**************************************************
>Reported Vote: the_quiet_poet9 // Mod action: Not Removed (borderline)
>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 borderline (in part due to the newness of the member). By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient.
In future for a complex debate like this, please have more specific detail rather than just the gist (even if that's what it ultimately boils down to). The side being voted against, should be left with a clear sense that you at least read their main contention to be able to say what either defeated it or outweighed it. A vote need not become long, but a little less short would go a long way.
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.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Possible to Remove
>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 borderline. By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient. However, votes cast against someone during an open feud receive extra scrutiny.
It's immediately noticeable via word search that a vote based on lack of analysis of the definitions of myths vs theories, was not an argument raised within the debate.
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
Any awarded point(s) must be based on the content presented inside the debate rounds. Content from the comment section, other votes, forums, your personal experience, etcetera, is ineligible for point allotments.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#based-on-outside-content
**************************************************
Sorry I missed this one. It looks well thought out on both sides.
I will note that being constitutional does not guarantee best; but we’ve had hundreds of years of the (arguably) best minds appointed to the Supreme Court to interpret laws for if they do or do not violate the constitution.
There’s a popular fan theory that the timelines got split during rebels. The New Trilogy being what happened if Ahsoka died; freeing the television writers to wholly ignore Space Leia and Emo Ren.
That said, I appreciated Emo Ren. A child pulling a temper tantrum with the power to move mountains. It’s different, and it’s scary in its own way. Sure we’re not going to respect the guy who stops in the middle of a fight to hurt himself as a cry for help or whatever, and he’s a complete novice with a lightsaber; but would the attitudes of the dark side really lead to well adjusted disciplined individuals?
Couldn’t be as bad as space Leia, but it’d be bad. Yoda is already using force lightening from beyond the grave, it would remove the impact of sacrifice if their afterlife becomes a revolving door.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Barney // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 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.
...
This vote was reported explicitly for: "gives no reasoning for the vote and instead just has links under reasoning"
Reviewed by oromagi: "I think he's just missing your posts in comments"
And from the voting policy: "...the comment section is the ideal place for any commentary which is not part of the vote. It is also an acceptable place to expand the reasoning for your vote"
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#based-on-outside-content
-> “ Con did a better job on two points which Pro did not counter ( Child marriage traumatizes children. and
Aisha was enslaved)”
Again this vote falls short on analysis. Basically it would not be fair to the effort pro put in to treat this debate as a foregone conclusion.
While referencing one side of the debate, and suggesting there were no replies to the two contentions named, at least one contention put forward by the other side should be named. The “precious puberty” line of reasoning for example, and how con overcame it.
In order for a vote to stand, moderation should be under the impression you have some understanding of both sides (it need not be complete understanding, but some).
A decent layout for a vote would be a quick gist of how each side tried to argue, followed by why you believe one came ahead.
Arguments
Goes 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.
While I wholly agree with you, your vote needs to be expanded with positive answers to two simple questions:
1. Did con make said argument about the UN?
2. What was pro’s attempted defense?
Additionally, your vote should contain a minimum of one contention from pro and how con countered it.
1 point(s)
Reason:
If one is to avoid the argument of whose moral judgement is superior, and look instead to making a judgement based on a universal morality, one may turn to the United Nations.
The UN describes it thus "Child and forced marriage:[ is ] a violation of human rights"...https://www.ohchr.org/en/stories/2016/11/child-and-forced-marriage-violation-human-rights
[
The point goes to Con.
-> “ society is dysfunctional because gay people feel the right to now wave their dick in your face and mold your children into monsters therefore pro wins”
Without even verifying if pro indeed made said argument, both sides need to be analyzed.
Vote deleted.
You’re crossing way over the line. Compounded with other recent offenses, were your account active there would almost certainly be the need for a short term ban.
Regarding the post in question…
First, there is no reason to bring assumed sexual preferences into the discussion. When harassment turns sexual, there’s no denying that harassment is occurring.
Second, as much as the topic of discussion may serve as an indicator of leanings; as a one off it shows no obsession with race to justify the leap of faith to white supremacy. The topic is not even saying best, just complex by some yet to be determined measure.
Your insults were even more lazy than the act of not showing up.
