That is not valid reason for point allotments.
Please review the voting policy before casting more votes:
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#sufficiency
You could challenge con to another debate using the same R1, or even if you both agree to it launch the other with more rounds and delete this one (moderators would do the deleting for you should both sides consent).
Must is a good line to have inside your arguments. However, you're trying to imply a moral imperative, not something which absolutely must occur. It's good to frame resolutions for lower certainty than your arguments anyways.
Another problem of must statements, is they imply an "or else" but rarely contain them. "I must eat," is false, since I can technically starve myself and die. While one option is infinitely superior, there still is an option.
Due to the previous restart (or restarts?) granted by con when pro was late, I'll be voting this a tie to leave in place until they can pick it back up.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Sidewalker // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: arguments and conduct to con.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
In gist, being offended at the topic is not a reason to assign points (particularly not conduct). Further, the topic literally includes the statement "is not a problem" so a concession that it exists without admitting it's a problem, is not a concession at all.
...
Conduct is an optional award as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, such as extreme unsportsmanlike or outright toxic behavior which distracted from the topical debate.
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
**************************************************
Sidewalker's RFD:
Pro admits white priviledge exists while arguing it's not a problem, which is self refuting, perhaps inequality isn't a problem for the white man. Pro also bases his entire argument on the fact that there is no law supporting white priviledge, which is a non-sequitur at best, logically the argument that it exists but there are no laws supporting it means it's not a problem is simply incoherent.
Pro refutes con's arguments in a serpentine manner, everything from claiming examples don't show "white supremacy" (an irrelevent diversion) to racial stereotypes that imply whites deserve priviledge and black don't, conduct goes to con because of pro's appeal to the very same racial stereotypes upon which white priviledge is based.
Both relied on anecdotal sources and I didn't see enough difference in spelling and grammar to vote a preference.
If pro hypothetically might have had great defenses to my R3, doesn't make it so. Nor does your offense that I had arguments at all instead of merely conceding, invalidate the arguments I put forward.
You've already admitted you did not read as far as my R3, so your opinion that I lost isn't based on the debate anyways.
This is likely wholly true. That does not change the comparative jobs each side did on arguing the resolution. You are supposed to vote mainly for the quality of arguments, rather than just the truth of the arguments. In future, cite debate content to inform your votes, or else your voting privileges will have to be revoked.
And I can admit my reason for arguments was weak. A single notion in R1 never mentioned again, tipped the whole thing for me; after that I did not take pros arguments seriously. In short, I was unfair.
You’re of course welcome to report the new vote. As a moderator, if it’s even borderline it’ll be deleted (normally borderline ones stay up).
And no, no one is going to ever be banned for a single time phrasing a vote request somewhat poorly.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Conservallectual // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 5 to con (arguments and sources)
>Reason for Decision: I believe that con had better arguments. He used verses from the quran, better sources, etc.
>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.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#casting-votes
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Conservallectual // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 5 to con (arguments and sources)
>Reason for Decision: Better sources, better arguments, better reason.
>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.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#casting-votes
**************************************************
Your opponent did in R1:
"I am not against those trials for that niche usage but when it comes to severely addictive, brutally destructive drugs like heroin and meth or even other really nasty ones like date-rape drugs that are basically only ever used for kidnapping and rape, we need to seriously consider what possible reason it would be worth legalising them at all."
Anyways, drama isn't worth it to me. I'm going to drop my vote to just sources.
That would have been a good reply inside the debate.
As is, people getting raped with the assistance of legal and easy to obtain drugs went unchallenged. That leaves a group of drugs which should not be legal due to how they're abused.
As for me not having my masters in pharmacology: Yes, that is correct. I know very very little of this subject.
I suggest either arguing against the modern establishment of Israel (basically it sucks that it happened, but no comment on them continuing to exist today), or find an angle against them now which isn't a double standard. You could also do strict comparison debates, such as Israel's military tactics are less humane than those of neighboring Arabs.
Also always advisable to research winning arguments from the other side:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1133-israel-is-an-illegal-state
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1755-israel-has-no-right-to-exist
I was just reading up on some of the hostilities in the area... Syria if effing insane, they outright gave their highest medal to a man for being a sadistic cannibal.
That vote hasn't actually been reported yet, but for Novice, I have learned to just accept any vote that isn't pure rainbows about how wonderful he is will be reported.
Any time I vote on his debates, I alert other mods that a review will be needed. Heck, even when just reviewing reports I alert other mods, since he'll escalate like a Karen if he doesn't get his way.
As a voter, I much prefer having an easy to access list at the end of debate rounds, along with links in the numbers (which takes no extra characters).
If posting them in the comments, I advise providing a link to the comment in question (copy the link embedded in the comment number; do not follow it then copy the address bar, as that link breaks if too much discussion happens).
I’m less likely to consider sources at all if either side makes it difficult for the readers.
