Tabula Rasa is one voting paradigm people may attempt to use. It however is not mandated on this site.
Our voting policy can be found at: https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
We have one core principle: Strive to be fair.
If someone started a debate titled: "dogs meow" and then in R1 defined dogs as cats, I do not see it as favorable for voters to feign ignorance as to common knowledge of what dogs really are. To even understand logic for any good debate, necessitates some knowledge (as opposed to being swept up by every weak assertion as if it were golden).
Not that I see it as important for this debate. Both pro and con argued against creationism (at least as pro originally defined it) being taught in schools. To me at least, that was something pro did not overcome. I don't take any offense at the existence of votes going in the other direction.
With the profanity, I inferred some degree of hostility. To try to prevent any future issues between you two stemming from a misunderstanding related to it, I clarified his lack of involvement. Further, there was risk of voters fearing that Benjamin reports any votes against him, which this dispels.
Is there some reason you believe it to be harmful to correct such misinformation?
> "Don't fuck around with me reporting my vote, Benjamin if you're not ready for a good spanking in the re-write. You're an absolute coward. I mean it."
Two things:
1. At least for the revote, Ben did not report it, nor did any moderator. It was some rando.
2. I have a hard time believing any RFD with that line connected to it is truly "tabula rasa."
I advise defining your terms in the description. Right now, the movies featuring it existing could be used as a type of existence onto itself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWzlQ2N6qqg
While I disagree on if it was or was not a K, as a moderator I believe I should be held to a higher standard so take no offense at the removal for something which was getting into grey areas.
As for it being a K, I'll give a hypothetical example:
For the debate Dogs Meow, pro holds off definitions until R1, at which point he defines dogs as cats. This is inherently a semantic kritik, in which a commonly understood word is changed out for an disharmonious meaning to what anyone would assume going into the debate.
While this debate is note that bad, it takes the same form.
If you're curious about my behavior, you should probably ask me instead of someone else. ... Or you know, scroll on this page to where I already answered the question (such as in #18).
If you mean why an obviously bad vote was reviewed, while an a near infinitely more detailed vote is still pending review: Time and effort constraints.
Too many can distract from the arguments, especially with how they tend to be aimed (at the person one is arguing against, instead of as part of a logical argument to the topic). It does of course take a lot.
More at:
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#conduct
A quick thing about grading debates:
For arguments it doesn't matter if you win by an inch or a mile, but for every other category it should be a significant lead if points are to be assigned. Not one motspelled word, not one damned curse word, not one bit of bad, punctuation.
Two people can read the same debate, and draw different conclusions about the outcome.
I believe a key place we differ is our understandings of kritiks. To me, pro was worse on this by immediately playing a semantics Kritik (which my vote wouldn't have known about to mention had I not read his case) into a debate to which he specifically set a rule against doing just that.
Welcome to the site. Please do stick around for your debates, even when your opponents disagree with you (you're basically asking them to by initiating).
That many nukes on American soil, would defeat the US military (and most civilian populations in the northern hemisphere) without Steve ever manifesting.
A couple points:
Steve is most likely controlled by a non-optimum player.
With merely knowing Steve's approximate location, an area could be hit with one or more JDAMs before Steve has a chance to react https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1OqbwtIPy4
---RFD (1 of 3)---
For this debate on if combat units are better off if they exclude all women, pro was not able to sufficiently prove the merits of their case as applicable to all graduated female soldiers (as opposed to just random sampling of trainees). While pro repeatedly showed that female trainees are less effective than male combat veterans, this really doesn’t secure and hold the BoP to be applied to all female soldiers.
The biggest thing that could have improved this debate would have been better organization from pro in R2, seriously, I shouldn’t have to export your case into a word document and reformate it for you.
After that, comparisons using actual combat performance, rather than theoretical ones. While it was pro who pointed this out about cons case, his own case likewise suffered from this (albeit not as badly, seeing how he at least used military specific examples).
I should also mention that for definitions to be binding, they should be in the description. Granted, not much ambiguity in the language to really need them here.
Training and injury:
Pro shows that a high number of women are less suited than men at PT (and that is even with alternative standards). And further, when in training are more likely to be injured in trying (note: I lost several friends to this; and where there are various causes, it really boils down to it being an evil to not offer women some extra weeks of hardening training before boot camp).
Con points out that this is irrelevant due to combat units being composed of graduates from training.