Your first round was great, but then you degraded yourself in a way that if it continues will result in you being banned. Please either stop insulting your opponents, or at least make it not so low brow (e.g., “Jesus raps with the power to smite, so he may have done something to make my opponent absent…”). One extends arguments and is entertaining, the other is garbage.
Lancealot got himself banned. Hopefully he did not intend for it to turn out like that but that’s the way it played out, which was a risk he knew or should have known.
RM is not whispering in the ear of the mods for us to do his secret bidding. Of all the people who have trolled RM, I am the most guilty; so please dismiss the notion of him controlling us.
As for the accusation of RM casting a votebomb… A vote you disagree with is not automatically a vote bomb. Vote bombs are classically 7-point BS void of analysis of the debate (e.g., your vote here). Further, even the Old Testament would not condone this behavior even if you were right; one eye for one eye, not two or three (or whatever this campaign against him is up to) for one.
I have seen the vote from RM which /might/ have been retaliatory (still not a votebomb). Had these problems not massively overshadowed it, we in the mod team would have reviewed it in detail. As is, now it just goes without saying that RM and Lancealot should not vote on each others debates for the foreseeable future.
And however bad it may have been, the place to have issues with it would be the comment section of the debate in question… Much like what I’m doing here, I’m keeping it /here/ where you cast a bad vote; instead of following you to some future debate to talk smack about your voting habits on this one (not that you’ll be able to vote again any time soon).
I agree the situation is severe. However, Whiteflame is already already treating it as such.
In mod chat when he mentioned banning someone for a minimum of two weeks for a shitty vote, I wondered how shitty it would have to be… I just read said vote, and OMG that is weekly stupid level shitty, like hall of shame worthy, the type of case that causes special explanations in the rules for what not to do.
When Lancealot had accounts acting in a manner to imply they were possibly colluding, they were quickly ordered not to vote on his debates; when they acted as slave accounts to votebomb in spite of that they and he were banned.
Lancealot is punished for things he seemed to have willfully committed. A rogue agent connected to him is suspect but we aim to give people the benefit of the doubt; plus he’ll already be punished via embarrassment of his friends behavior.
Read the first couple rounds, but I have important goals to get to. Here are my initial thoughts...
My interpretation of the resolution is that America is more so a symbol of democracy and freedom than not.
"The evidence put forward by the pro is based on statistical data. Not factual evidence for that matter."
I'm a data scientist, a statement like this is quite funny to me. With 14 countries ranked higher, arguing they don't have the exact same laws as us so they're less free ignores so very much which is easily summarized on the data charts.
A better tactic here would have been pointing out that the USA is ranked 15, less than 0.9 of a point below the very top (all the top slots at fractions apart), and more than twice as free as the bottom.
Other countries:
Both had good examples of the USA supporting or opposing democracies around the world.
Things like Nato, and supporting Ukraine, seem like present day examples of the USA shining brightly. Also as a veteran of the Iraq war, I am curious how we interfered with freedom of religion? The death toll was however a good point, as it's a recent ugly mark on our record for which we accomplished nothing.
Pretty sure this will swing back and forth through the debate.
Supreme court:
Pro argues it is undemocratic since they are appointed without elections.
Con defends that free people follow it, and it only institutes laws proposed by freely elected people.
This area feels like a wash to me, with it just part of the representative democracy.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Americandebater24 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 5 to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
It's almost a good vote.
A touch more detail on the con side should be given, even as much as you obviously disagree with offering anything other than the scientific definition.
Sources was also problematic, since the award seemed to basically be a repeat of the argument allotment, rather than either side offering excellence.
...
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).
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
**************************************************
#2
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Pro points out that Humans fit under the scientific definition of animals. Con never addresses this point from a scientific aspect. In contrast, Con did use more sources than Pro. But those sources only provided word definitions that, while numerous, did not establish a scientific definition that excluded or had a separation from the definition of animals. Con should have tried to use scientific definitions to refute Pro, not merely use word arguments that are primarily not relevant. Great debate, Pro and Con.
Your 5th trait was toxicity. While you played up the comedy with just focusing on why we should not be cannibals, I presume other types of animals are meat based. ;)
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Greyparrot // 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.
