Tiny nitpick:
I disagree with your assessment that con in any way conceded. Dropped points are not the same as a concession; even if the impact should be similar due to the magnitude in this case.
I dislike URL shorteners, largely because I can judge a lot about a source from the URL. Further, if I want to go back afterwards to review sources, it's nice to tell them apart at a glance.
It sounds like what you meant to argue, and what you actually argued differ. Just look at how many big Goku attacks are in your R1 and R2. I see talk of his big erase people from reality attack, not his more powerful triple erase people or whatever attacks. I see defense of a different attack type (ki), but not the turn people to dust energy attack you built your arguments on.
On sourcing, I really dislike that your oppoment used tinyurl, but there ends up being sources like https://fictionhorizon.com/how-fast-is-superman/ vs https://ibb.co/Fz7Tdth where I don't understand what is supposed to be happening, and this one which I specifically referenced https://ibb.co/d5n7kyY which Gogeta SSB is just some random guy making an assertion. The quality difference here is overwhelming.
To my understanding:
If it goes unvoted, it does not affect ELO.
If voted a tie, there is a small ELO shift toward the middle between the two debaters.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: ComputerNerd // Mod action: Not Removed (non-moderated debate)
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
While the vote made brief mention of another vote, that was the least of the reasoning (as much as said reasoning would need to be expanded on a serious debate).
This debate clearly falls into one or more category of non-moderated debates, and the vote does not seem to be cast in malice. Therefore, no intervention is merited.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#non-moderated-debates
**************************************************
Here's what the voting policy says on comedy debates...
Comedy Debates
Debates primarily designed to be humorous or facetious, or containing primarily humorous or facetious content, are not eligible for normal moderation. That said, while not a requirement, voters on these are encouraged to judge arguments based on how funny they found each case.
Please do not join an obvious comedy debate with the intent of treating it in a wholly serious manner. Similarly, if it’s a serious topic, please don’t toxically try to turn it into a pure comedy debate (which is not to say excluding all jokes from normal debates).
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#comedy-debates
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Undefeatable // Mod action: Removed by voter request
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to con
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action: Voter request
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Conservallectual // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to pro.
>Reason for Decision: "The reasons are far better. Pro states why damage was much worse in clearer and easier to read language."
>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
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.
**************************************************
I was tempted to argue just that; that he's racist for being a cop, and pro effectively conceded all cops are racist against white people with their increased willingness to shoot them. So many angles I could have taken.
If you think the other side won, then vote for the other side. If you merely think a vote is short on analysis, then show better analysis in your own votes to lead the charge on quality improvement.
As things currently stand, you’re just complaining about the existence of votes.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Conservallectual // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to pro
>Reason for Decision: "I am pro free market."
>Reason for Mod Action:
Before voting again, please review the voting policy. In essence, votes here are judgements for performance in the debate, rather than preference for one side. Without that, the vote is insufficient.
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
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.
**************************************************
I see what you were going for there, but when Kritiking, you have a fairly small window of opportunity to be taken seriously.
Something you may find helpful:
https://info.debateart.com/kritik-guide
What may have worked was if you argued that Merchant Capitalism is on balance better, leading to more economic growth such as the discovery of the Americas... Obviously worse off for countries like those in North America, but worse off for not practicing it (maybe find a source to show that they were a free market... I'm spit-balling here on how this could have been successfully trolled and kritiked).
Especially as I suspect you disagree with my conclusions and me being well out of practice on debating, would you mind sharing any feedback on this debate?
While I know you haven't unlocked voting privileges yet, you mentioned you were following this one... So, would you mind sharing your opinions on how the debate turned out?
You're welcome to explain how the vote "is irrelevant to any aspect of the debate."
Until then, you can continue your lazy barrage of ad hominem attacks, but it will only further reduce the odds of more voters weighing in on this debate.
Let me guess, whomever you had cross reference the vote to the debate found it highly topical due to directly paraphrasing several lines of contention?
Were you correct about the vote, you had an easy way to get it removed. As is, the extent to which you're factually wrong, speaks for itself. Worse, you've just told every potential voter how you'll behave towards them if their vote contains any of the same topics mine mentioned (which you insist none of came up in the debate).
> "Vote casted that is irrelevant to any aspect of the debate"
Were that true, any vote which considers the various arguments of yours I listed would be wholly invalid. Please have someone you trust check if your case does or does not contain the word "torture" as my vote indicates as a key point of contention. If it really doesn't contain that, I'll remove that vote right away. It's really that simple if I've posted a RFD for a different debate as you seem to think.
If it does contain it, then you're just repeating a pattern of having breakdowns whenever people don't declare you the winner just for showing up, and each time you're unable to actually name a real fault aside from it hurting your feelings.
Granted, I too would prefer if there were more active voters around.
Now that the voting momentum for this debate seems to be gone...
...
Regarding BoP:
Sorry I let that section get out of control. My intention was to demonstrate to pro how it can be argued. I didn't overly care, as I would hit any reasonable standard of BoP quite easily.
