My votes frequently include feedback for improvement. I don't think he could have flipped this debate on just that, but it would have been the start to raising above the level of foregone conclusions.
I haven't noticed much attention towards my vote. Just a report made against the original (but not the recast one), which is expected from some debaters regardless of the quality of the vote; and a couple comments from RM directed at me.
I thought my vote was pretty clear. The debate quickly became about if animals are people (as is required for them to count as slaves). While it might prove an interesting topic in its own debate, in this one it was perhaps the most extreme Semantic Kritik I've seen; and yes, I have been quite honest for a long time that I frown upon instigators K'ing against their own topic selection. Still I read the debate, and quoted from it to make my conclusions. A key factor was of course some of pro's own sources being caught directly contradicting pro's own case. I lost count of how many times pro repeated the same assertion about how animals are people because of self-determination, and I seem to have missed the evidence of said self-determination being actualized to then be violated (an assertion repeated 20 times without evidence, does not become good evidence by virtue of being repeated so many times). Whereas con leaning on the dictionary gave a definition for person which excluded farm animals and there was no reason to disregard.
So in short: con proved with evidence that within English humans are people, and offered sufficient challenge to pro's case of for being "non-sequitur."
Conduct over issues such as pro accusing con of being in favor of farming "elderly, the sick, and infants" from the human population; and rather obvious lies (such as at the start of R2 (I'll never understand why people on message boards do this, we can literally scroll up if we've forgotten what actually happened)).
At the end of the day, pro was not convincing to me that animals are the same as people, nor even significantly similar to people for there to be doubt. Were the debate /animals ought to be considered a class of people/ then he would have done quite well.
Python has defeated me. But I am going to keep trying at it. Not going to be able to vote on any hard decisions for awhile.
That said, my estimation is that I would end up taking the pro side if the low BoP of tenable is argued. However, if treated like it should never be questioned, then con would win.
Vote #2 has been reported. Please review it if you get a chance.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3775-the-majority-of-animal-agriculture-in-the-united-states-is-slavery-for-atoromagi?open_tab=votes&votes_page=1&vote_number=2
If my schedule calms down after next week, I'll make the time to read this. Trying to learn Python in a class right now, and it's admittedly kicking my ass.
My implicit point was that probably of him having had criminal charges filed against him for it, and the media never mentioning that, are slim to none.
That said, yes, it’s weird. If it crosses into outright sexual assault would pretty much depend on how you define sexual assault. It is inappropriate, and does likely cross into harassment.
Discussing your own debate during the voting period is always walking on thin ice. I personally try to minimize it within my debates. That said, it was decided a long time ago not to push the rules in the direction of forbidding it.
The voting policy makes two mentions of what is going too far when discussing your own ongoing debate:
"Flagrant misbehavior in the comment section, such as threats, or voter manipulation (not to be confused with polite requests for more details, or encouraging more votes in general)."
AND
"You may of course always request further detail from a voter, but it should not cross into clear harassment should people decide to vote against you (or not enough in your favor)."
So discussions are not banned, but toxic behavior can cross obvious lines. On this page I am not spotting any flagrant examples; and I really must get some sleep.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Public-Choice // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro, 4 to con
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Essentially, a misunderstanding of the voting rules here. Every category except arguments should be awarded only for extreme cases. Further, the argument point fell short of giving any specifics lines of reasoning to do a weighed analysis (this really isn't a big deal, but it is something to work on in future votes; or even revoting on this one).
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.
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
**************************************************
Public-Choice
Added: 4 days ago
Reason:
Arguments: CON
PRO did not cite any sources for, like, 2/3 of his argument. Meaning the burden of proof is on PRO for many of his claims. CON also showed how, even if North Korea provides these things for free, they are significantly worse than in other countries, making it worse to live in North Korea.
PRO then responded with claims that Nirth Korea is not anything CON said, which would have been a very convincing argument if he cited any sources proving it, thus his arguments bear the burden of proof.
Sources: TIE
Neither side really gave good sources here for much of the debate. NPR, Wikipedia, and Encyclopedia Britannica are all secondary sources and, from what I could tell, mostly quoted outsiders
PRO, even though he cited video evidence, it was video evidence that is subject to Cherry Picking and also much of it was propaganda from North Korean government outlets. Though this does not make the sources wrong. The problem is the sources did not provide comprehensive data.