I should mention that I also have a personal preference (again, as a voter, not as a mod) against tiny link sites, since I can glean a lot of information just from seeing the full URL.
I don't immediately see the inherent problem with the vote in question.
While not going deep into arguments, it gets the gist of styles to a degree which implies having read the debate and not just having an overly generic vote which could be applied to any debate.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#tied-arguments
Conduct is where I thought pro's trolling accusation might originate, but a search in the debate verifies him calling the opposing case gibberish three times. Presumably there were other such insults as the vote alluded.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#conduct
That said, I will have to read the debate to ensure there was not a similar magnitude of insults going in the other direction.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: BrotherD.Thomas // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: pro
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
While passionate feedback on any debate is appreciated, this feedback is inappropriate in the form of a vote which assigns points.
To cast a sufficient vote, for each category awarded, a voter must explicitly perform the following tasks:
(1) Provide specific references to each side’s utilization within the said category.
(2) Weigh the impacts against each other, including if any precluded others.
(3) Explain the decision within the greater context of the debate.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#casting-votes
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
**************************************************
"Contender had a much better argument."
That is not valid reason for point allotments.
Please review the voting policy before casting more votes:
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#sufficiency
Bingo!
Does anyone in these discussions not know what the imago dei is?
Ok, good luck on them.
One tool which may prove useful to you:
https://tiny.cc/DebateArt
Please challenge me to a debate on if the gender pay gap exists or not.
I've been called the Obi Wan of this site. I mainly just advise people, and ban spam bots.
Oh and I do agree with you that the selective service amounts to slavery. I would even argue that for Stop Lose.
You could challenge con to another debate using the same R1, or even if you both agree to it launch the other with more rounds and delete this one (moderators would do the deleting for you should both sides consent).
Must is a good line to have inside your arguments. However, you're trying to imply a moral imperative, not something which absolutely must occur. It's good to frame resolutions for lower certainty than your arguments anyways.
Another problem of must statements, is they imply an "or else" but rarely contain them. "I must eat," is false, since I can technically starve myself and die. While one option is infinitely superior, there still is an option.
Something you may find useful:
tiny.cc/DebateArt
"must" is almost impossible to prove. "Ought" is the term you're looking for.
Also, debates which are single round, do not let you defend your case against even the weakest of refutations.
I’m a feminist, all that means is I believe men and women are on balance equal and should be treated as such.
I don’t run around with a baseball bat attacking men at random for having penises.
I do however believe in the existence of bigotry, even among those in power. I do not believe it require some grand conspiracy.
Due to the previous restart (or restarts?) granted by con when pro was late, I'll be voting this a tie to leave in place until they can pick it back up.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Sidewalker // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: arguments and conduct to con.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
In gist, being offended at the topic is not a reason to assign points (particularly not conduct). Further, the topic literally includes the statement "is not a problem" so a concession that it exists without admitting it's a problem, is not a concession at all.
...
Conduct is an optional award as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, such as extreme unsportsmanlike or outright toxic behavior which distracted from the topical debate.
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
**************************************************
Sidewalker's RFD:
Pro admits white priviledge exists while arguing it's not a problem, which is self refuting, perhaps inequality isn't a problem for the white man. Pro also bases his entire argument on the fact that there is no law supporting white priviledge, which is a non-sequitur at best, logically the argument that it exists but there are no laws supporting it means it's not a problem is simply incoherent.
Pro refutes con's arguments in a serpentine manner, everything from claiming examples don't show "white supremacy" (an irrelevent diversion) to racial stereotypes that imply whites deserve priviledge and black don't, conduct goes to con because of pro's appeal to the very same racial stereotypes upon which white priviledge is based.
Both relied on anecdotal sources and I didn't see enough difference in spelling and grammar to vote a preference.
I do t see the option on the admin panel.
This debate has been reported but without any indicator of why. As best I can tell, it does not violate any of the terms of service.
Regarding Plan B, it could be argued that it's an extension of contraceptives. Granted, some people do argue contraceptives are murder...
It does feel almost like you wish to have a debate on if abortion ends a pregnancy.
...
That said, I do see a fun angle a contender could use to win.
You should add something into the description along the lines of "presuming God and Jesus each exist/existed."
Please call the police, I committed murder via making my living salad dead during lunch today.
Why list dictionaries to be used, then not use their terms?
E.g., https://dictionary.thelaw.com/murder/
I had to look up what that was.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7FMh3YtK_w
Thank you all for voting!
If pro hypothetically might have had great defenses to my R3, doesn't make it so. Nor does your offense that I had arguments at all instead of merely conceding, invalidate the arguments I put forward.
You've already admitted you did not read as far as my R3, so your opinion that I lost isn't based on the debate anyways.
Thanks both for voting, and for being able to disagree with me but still accept that I won.
Please clarify how pro defended that his own logic does not reduce the number of genders to less than two.
Only two days remain for any voting.