...
I'll add that the vote is very useful in giving feedback on one possible argument path they would have found compelling.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Average_Person // 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 gives plenty of detail, and doesn't imply any bias.
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: the_quiet_poet9 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to con
>Reason for Decision: Both addressed all of the arguments given by each other pretty well, but pro kind of blew over how dueling would effect society as a whole. I liked the quotes given by con.
>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.
**************************************************
While instances like this are thankfully rare, this does exemplify why it would be useful for moderators to be able to remove votes even after the voting period has closed.
Even without correcting ELO, this would still mitigate the impacts of such poor faith voters.
While the exact ELO shifts are lost to the system; treating a changed outcome as two wins for a fresh ELO shift would be a decent approximation.
You’ve missed one round but can still make a comeback.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: the_quiet_poet9 // Mod action: Not Removed (borderline)
>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 borderline (in part due to the newness of the member). By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient.
In future for a complex debate like this, please have more specific detail rather than just the gist (even if that's what it ultimately boils down to). The side being voted against, should be left with a clear sense that you at least read their main contention to be able to say what either defeated it or outweighed it. A vote need not become long, but a little less short would go a long way.
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.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Possible to Remove
>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 borderline. By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient. However, votes cast against someone during an open feud receive extra scrutiny.
It's immediately noticeable via word search that a vote based on lack of analysis of the definitions of myths vs theories, was not an argument raised within the debate.
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
Any awarded point(s) must be based on the content presented inside the debate rounds. Content from the comment section, other votes, forums, your personal experience, etcetera, is ineligible for point allotments.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#based-on-outside-content
**************************************************
Thank you for the vote!
Sorry I missed this one. It looks well thought out on both sides.
I will note that being constitutional does not guarantee best; but we’ve had hundreds of years of the (arguably) best minds appointed to the Supreme Court to interpret laws for if they do or do not violate the constitution.
Good luck,
Your topic combined with your username got me to step out of retirement.
I’m happy to give advice on strategies. I expect you’ll be using a basic non-sequitur kritik; but I’ve /occasionally/ been surprised…
There’s a popular fan theory that the timelines got split during rebels. The New Trilogy being what happened if Ahsoka died; freeing the television writers to wholly ignore Space Leia and Emo Ren.
That said, I appreciated Emo Ren. A child pulling a temper tantrum with the power to move mountains. It’s different, and it’s scary in its own way. Sure we’re not going to respect the guy who stops in the middle of a fight to hurt himself as a cry for help or whatever, and he’s a complete novice with a lightsaber; but would the attitudes of the dark side really lead to well adjusted disciplined individuals?
Couldn’t be as bad as space Leia, but it’d be bad. Yoda is already using force lightening from beyond the grave, it would remove the impact of sacrifice if their afterlife becomes a revolving door.
You’re thinking of current lite AI, instead of sentient AI.
And already we get angry at our computers for seeming to rebel against what we want them to do, instead of what they were programmed to do.
I suggest changing this to at least two rounds. Otherwise you cannot defend any of your points which are challenged.
Capitalism ensures greater variety of products, and availability.
Pretty much guaranteed to occur. Won’t be this generation but we’ll build something advanced enough one day.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Barney // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 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.
...
This vote was reported explicitly for: "gives no reasoning for the vote and instead just has links under reasoning"
Reviewed by oromagi: "I think he's just missing your posts in comments"
And from the voting policy: "...the comment section is the ideal place for any commentary which is not part of the vote. It is also an acceptable place to expand the reasoning for your vote"
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#based-on-outside-content
**************************************************
Comments about someone's vote on another debate, should probably me made in the comment section for said debate.
Cool setup!
https://info.debateart.com/style-guide#writing-a-strong-resolution
If in doubt you can always use the forum to get feedback on potential resolutions.
No one is expected to vote perfectly from the start. There’s a learning curve to be sure.
-> “ Con did a better job on two points which Pro did not counter ( Child marriage traumatizes children. and
Aisha was enslaved)”
Again this vote falls short on analysis. Basically it would not be fair to the effort pro put in to treat this debate as a foregone conclusion.
While referencing one side of the debate, and suggesting there were no replies to the two contentions named, at least one contention put forward by the other side should be named. The “precious puberty” line of reasoning for example, and how con overcame it.