Spelling and Grammar: CON
PRO had good grammar, but CON had more fluid English.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: zing_book // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to pro, 2 to con.
>Reason for Decision:
Both Pro and Con have done tremendously in this debate. I don't think I've ever seen such a qualitied debate EVER. I think I'm more persuaded by pro's debate as this person knew how to combat easily, towards cons argument. Furthermore, I see that Pro more likely predicted Cons argument in R1. BUT overall I also do think Con had used an excellent perception of sources as he gave evidence to each point stated by Con.
OVERALL, this is my opinion how the debate was played... AND good luck to PRO and 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.
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
**************************************************
You can ask Mike, but I don't believe if he has it setup to allow himself to do that.
Personally, I wish we had a timer rule that would extend the countdown if votes occur within 72 hours of closing... Sure, some jerk would troll it, but t he damage of that is less than what happens with trolling under the current system (had I seen it before time ran out, I would have deleted a certain one of those votes with prejudice).
Please read the voting policy before casting more votes. As a voter you need to at least try to separate your bias from your votes.
That you wish pro had argued those shouldn't be considered miscarriages, doesn't make it valid to vote on the basis of arguments he didn't make.
Had one side actually lied, sure. But that isn't what happened here. The lie you claim to have spotted is that the source did not actually discuss miscarriages, which anyone else else who has opened the source can see it clearly does discuss miscarriages. That you would draw a different conclusion about the content than either debater (and the source for that matter), doesn't make it a lie that there's different interpretations of it.
An example of a lie would be that said source contained a video of O.J. Simpson killing Nicole, something it most clearly does not contain (and yes, people have done crap like that to cause that line to be in the rules).
> Same with your example of Bible.
If someone is arguing that the bible supports evolution and citing details from Genesis (say God's step by step building of things over time) it would firmly be the job of the other debater to refute that; as opposed to a voter reading the bible and pulling in their own biblical passages to contradict that interpretation when it was unchallenged within the debate. A biblical lie might be the all too common example of people quoting Jesus commanding the murder of homosexuals (which someone /could/ argue Jesus would be in favor or, but they'd cross the line into lying about source content when they make up quotations which are not present within the bible).
> Laws, after all, have proven to exist morally with no practical purpose e.g. Jaywalking. (I’m not introducing my own argument, but giving an example about why on balance means the default assumption should not lean towards practical effects being prioritised.
There is little to no danger of that being mistaken for your own argument. Pretty much there'd need to be other warning signs of overwhelmingly biased voting, for an analogy to be looked at with suspicion.
> Are you saying sources arent part of the debate?
Per the voting policy, parts of the source not brought up in a debate are not part of the debate.
Again imagine you're in a biblical debate (of course citing the bible for some point) and a voter does their own research on the bible and votes against you based on quotes they found elsewhere in the bible which your opponent did not even allude to. Do you honestly believe that would be optimum fair grading of the debate?
I can't seem to get it through you to, but in the most simple terms: The voter's role is to grade the debate as presented by the debaters, not to be a debater themselves. If an argument wasn't made by a debater which they should have made, it's fine to note that; but it is not fine to grade arguments for or against them for things which did not occur in the debate.
> If the source is irrelevant, I cannot treat it as relevant.
Pro did not make the argument that miscarriages are outside the scope; rather he asserted that banning abortion might in some unspecified way cease sending women who suffer miscarriages to prison. Which further seems to accept cons interpretation of the source as factual.
> If Con provides a source that negates his own claim, I will not accept that source as anything else but exactly that.
As I explained to you at the start, the voting policy literally explains that such flaws must be pointed to in the debate if they are to be graded:
"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).
...
Further, overly studying a source beyond what was presented, risks basing a vote upon the outside content of your own analysis instead of that offered by the debaters. If neither debater even alluded to details from a source a voter mentions, the vote has probably crossed this line."
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#sources
When asked where pro caught any flaw in the source, you made wholly new arguments instead of citing the debate. That you can't tell the difference between your opinions and pro's actual case, is highly troubling.
> Again, I did not add the arguments.
