'precautionary principle' or establish why bodily autonomy rejects that moral uncertainty.
Plus, con’s engagement with the 'Future-Like-Ours' argument was more dismissive than refutative.
Thus in my opinion, pro stood to their burden more convincingly.
Further reason for decision of best legibility: pro’s writing was clearer, better structured, and easier to follow.
Plus: Arguments were numbered and labeled (“1. Uncertainty,” “2. FLO,” etc.). I don't know how much this counts.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Mieky // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
Additionally, the biggest concern moderation has is that people read the debate prior to voting (overwhelming bias is second), and since the voter quoted the debaters, they have clearly put the work in.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Umbrellacorp // Mod action: Not Removed (non-moderated debate)
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 5 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
That said I do see mention of in the comments of the source allotment. This debate was conceded, so any majority award in favor of the person for whom to debate was conceded to, are not moderated. Otherwise, the source award would fall below the standard (and honestly, this debate doesn't get source heavy, so it's usually best to leave it a tie even if it's a tie leaning in one direction).
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Umbrellacorp // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
**************************************************
Fun topic!
I got into an informal debate with a church minister recently concerning a closely related topic. Effectively it was whether or not Christianity teaches us to question/analyze or to have pure obedience.
I don’t think he’d dealt with a well executed kritik before. That said, I’d call it a bit of a stalemate… I could not back up my claims scripturally, and he was reduced to moving the goalpost for being nether Catholic nor Jewish. We did however agree that various Abrahamic splinter groups are brainwashed and are obedient the wrong thing.
The conduct award was for them conceding, which makes all the votes in your favor incredibly easy on everyone.
> I don't know if you are a bot or a person.
Moderators are not bots, but we do use boilerplate descriptions for some of the most common vote removal reasons.
That said, we actually do appreciate you putting the time and effort to vote. The policy we enforce is necessary to minimize issues perceived unfairness… Imagine you debate your favorite topic, you make what you believe are excellent thought provoking points, and then voters talk about their opinion of the topic without addressing what you wrote… That would suck right? While that’s taking it a few steps further than what you mean to do, but hopefully it still works as an analogy for you of what feeling to avoid.
>Reported Vote: Umbrellacorp // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to Pro (Arguments)
>Reason for Decision:
Reason: Con does not understand the topic nor does he understand the arguments made from pro. Due to his innability to counter-argue he loses my vote in this debate.
I hope this vote is robotic enough to not get removed.
>Reason for Mod Action:
It’s not about robotic, it’s about showing analysis of the debate in question. You don’t need to comment on every line inquiry, but even being able to name the main contention from each side and why it succeeded or failed would do fine. For this debate, if con’s main contention was that he couldn’t understand pro’s standpoint to argue against it, then spell that out a bit (along with what said contention was) and you’d probably be fine.
**************************************************
Good for you.
I should mention that for true emergencies (which I assume you believe this to be), you should call 911.
> Pro is brainwashed and just posted propaganda.
This RFD fails on almost every level, beginning with failing to suggest you read the debate.
Judgements must stem from the debate which occurred, not your opinions on the debaters.
> I still have not understood any difference.
Here's an incomplete list...
Differences:
#1 this debate has not been forfeited.
#2 this debate has not been abandoned.
#3 this debate is not spam.
Similarities:
#1 I (and others) have a low opinion of "debabtes" of this type
Repeated lies about the content of CoC in this thread.
I’m not angry. I am however bored of your gaslighting.
Congratulations on finding a clause which mentions forfeiture. You’re still leagues away from identifying any which say I should delete any debate which fails to meet my quality standards.
As someone who keeps complaining that I’m infinitely corrupt, this is frankly bizarre that you’re also complaining that I’m so very corrupt as to refuse to abuse my moderation powers.
> I can’t believe you deleted Mickey’s vote but not umbrellacorps
One was reported for review, the other was not.
Your imagination is a wonderful thing, but when it disagrees with easily verified facts like this, it may be prudent accept the facts (or even suggest future refinements).
The main CoC doesn’t mention the word forfeiture, and the part of the voting policy you are trying—and failing—to quote specifically says:
“A forfeiture occurs when either side in a debate is a true no show for a round, allowing the timer to expire. It is not to be confused with merely waiving a round, or having an abysmally poor argument (see Foregone Conclusions below)”
You’ve insisted the CoC has a clause which supports your argument, please quote said clause.
You're welcome to look it up and tell me how wrong I am:
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/rules
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Umbrellacorp // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro
>Reason for Decision: I will vote for pro even though i do not agree with his stance, but his arguments are considerable. Con fumbles hard here. There are a few potent and irrefutable arguments (with real life examples) to be made supporting his position and i can't find any of them in his arguments. Instead he turns it into some kind of a written rant, but that is none of my business.
>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.
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Mieky // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro
>Reason for Decision: even though he forfeited a round he still in my opinion had the best agreements and rebuttals he shut down most of Cons points with the 2 agreements he had.
>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.
**************************************************
Again, given that neither side forfeited, that question is Non-Sequitur.
> If you delete this vote,
This is a non-moderated debate, thus (baring extreme cases) votes shall not be regulated. Plus you voted a tie, those are likewise not regulated.
> If you delete full FFs why don't you delete this too?
Given that neither side forfeited, that question is Non-Sequitur.
Started reading this, and I may come back to it... But I will say it got painfully off topic.
FYI, it amounted to nothing.
I was on my phone, and could not get the spreadsheet to work for the removal notice, so that was the first half that I could do.