In order for a vote to stand, moderation should be under the impression you have some understanding of both sides (it need not be complete understanding, but some).
A decent layout for a vote would be a quick gist of how each side tried to argue, followed by why you believe one came ahead.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#arguments
Arguments
Goes 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.
Nice vote.
My own arguments touch on the immorality of abortion bans; yet such does not make abortion moral, even if the morality of forbidding it is worse.
Yeah. Some people even have several iterations of the same topic active simultaneously.
While I wholly agree with you, your vote needs to be expanded with positive answers to two simple questions:
1. Did con make said argument about the UN?
2. What was pro’s attempted defense?
Additionally, your vote should contain a minimum of one contention from pro and how con countered it.
prefix
08.20.2023 10:20AM
#7
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
If one is to avoid the argument of whose moral judgement is superior, and look instead to making a judgement based on a universal morality, one may turn to the United Nations.
The UN describes it thus "Child and forced marriage:[ is ] a violation of human rights"...https://www.ohchr.org/en/stories/2016/11/child-and-forced-marriage-violation-human-rights
[
The point goes to Con.
-> “ i agree with con therefore i vote con”
That is never proper justification for a debate vote.
Your voting privileges are revoked until such time as you show an interest in following the voting guidelines.
-> “ society is dysfunctional because gay people feel the right to now wave their dick in your face and mold your children into monsters therefore pro wins”
Without even verifying if pro indeed made said argument, both sides need to be analyzed.
Vote deleted.
-> “Spoken like a true white supremacist cuck.”
You’re crossing way over the line. Compounded with other recent offenses, were your account active there would almost certainly be the need for a short term ban.
Regarding the post in question…
First, there is no reason to bring assumed sexual preferences into the discussion. When harassment turns sexual, there’s no denying that harassment is occurring.
Second, as much as the topic of discussion may serve as an indicator of leanings; as a one off it shows no obsession with race to justify the leap of faith to white supremacy. The topic is not even saying best, just complex by some yet to be determined measure.
“ eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee”
even without assigning points, this vote fails to imply any knowledge of the debate, and could indeed be said of every debate. As such. It’s deleted.
Depends if you identify as male or female.
Regarding voting on each others debates:
That I believe you should not, is not some dogmatic commandment from above.
Any vote against each other is likely to reignite drama, so voting on each others debates is needlessly walking on thin ice.
From a moderation perspective, a known grudge makes any reported votes fall under greater scrutiny.
Your insults were even more lazy than the act of not showing up.
Your first round was great, but then you degraded yourself in a way that if it continues will result in you being banned. Please either stop insulting your opponents, or at least make it not so low brow (e.g., “Jesus raps with the power to smite, so he may have done something to make my opponent absent…”). One extends arguments and is entertaining, the other is garbage.
Lancealot got himself banned. Hopefully he did not intend for it to turn out like that but that’s the way it played out, which was a risk he knew or should have known.
RM is not whispering in the ear of the mods for us to do his secret bidding. Of all the people who have trolled RM, I am the most guilty; so please dismiss the notion of him controlling us.
As for the accusation of RM casting a votebomb… A vote you disagree with is not automatically a vote bomb. Vote bombs are classically 7-point BS void of analysis of the debate (e.g., your vote here). Further, even the Old Testament would not condone this behavior even if you were right; one eye for one eye, not two or three (or whatever this campaign against him is up to) for one.
I have seen the vote from RM which /might/ have been retaliatory (still not a votebomb). Had these problems not massively overshadowed it, we in the mod team would have reviewed it in detail. As is, now it just goes without saying that RM and Lancealot should not vote on each others debates for the foreseeable future.
And however bad it may have been, the place to have issues with it would be the comment section of the debate in question… Much like what I’m doing here, I’m keeping it /here/ where you cast a bad vote; instead of following you to some future debate to talk smack about your voting habits on this one (not that you’ll be able to vote again any time soon).
I agree the situation is severe. However, Whiteflame is already already treating it as such.
In mod chat when he mentioned banning someone for a minimum of two weeks for a shitty vote, I wondered how shitty it would have to be… I just read said vote, and OMG that is weekly stupid level shitty, like hall of shame worthy, the type of case that causes special explanations in the rules for what not to do.