Then reread the debate and let me know in which round pro brought up the evidence from the medical examiner to flip the source.
> I already explained this 50 times. Weighting sources and claims is not me adding arguments of my own.
Except when you add your own arguments about them not based on the arguments presented in the debate. The voting policy literally warns on sourcing against basing "a vote upon the outside content of your own analysis instead of that offered by the debaters."
Imagine you're in a biblical debate (of course citing the bible for some point) and a voter does their own research on the bible and votes against you based on quotes they found elsewhere in the bible which your opponent did not even allude to. Do you honestly believe that would be optimum fair grading of the debate?
> Refuting arguments in debates? No, that is oromagis area.
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
...
> I didnt add arguments of my own.
You writing your own arguments about how you wish pro had argued the debate, does not make them eligible for weighing within your vote. This is outlined clearly and repeatedly in the voting policy. Sources is how the debaters (not the voter) utilized and analyzed them. Had pro done any challenge to the notation that the women who were sent to prison for miscarriages were actually sent to prison for other stuff, you'd have a leg to stand on; as is, you're blatantly disregarding pro's analysis and substituting your own.
As should be clear, I'm not even removing your vote (as much as such would be well warranted). I am advising you of an issue to avoid recurrent problems when you cast future votes.
> Yes appeals to emotion are a logical fallacy, but as somebody who argued devil's advocate, I can tell you that several times I have been beaten by appeals to emotion because judges can't see through them.
Appealing to emotions need not be done fallaciously. But yes, they are usually more effective when dumbing everything down to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
When I argue this topic, I use government enforced slavery as a point. That it mentions slavery is instantly pathos, I add ethos when I justify the connection (forcing someone's labors for 9 months against their will; and if arguing against a full abortion ban, occasionally with the end goal of killing the person for the sake of the ectopic pregnancy or the like). Of course, I've since seen forced-birth people declare that somehow the fetus is really the slave, because it's forced to work so long and hard or something (it's still pathos, but manages to be anti-logos if such a thing is possible).
Your denial that the source has anything to do with miscarriages, is proven false literally within the first sentence of the article: "convicted of manslaughter after having a miscarriage" The page goes on explicitly state "miscarriage" like a dozen times.
Your evidence of pro refuting it is that you personally dislike con's argument so wrote refutations pro did not make. Those may have been great refutations but as they were not made in the debate, con could not defend them, so it is entirely unfair to grade the debate based upon how you would have argued pro's case instead of how pro did. And quite frankly, it's demeaning to pro to imply he's so weak to need you to make the case for him instead of grading what he wrote.
>Are you saying Con didnt present a source that contains facts? Are you saying Con never alluded to the facts from the source?
Pro did not mention anything from the medical examiner to change the nature of the miscarriage as presented in this debate, nor did con. Yet when asked for a quote from pro you went cherry picking things he didn't write nor do anything to imply.
If you dislike the unchallenged interpretation of the source so much, you should challenge con to the debate on it; rather than base your vote on your opinions of the topic irrelevant to what occurred inside this debate.
You casted a vote obviously based on your confirmation bias, with massive cherry-picking of facts neither presented nor alluded to by either side in the debate.
You're so far off the deep end in this, that you're insisting a source about women being thrown in prison for having miscarriages, is unrelated to women being thrown in prison for miscarriages. And you try to defend this because pro argued so long as women didn't understand what they are doing, they won't be thrown to prison...
I went to a Catholic university. I know the bible better than the vast majority of Christians. Yet when I read a biblical debate, I don't just vote for whichever side I prefer and add my own biblical quotes to justify it. If you don't see why that would be problematic, you should not be grading debates.
Again, when we vote it is not our job to defeat one of the debaters on behalf of the other one. In this case, it was pro's job to read the source and find that weakness to it.
> Actually, this is a special case which you didnt consider...
When I wrote the voting policy, I considered just this type of bias hitting.
From the voting policy:
"Further, overly studying a source beyond what was presented, risks basing a vote upon the outside content of your own analysis instead of that offered by the debaters. If neither debater even alluded to details from a source a voter mentions, the vote has probably crossed this line."
> She actually got convicted for manslaughter, not for miscarriage.
*facepalm*
> "the medical examiner's report..."