When I vote on debates, BoP sections only merit a quick skim unless the contest is particularly close.
IMO both pro and con will always have some share of BoP. The major difference being that con gets the benefit of doubt.
...
Regarding conduct:
Once R2 started, I knew I would get conduct if I kept my side clean. However, entertaining potential readers takes priority. That said, I do stand by my words on it (with the sole exception of making a big deal out of the "shooting" typo; that was to include the zombie joke).
Calling someone's case racist, to me is warranted when you explain to them if they say certain precises phrases they're a racist, and they proceed to parrot those exact things.
I do not believe the mere act of pro Gish Galloping would cost him conduct; the goal of pointing that out was to undermine him on arguments (especially to pre-refute when a Gish Galloper inevitably proclaims Gish Galloping means they won).
To help ensure full transparency, a forum topic has sprung up related to this debate:
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7569-poll-what-is-a-breathing-expert
With the debate still in the voting period, I am personally aiming to keep my commentary minimal.
This debate immediately reminds me of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, even if said movement would more likely argue the inverse of the resolution.
Given some of the /interesting/ tactics utilized in this debate, I am burnt out on this topic right now. However, I'll keep your offer in mind.
The next debate I have planned is against Pie, on if banning users for doxing is corrupt (or a closely related resolution), with the stakes of me resigning from the moderation team if he wins. He is very sure of himself, and desperately wants me gone, but is having a time shortage at the moment.
Your complaints are nearly meaningless when you are not casting better votes.
Tiny nitpick:
I disagree with your assessment that con in any way conceded. Dropped points are not the same as a concession; even if the impact should be similar due to the magnitude in this case.
Fun topic!
I dislike URL shorteners, largely because I can judge a lot about a source from the URL. Further, if I want to go back afterwards to review sources, it's nice to tell them apart at a glance.
It sounds like what you meant to argue, and what you actually argued differ. Just look at how many big Goku attacks are in your R1 and R2. I see talk of his big erase people from reality attack, not his more powerful triple erase people or whatever attacks. I see defense of a different attack type (ki), but not the turn people to dust energy attack you built your arguments on.
On sourcing, I really dislike that your oppoment used tinyurl, but there ends up being sources like https://fictionhorizon.com/how-fast-is-superman/ vs https://ibb.co/Fz7Tdth where I don't understand what is supposed to be happening, and this one which I specifically referenced https://ibb.co/d5n7kyY which Gogeta SSB is just some random guy making an assertion. The quality difference here is overwhelming.
To my understanding:
If it goes unvoted, it does not affect ELO.
If voted a tie, there is a small ELO shift toward the middle between the two debaters.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: ComputerNerd // Mod action: Not Removed (non-moderated debate)
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
While the vote made brief mention of another vote, that was the least of the reasoning (as much as said reasoning would need to be expanded on a serious debate).
This debate clearly falls into one or more category of non-moderated debates, and the vote does not seem to be cast in malice. Therefore, no intervention is merited.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#non-moderated-debates
**************************************************
Here's what the voting policy says on comedy debates...
Comedy Debates
Debates primarily designed to be humorous or facetious, or containing primarily humorous or facetious content, are not eligible for normal moderation. That said, while not a requirement, voters on these are encouraged to judge arguments based on how funny they found each case.
Please do not join an obvious comedy debate with the intent of treating it in a wholly serious manner. Similarly, if it’s a serious topic, please don’t toxically try to turn it into a pure comedy debate (which is not to say excluding all jokes from normal debates).
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#comedy-debates
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Undefeatable // Mod action: Removed by voter request
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to con
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action: Voter request
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Conservallectual // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to pro.
>Reason for Decision: "The reasons are far better. Pro states why damage was much worse in clearer and easier to read language."
>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
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.
**************************************************
I doubt I'll get around to this. Whiteflame can pull some very detailed votes on short notice, so asking him would be ideal.
Skimmed a bit, it looks like it will be a way closer outcome than expected.
I was away at a three-day music festival in NYC, so could not vote. Congrats on your victory.
Congrats on the new job, and good luck with the family.
Now that the voting period has ended, I can freely discuss any aspect of this debate without fear of creating undue bias in voters.
So, anyone have any questions?
I was tempted to argue just that; that he's racist for being a cop, and pro effectively conceded all cops are racist against white people with their increased willingness to shoot them. So many angles I could have taken.
The debate indeed touched on those issues.
If you think the other side won, then vote for the other side. If you merely think a vote is short on analysis, then show better analysis in your own votes to lead the charge on quality improvement.
As things currently stand, you’re just complaining about the existence of votes.
That website you love has made an expansion for bias types, such as:
https://yourbias.is/just-world-hypothesis
I'll try to look at this in the next couple days.
Any feedback on this debate?
Michelle Obama commented on George Floyd today:
https://www.instagram.com/p/Cd_nxPQODL6/
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Conservallectual // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to pro
>Reason for Decision: "I am pro free market."