When Lancealot had accounts acting in a manner to imply they were possibly colluding, they were quickly ordered not to vote on his debates; when they acted as slave accounts to votebomb in spite of that they and he were banned.
Lancealot is punished for things he seemed to have willfully committed. A rogue agent connected to him is suspect but we aim to give people the benefit of the doubt; plus he’ll already be punished via embarrassment of his friends behavior.
RM has his faults but he is not wrong about how shitty last minute multi-account votebombs are.
He’s also usually quite chill about losing debates. It’s infrequent for him to report votes made against him.
So easy to kritik…
My understanding of the Geneva Convention rules, is that they only apply when both nations in a conflict signed it.
As an example, medics are supposed to be clearly marked so that snipers /do not/ shoot such a high value target…
I skim debates when reviewing votes, and thought “so what” was a paraphrasing.
Appeals can of course be made to whiteflame.
Read the first couple rounds, but I have important goals to get to. Here are my initial thoughts...
My interpretation of the resolution is that America is more so a symbol of democracy and freedom than not.
"The evidence put forward by the pro is based on statistical data. Not factual evidence for that matter."
I'm a data scientist, a statement like this is quite funny to me. With 14 countries ranked higher, arguing they don't have the exact same laws as us so they're less free ignores so very much which is easily summarized on the data charts.
A better tactic here would have been pointing out that the USA is ranked 15, less than 0.9 of a point below the very top (all the top slots at fractions apart), and more than twice as free as the bottom.
Other countries:
Both had good examples of the USA supporting or opposing democracies around the world.
Things like Nato, and supporting Ukraine, seem like present day examples of the USA shining brightly. Also as a veteran of the Iraq war, I am curious how we interfered with freedom of religion? The death toll was however a good point, as it's a recent ugly mark on our record for which we accomplished nothing.
Pretty sure this will swing back and forth through the debate.
Supreme court:
Pro argues it is undemocratic since they are appointed without elections.
Con defends that free people follow it, and it only institutes laws proposed by freely elected people.
This area feels like a wash to me, with it just part of the representative democracy.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Americandebater24 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 5 to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
It's almost a good vote.
A touch more detail on the con side should be given, even as much as you obviously disagree with offering anything other than the scientific definition.
Sources was also problematic, since the award seemed to basically be a repeat of the argument allotment, rather than either side offering excellence.
...
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).
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
**************************************************
Americandebater24
08.02.2023 03:45PM
#2
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Pro points out that Humans fit under the scientific definition of animals. Con never addresses this point from a scientific aspect. In contrast, Con did use more sources than Pro. But those sources only provided word definitions that, while numerous, did not establish a scientific definition that excluded or had a separation from the definition of animals. Con should have tried to use scientific definitions to refute Pro, not merely use word arguments that are primarily not relevant. Great debate, Pro and Con.
Your 5th trait was toxicity. While you played up the comedy with just focusing on why we should not be cannibals, I presume other types of animals are meat based. ;)
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Greyparrot // 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.
...
I'll add that the vote is very useful in giving feedback on one possible argument path they would have found compelling.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Average_Person // 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 gives plenty of detail, and doesn't imply any bias.
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: the_quiet_poet9 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to con
>Reason for Decision: Both addressed all of the arguments given by each other pretty well, but pro kind of blew over how dueling would effect society as a whole. I liked the quotes given by con.
>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.
**************************************************
My tactic would be showing overwhelming proof of Christianity existing, and contracting it with fictional religions.
Get control of yourself or take a forced break from this site.
Must is a really hard qualifier to support.
I advise including bullet point summaries of key takeaways in the final round.
You’re good.
More debates (even repetitive ones) are almost always a good thing.
The comments are not considered part of the debate, even while they are hopefully topical to it.
While instances like this are thankfully rare, this does exemplify why it would be useful for moderators to be able to remove votes even after the voting period has closed.
Even without correcting ELO, this would still mitigate the impacts of such poor faith voters.
While the exact ELO shifts are lost to the system; treating a changed outcome as two wins for a fresh ELO shift would be a decent approximation.