I can't find said quote anywhere within this debate, nor did I spot anything which alludes to it. This exemplifies why I am being so critical of your vote, as it reads as not one where you fairly weighted the arguments; but rather as one where you wish you were a debater and are trying to add missing contentions to bolster a preferred side.
Regarding sourses form the voting policy:
"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)."
Note the part that explicitly spells out "if the other side called attention to the flaws."
I've had plenty of times where I wish one side had argued better, but end of voting against them (whiteflame included).
>> what evidence did pro use to show that abortion bans result in women no longer being imprisoned for miscarriages?
> The fact that abortion ban is separable from imprisoning women for miscarriages solves that problem.
What about pro's arguments suggested that it would actually be separated?
You having a slight personal preference, is not the same as the magnitudes and types of offenses being different. While you can say there is a slight difference, the scale of how many rounds were forfeited is obviously equal.
I believe pro's talk of anomalies was in regards to medical exceptions, as opposed to the problem miscarriages existing and women already being thrown in prison for them; whereas his defense of miscarriages was something about planned parenthood brainwashing people thereby making those people not at fault for actively having abortions (as opposed to accidently having miscarriages).
Welcome to the site, and good luck on your first debate.
Thought I'd be posting this morning, but I've got to go take care of a few things. But don't worry: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
My votes frequently include feedback for improvement. I don't think he could have flipped this debate on just that, but it would have been the start to raising above the level of foregone conclusions.
I haven't noticed much attention towards my vote. Just a report made against the original (but not the recast one), which is expected from some debaters regardless of the quality of the vote; and a couple comments from RM directed at me.
I thought my vote was pretty clear. The debate quickly became about if animals are people (as is required for them to count as slaves). While it might prove an interesting topic in its own debate, in this one it was perhaps the most extreme Semantic Kritik I've seen; and yes, I have been quite honest for a long time that I frown upon instigators K'ing against their own topic selection. Still I read the debate, and quoted from it to make my conclusions. A key factor was of course some of pro's own sources being caught directly contradicting pro's own case. I lost count of how many times pro repeated the same assertion about how animals are people because of self-determination, and I seem to have missed the evidence of said self-determination being actualized to then be violated (an assertion repeated 20 times without evidence, does not become good evidence by virtue of being repeated so many times). Whereas con leaning on the dictionary gave a definition for person which excluded farm animals and there was no reason to disregard.
So in short: con proved with evidence that within English humans are people, and offered sufficient challenge to pro's case of for being "non-sequitur."
Conduct over issues such as pro accusing con of being in favor of farming "elderly, the sick, and infants" from the human population; and rather obvious lies (such as at the start of R2 (I'll never understand why people on message boards do this, we can literally scroll up if we've forgotten what actually happened)).
At the end of the day, pro was not convincing to me that animals are the same as people, nor even significantly similar to people for there to be doubt. Were the debate /animals ought to be considered a class of people/ then he would have done quite well.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#based-on-outside-content
For the next while, I’m pretty much not going to be voting on anything I can’t knock out during a restroom break.
Best of luck on the debate. It looks like it was done well.
Python has defeated me. But I am going to keep trying at it. Not going to be able to vote on any hard decisions for awhile.
That said, my estimation is that I would end up taking the pro side if the low BoP of tenable is argued. However, if treated like it should never be questioned, then con would win.
Vote #2 has been reported. Please review it if you get a chance.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3775-the-majority-of-animal-agriculture-in-the-united-states-is-slavery-for-atoromagi?open_tab=votes&votes_page=1&vote_number=2
You have to post your closing first… but yes, as a former parachutist, it is a very easy vote.
If whomever reported this debate wants to let us know what in the terms of service it violated, please do so. As is, there's no obvious problem.
Bump.
If my schedule calms down after next week, I'll make the time to read this. Trying to learn Python in a class right now, and it's admittedly kicking my ass.
Almost a truism… however anyone clever could think of exceptions.
"by another person"
Oro could take this one down within 500 characters.
Implicit concession + full forfeiture.
Only a Sith speaks in absolutes!
Welcome to the site. I'm guessing you're a refugee from DDO?
Plenty already do address it, they even make that the core theme.