>Reason for Mod Action:
Before voting again, please review the voting policy. In essence, votes here are judgements for performance in the debate, rather than preference for one side. Without that, the vote is insufficient.
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
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.
**************************************************
I see what you were going for there, but when Kritiking, you have a fairly small window of opportunity to be taken seriously.
Something you may find helpful:
https://info.debateart.com/kritik-guide
What may have worked was if you argued that Merchant Capitalism is on balance better, leading to more economic growth such as the discovery of the Americas... Obviously worse off for countries like those in North America, but worse off for not practicing it (maybe find a source to show that they were a free market... I'm spit-balling here on how this could have been successfully trolled and kritiked).
Especially as I suspect you disagree with my conclusions and me being well out of practice on debating, would you mind sharing any feedback on this debate?
Without joining into the arguments section of the debate, you can still participate in the comment section.
I had forgotten about forum posts doing it. Thanks in advance, and take your time.
While I know you haven't unlocked voting privileges yet, you mentioned you were following this one... So, would you mind sharing your opinions on how the debate turned out?
Good luck.
The debate shouldn't harm your sanity.
It's a pretty quick read, and only two rounds.
You're welcome to explain how the vote "is irrelevant to any aspect of the debate."
Until then, you can continue your lazy barrage of ad hominem attacks, but it will only further reduce the odds of more voters weighing in on this debate.
Let me guess, whomever you had cross reference the vote to the debate found it highly topical due to directly paraphrasing several lines of contention?
Were you correct about the vote, you had an easy way to get it removed. As is, the extent to which you're factually wrong, speaks for itself. Worse, you've just told every potential voter how you'll behave towards them if their vote contains any of the same topics mine mentioned (which you insist none of came up in the debate).
> "Vote casted that is irrelevant to any aspect of the debate"
Were that true, any vote which considers the various arguments of yours I listed would be wholly invalid. Please have someone you trust check if your case does or does not contain the word "torture" as my vote indicates as a key point of contention. If it really doesn't contain that, I'll remove that vote right away. It's really that simple if I've posted a RFD for a different debate as you seem to think.
If it does contain it, then you're just repeating a pattern of having breakdowns whenever people don't declare you the winner just for showing up, and each time you're unable to actually name a real fault aside from it hurting your feelings.
Granted, I too would prefer if there were more active voters around.
I need to reread this before voting, it feels like I missed the point of the resolution the first time, leaving the debate a convoluted mess.
Now that the voting momentum for this debate seems to be gone...
...
Regarding BoP:
Sorry I let that section get out of control. My intention was to demonstrate to pro how it can be argued. I didn't overly care, as I would hit any reasonable standard of BoP quite easily.
When I vote on debates, BoP sections only merit a quick skim unless the contest is particularly close.
IMO both pro and con will always have some share of BoP. The major difference being that con gets the benefit of doubt.
...
Regarding conduct:
Once R2 started, I knew I would get conduct if I kept my side clean. However, entertaining potential readers takes priority. That said, I do stand by my words on it (with the sole exception of making a big deal out of the "shooting" typo; that was to include the zombie joke).
Calling someone's case racist, to me is warranted when you explain to them if they say certain precises phrases they're a racist, and they proceed to parrot those exact things.
I do not believe the mere act of pro Gish Galloping would cost him conduct; the goal of pointing that out was to undermine him on arguments (especially to pre-refute when a Gish Galloper inevitably proclaims Gish Galloping means they won).
If this is unvoted in a couple weeks, someone remind me and I'll cast one.
Most likely a Kritik of no one deserves to eat meat.
Nice improvements to your setup and R1.
Thank you for voting, and thank you again for the exceptionally detailed RFD.
It's protected freedom of speech, further it's one of the best ways to advertise your front window as brick donation drop off center.
To help ensure full transparency, a forum topic has sprung up related to this debate:
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7569-poll-what-is-a-breathing-expert
With the debate still in the voting period, I am personally aiming to keep my commentary minimal.
It was a cheeky way to say just that. It was a word choice meant to entertain, not to make any real point.
Also, thank you again for voting.
I very much appreciate the image to set the tone bit. I enjoyed imbedded images in debates so much on a certain other site.
As a courtesy reminder, you are down to three hours.
Something which may prove very useful to you in future:
https://tiny.cc/Kritik
This debate is already bordering on a foregone conclusion: https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#foregone-conclusions
Whatever you write in R2, you cannot defend against rebuttals.
This debate immediately reminds me of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, even if said movement would more likely argue the inverse of the resolution.
Given some of the /interesting/ tactics utilized in this debate, I am burnt out on this topic right now. However, I'll keep your offer in mind.
The next debate I have planned is against Pie, on if banning users for doxing is corrupt (or a closely related resolution), with the stakes of me resigning from the moderation team if he wins. He is very sure of himself, and desperately wants me gone, but is having a time shortage at the moment.
Interesting R2... I’m traveling right now. You may expect my replies on Monday.
Your R2 is due tonight. You’ve got just over 7 hours remaining.