"SCHOOL IS BAD!!!"
This is likely wholly true. That does not change the comparative jobs each side did on arguing the resolution. You are supposed to vote mainly for the quality of arguments, rather than just the truth of the arguments. In future, cite debate content to inform your votes, or else your voting privileges will have to be revoked.
One day remains for your final argument.
It was mainly the idea of legalizing date rape drugs. But also the lack of accessible sources.
Plus, as I’ve mentioned, jumping to all without exception. You could set the resolution to heroine, and drill down into just that one.
I admit I have a soft spot for new members.
And I can admit my reason for arguments was weak. A single notion in R1 never mentioned again, tipped the whole thing for me; after that I did not take pros arguments seriously. In short, I was unfair.
You’re of course welcome to report the new vote. As a moderator, if it’s even borderline it’ll be deleted (normally borderline ones stay up).
And no, no one is going to ever be banned for a single time phrasing a vote request somewhat poorly.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Conservallectual // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 5 to con (arguments and sources)
>Reason for Decision: I believe that con had better arguments. He used verses from the quran, better sources, etc.
>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.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#casting-votes
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Conservallectual // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 5 to con (arguments and sources)
>Reason for Decision: Better sources, better arguments, better reason.
>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.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#casting-votes
**************************************************
Your opponent did in R1:
"I am not against those trials for that niche usage but when it comes to severely addictive, brutally destructive drugs like heroin and meth or even other really nasty ones like date-rape drugs that are basically only ever used for kidnapping and rape, we need to seriously consider what possible reason it would be worth legalising them at all."
Anyways, drama isn't worth it to me. I'm going to drop my vote to just sources.
That would have been a good reply inside the debate.
As is, people getting raped with the assistance of legal and easy to obtain drugs went unchallenged. That leaves a group of drugs which should not be legal due to how they're abused.
As for me not having my masters in pharmacology: Yes, that is correct. I know very very little of this subject.
Date rape drugs. Please quote your response from your case, and I'll happily remove the argument allotment from my vote.
You had zero sources. The bigger the claim, the more evidence is needed.
Further, when arguing “all” a single exception is all that’s needed to deny you burden of proof.
Thank you both for voting.
"All" instead of "most" is the key problem to your case.
I suggest either arguing against the modern establishment of Israel (basically it sucks that it happened, but no comment on them continuing to exist today), or find an angle against them now which isn't a double standard. You could also do strict comparison debates, such as Israel's military tactics are less humane than those of neighboring Arabs.
Also always advisable to research winning arguments from the other side:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1133-israel-is-an-illegal-state
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1755-israel-has-no-right-to-exist
I was just reading up on some of the hostilities in the area... Syria if effing insane, they outright gave their highest medal to a man for being a sadistic cannibal.
You should create a debate on if Islam endorsees pedophilia.
That vote hasn't actually been reported yet, but for Novice, I have learned to just accept any vote that isn't pure rainbows about how wonderful he is will be reported.
Any time I vote on his debates, I alert other mods that a review will be needed. Heck, even when just reviewing reports I alert other mods, since he'll escalate like a Karen if he doesn't get his way.
As someone whose had Muslims try to murder me because I was saving lives, I doubt the soundness of the resolution.
That said, a strong valid argument can still be constructed by pro, which can best a less well supported argument from the other side
As a voter, I much prefer having an easy to access list at the end of debate rounds, along with links in the numbers (which takes no extra characters).
If posting them in the comments, I advise providing a link to the comment in question (copy the link embedded in the comment number; do not follow it then copy the address bar, as that link breaks if too much discussion happens).
I’m less likely to consider sources at all if either side makes it difficult for the readers.
I should mention that I also have a personal preference (again, as a voter, not as a mod) against tiny link sites, since I can glean a lot of information just from seeing the full URL.
One day remains.
I don't immediately see the inherent problem with the vote in question.
While not going deep into arguments, it gets the gist of styles to a degree which implies having read the debate and not just having an overly generic vote which could be applied to any debate.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#tied-arguments
Conduct is where I thought pro's trolling accusation might originate, but a search in the debate verifies him calling the opposing case gibberish three times. Presumably there were other such insults as the vote alluded.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#conduct
That said, I will have to read the debate to ensure there was not a similar magnitude of insults going in the other direction.
So many fun kritiks available... Best of luck.
Thank you for voting.
As a veteran I am glad to not be billed for mental health services, medication, etc. However, there are unavoidable other costs.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: BrotherD.Thomas // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: pro
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
While passionate feedback on any debate is appreciated, this feedback is inappropriate in the form of a vote which assigns points.
To cast a sufficient vote, for each category awarded, a voter must explicitly perform the following tasks:
(1) Provide specific references to each side’s utilization within the said category.
(2) Weigh the impacts against each other, including if any precluded others.
(3) Explain the decision within the greater context of the debate.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#casting-votes
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
**************************************************