Not even a need to look at the links. Without some analysis in the debates itself, they’re wholly disconnected from the arguments.
What the heck did I just read… oh well…
My implicit point was that probably of him having had criminal charges filed against him for it, and the media never mentioning that, are slim to none.
That said, yes, it’s weird. If it crosses into outright sexual assault would pretty much depend on how you define sexual assault. It is inappropriate, and does likely cross into harassment.
Discussing your own debate during the voting period is always walking on thin ice. I personally try to minimize it within my debates. That said, it was decided a long time ago not to push the rules in the direction of forbidding it.
The voting policy makes two mentions of what is going too far when discussing your own ongoing debate:
"Flagrant misbehavior in the comment section, such as threats, or voter manipulation (not to be confused with polite requests for more details, or encouraging more votes in general)."
AND
"You may of course always request further detail from a voter, but it should not cross into clear harassment should people decide to vote against you (or not enough in your favor)."
So discussions are not banned, but toxic behavior can cross obvious lines. On this page I am not spotting any flagrant examples; and I really must get some sleep.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Public-Choice // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro, 4 to con
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Essentially, a misunderstanding of the voting rules here. Every category except arguments should be awarded only for extreme cases. Further, the argument point fell short of giving any specifics lines of reasoning to do a weighed analysis (this really isn't a big deal, but it is something to work on in future votes; or even revoting on this one).
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.
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
**************************************************
Public-Choice
Added: 4 days ago
Reason:
Arguments: CON
PRO did not cite any sources for, like, 2/3 of his argument. Meaning the burden of proof is on PRO for many of his claims. CON also showed how, even if North Korea provides these things for free, they are significantly worse than in other countries, making it worse to live in North Korea.
PRO then responded with claims that Nirth Korea is not anything CON said, which would have been a very convincing argument if he cited any sources proving it, thus his arguments bear the burden of proof.
Sources: TIE
Neither side really gave good sources here for much of the debate. NPR, Wikipedia, and Encyclopedia Britannica are all secondary sources and, from what I could tell, mostly quoted outsiders
PRO, even though he cited video evidence, it was video evidence that is subject to Cherry Picking and also much of it was propaganda from North Korean government outlets. Though this does not make the sources wrong. The problem is the sources did not provide comprehensive data.
Spelling and Grammar: CON
PRO had good grammar, but CON had more fluid English.
Conduct: PRO
PRO was more polite.
That's quite the hyperbole... But yeah, Biden is weird.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: zing_book // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to pro, 2 to con.
>Reason for Decision:
Both Pro and Con have done tremendously in this debate. I don't think I've ever seen such a qualitied debate EVER. I think I'm more persuaded by pro's debate as this person knew how to combat easily, towards cons argument. Furthermore, I see that Pro more likely predicted Cons argument in R1. BUT overall I also do think Con had used an excellent perception of sources as he gave evidence to each point stated by Con.
OVERALL, this is my opinion how the debate was played... AND good luck to PRO and 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.
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
**************************************************
I literally cannot.
You can ask Mike, but I don't believe if he has it setup to allow himself to do that.
Personally, I wish we had a timer rule that would extend the countdown if votes occur within 72 hours of closing... Sure, some jerk would troll it, but t he damage of that is less than what happens with trolling under the current system (had I seen it before time ran out, I would have deleted a certain one of those votes with prejudice).
I'm the moderator chiefly responsible for writing the current voting policy.
Please read the voting policy before casting more votes. As a voter you need to at least try to separate your bias from your votes.
That you wish pro had argued those shouldn't be considered miscarriages, doesn't make it valid to vote on the basis of arguments he didn't make.
Please strive to include more detail in future votes.
Last minute votes do not yield time to review and take any merited actions against.
> one side lied
Had one side actually lied, sure. But that isn't what happened here. The lie you claim to have spotted is that the source did not actually discuss miscarriages, which anyone else else who has opened the source can see it clearly does discuss miscarriages. That you would draw a different conclusion about the content than either debater (and the source for that matter), doesn't make it a lie that there's different interpretations of it.
An example of a lie would be that said source contained a video of O.J. Simpson killing Nicole, something it most clearly does not contain (and yes, people have done crap like that to cause that line to be in the rules).
> Same with your example of Bible.
If someone is arguing that the bible supports evolution and citing details from Genesis (say God's step by step building of things over time) it would firmly be the job of the other debater to refute that; as opposed to a voter reading the bible and pulling in their own biblical passages to contradict that interpretation when it was unchallenged within the debate. A biblical lie might be the all too common example of people quoting Jesus commanding the murder of homosexuals (which someone /could/ argue Jesus would be in favor or, but they'd cross the line into lying about source content when they make up quotations which are not present within the bible).
Very well done vote, and cool style.
> Laws, after all, have proven to exist morally with no practical purpose e.g. Jaywalking. (I’m not introducing my own argument, but giving an example about why on balance means the default assumption should not lean towards practical effects being prioritised.
There is little to no danger of that being mistaken for your own argument. Pretty much there'd need to be other warning signs of overwhelmingly biased voting, for an analogy to be looked at with suspicion.
> Are you saying sources arent part of the debate?
Per the voting policy, parts of the source not brought up in a debate are not part of the debate.
Again imagine you're in a biblical debate (of course citing the bible for some point) and a voter does their own research on the bible and votes against you based on quotes they found elsewhere in the bible which your opponent did not even allude to. Do you honestly believe that would be optimum fair grading of the debate?
Are you sure you would like this debate deleted?
Good analysis.
While for me policy proposals should be routed in weighable benefits, I understand the perspective of the moral imperative issue.
I can't seem to get it through you to, but in the most simple terms: The voter's role is to grade the debate as presented by the debaters, not to be a debater themselves. If an argument wasn't made by a debater which they should have made, it's fine to note that; but it is not fine to grade arguments for or against them for things which did not occur in the debate.
> If the source is irrelevant, I cannot treat it as relevant.
Pro did not make the argument that miscarriages are outside the scope; rather he asserted that banning abortion might in some unspecified way cease sending women who suffer miscarriages to prison. Which further seems to accept cons interpretation of the source as factual.
> If Con provides a source that negates his own claim, I will not accept that source as anything else but exactly that.
As I explained to you at the start, the voting policy literally explains that such flaws must be pointed to in the debate if they are to be graded:
"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).
...
Further, overly studying a source beyond what was presented, risks basing a vote upon the outside content of your own analysis instead of that offered by the debaters. If neither debater even alluded to details from a source a voter mentions, the vote has probably crossed this line."
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#sources
When asked where pro caught any flaw in the source, you made wholly new arguments instead of citing the debate. That you can't tell the difference between your opinions and pro's actual case, is highly troubling.
> Again, I did not add the arguments.
Then reread the debate and let me know in which round pro brought up the evidence from the medical examiner to flip the source.
> I already explained this 50 times. Weighting sources and claims is not me adding arguments of my own.
Except when you add your own arguments about them not based on the arguments presented in the debate. The voting policy literally warns on sourcing against basing "a vote upon the outside content of your own analysis instead of that offered by the debaters."
Imagine you're in a biblical debate (of course citing the bible for some point) and a voter does their own research on the bible and votes against you based on quotes they found elsewhere in the bible which your opponent did not even allude to. Do you honestly believe that would be optimum fair grading of the debate?
> Refuting arguments in debates? No, that is oromagis area.
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
...
> I didnt add arguments of my own.
You writing your own arguments about how you wish pro had argued the debate, does not make them eligible for weighing within your vote. This is outlined clearly and repeatedly in the voting policy. Sources is how the debaters (not the voter) utilized and analyzed them. Had pro done any challenge to the notation that the women who were sent to prison for miscarriages were actually sent to prison for other stuff, you'd have a leg to stand on; as is, you're blatantly disregarding pro's analysis and substituting your own.
As should be clear, I'm not even removing your vote (as much as such would be well warranted). I am advising you of an issue to avoid recurrent problems when you cast future votes.
> Yes appeals to emotion are a logical fallacy, but as somebody who argued devil's advocate, I can tell you that several times I have been beaten by appeals to emotion because judges can't see through them.
Appealing to emotions need not be done fallaciously. But yes, they are usually more effective when dumbing everything down to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
When I argue this topic, I use government enforced slavery as a point. That it mentions slavery is instantly pathos, I add ethos when I justify the connection (forcing someone's labors for 9 months against their will; and if arguing against a full abortion ban, occasionally with the end goal of killing the person for the sake of the ectopic pregnancy or the like). Of course, I've since seen forced-birth people declare that somehow the fetus is really the slave, because it's forced to work so long and hard or something (it's still pathos, but manages to be anti-logos if such a thing is possible).
Your denial that the source has anything to do with miscarriages, is proven false literally within the first sentence of the article: "convicted of manslaughter after having a miscarriage" The page goes on explicitly state "miscarriage" like a dozen times.
Your evidence of pro refuting it is that you personally dislike con's argument so wrote refutations pro did not make. Those may have been great refutations but as they were not made in the debate, con could not defend them, so it is entirely unfair to grade the debate based upon how you would have argued pro's case instead of how pro did. And quite frankly, it's demeaning to pro to imply he's so weak to need you to make the case for him instead of grading what he wrote.
>Are you saying Con didnt present a source that contains facts? Are you saying Con never alluded to the facts from the source?
Pro did not mention anything from the medical examiner to change the nature of the miscarriage as presented in this debate, nor did con. Yet when asked for a quote from pro you went cherry picking things he didn't write nor do anything to imply.
If you dislike the unchallenged interpretation of the source so much, you should challenge con to the debate on it; rather than base your vote on your opinions of the topic irrelevant to what occurred inside this debate.
You casted a vote obviously based on your confirmation bias, with massive cherry-picking of facts neither presented nor alluded to by either side in the debate.
You're so far off the deep end in this, that you're insisting a source about women being thrown in prison for having miscarriages, is unrelated to women being thrown in prison for miscarriages. And you try to defend this because pro argued so long as women didn't understand what they are doing, they won't be thrown to prison...
I went to a Catholic university. I know the bible better than the vast majority of Christians. Yet when I read a biblical debate, I don't just vote for whichever side I prefer and add my own biblical quotes to justify it. If you don't see why that would be problematic, you should not be grading debates.
Please expand the reasoning for your vote with point analysis (contrast some of the arguments and source utilization).
> read it entirely, you will find:
Again, when we vote it is not our job to defeat one of the debaters on behalf of the other one. In this case, it was pro's job to read the source and find that weakness to it.
> Actually, this is a special case which you didnt consider...
When I wrote the voting policy, I considered just this type of bias hitting.
From the voting policy:
"Further, overly studying a source beyond what was presented, risks basing a vote upon the outside content of your own analysis instead of that offered by the debaters. If neither debater even alluded to details from a source a voter mentions, the vote has probably crossed this line."
> She actually got convicted for manslaughter, not for miscarriage.
*facepalm*
> "the medical examiner's report..."
I can't find said quote anywhere within this debate, nor did I spot anything which alludes to it. This exemplifies why I am being so critical of your vote, as it reads as not one where you fairly weighted the arguments; but rather as one where you wish you were a debater and are trying to add missing contentions to bolster a preferred side.
Regarding sourses form the voting policy:
"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)."
Note the part that explicitly spells out "if the other side called attention to the flaws."
I've had plenty of times where I wish one side had argued better, but end of voting against them (whiteflame included).
>> what evidence did pro use to show that abortion bans result in women no longer being imprisoned for miscarriages?
> The fact that abortion ban is separable from imprisoning women for miscarriages solves that problem.
What about pro's arguments suggested that it would actually be separated?
Just read your vote, and am curious what evidence did pro use to show that abortion bans result in women no longer being imprisoned for miscarriages?
Yeah, I'm still in shock over that issue happening in the USA.
You having a slight personal preference, is not the same as the magnitudes and types of offenses being different. While you can say there is a slight difference, the scale of how many rounds were forfeited is obviously equal.
I believe pro's talk of anomalies was in regards to medical exceptions, as opposed to the problem miscarriages existing and women already being thrown in prison for them; whereas his defense of miscarriages was something about planned parenthood brainwashing people thereby making those people not at fault for actively having abortions (as opposed to accidently having miscarriages).
For future reference, per the voting policy conduct awards are:
"Invalid if: Both sides had similar types and/or magnitude of misbehavior,"