Pro insists all members of military in combat units are just trainees (this is a painfully bad misunderstanding of his own data).
Pro doubles down with a focus on random soldiers in training instead of graduates, by making a big deal out of “CON concedes that significantly fewer women even pass the army fitness test.” Missing the core theme of con’s replies that a group doing worse on average in training are not all the people who will be even considered for a combat role.
Misc:
Pro argues that men usually do better at a bunch of stuff (reaction, taking action, etc.).
Much later pro adds in that boys get distracted by the presence of women.
Comparative:
Pro argues that male-only units perform better at a bunch of stuff evaluated. I've got to say, the focus on wall climbing abilities, implies other assorted jungle gym activities, which unless we redefine combat to kindergarten recess, is not nearly as strong point as pro most likely meant to it be.
---RFD (2 of 3)---
Monty Hall problem:
Con turns this around elegantly by pointing out that pro is speaking of averages among random unknowns from potential future soldiers, ignoring both that units are assembled from graduated soldiers, and further the existence of exceptional women whose abilities may be known.
Pro does a decent job defending that his data was from real world combat units (not real units, and not real combat, but still a decent defense). It fell apart at the end, and was magnified by his accusations that con was lying.
Unique value propositions:
Con brings up that women are better at relationships in workplace settings, which does apply to combat units (trust me, we don't just alternate between chewing bubblegum and kicking ass, there's a ton that needs to be accomplished in order to even get to combat).
Con adds to this an appeal that mixed units are less likely to commit war crimes.
Women apparently have better senses, so are better for guarding (indeed a common task for combat units).
Pro counters that one of cons studies used morale as a metric (presumably the military has no need for any of that?), and a better study would have focused on task completion (agreed on that, but highly disagreed on dismissing morale), and further the article did not seem scientific (catching this was good work on sources)... Pro goes on about this source for awhile...
Pro disputes cons claim that male soldiers have ever committed rape or other war crimes due to it not being sourced... Certain common knowledge stuff does not need to be cited, such as Australia existing, or who the current US president is…
Pro adds that it’s too rare to matter, and that it’s only due to having too high a percentage of men… Why challenge the claim, then agree with it but concede that the problem is due to too high a percentage of men?
“CON does not give a single example of which specific claim is sexist”:
Seriously? Please open a dictionary. For future debates I advise not getting off topic every time someone describes your case with a word you don’t like.
Sources:
I wanted to favor pro on this, but his counters harmed themselves with being so scatter brained. E.g., quoting a source saying “cohesion” and then claiming con is lying about women being better at that, making me have to read the whole source to find that it used the word “collaboration” instead of cohesion (nearly synonymous words).
Con catches a huge flaw in pro’s sourcing, to which I double checked the source and will quote it directly: “many of of the male study participants had previously served in combat units, whereas female participants, by necessity, came directly from infantry schools or from noncombat jobs.” This seriously sealed everything, defusing so much that pro put emphasis on (had it not been implied earlier, I would likely dismiss it for being such a late addition).
Leaving sources tied due to good effort on both sides (even while leaning toward con in the end).
Legibility:
Weird formatting and dividers from pro, which made reading his case inorganic.
===
Such as if this replied to the above, instead of intuitively beginning another section.
But this is not a reply within the same section it's positioned
===
Oh, and this is sometimes to the above, but not always, sometimes it's a new section... This goes on, seriously harming the ability to track pro's case in R2.
While you're unlikely win at this point, I hope you're able to post something for the next round. There's no shame in losing as long as you make an honest effort.
You specially complained that moderators had not interceded in such an extreme controlling manner to prevent this debate from even being initiated.
"The CoC not only bans "criminal activity" but "promoting criminal activity" In fact a literal reading of the CoC would forbid arguing for a higher speed limit."
That is not how anyone else interprets the CoC. That you want to CoC to do things it doesn't do, doesn't make it so. You are of course welcome to initiate a referendum to refine any part of it you feel is in need of refinement.
Regarding your report that the very existence of this debate topic breaks the law:
It does not in any nation to which I am familiar.
Were either debater to reveal credible information that they have kidnapped someone with the intent to make them a slave, and moderators saw it (again, not every word posted here gets read and approved before it is displayed), the police would be notified.
In case I haven't said it before: You have my full respect. Most people with major complaints, refuse to actually debate them.
You're down to 30 minutes. If you're too late, please share what you wrote in the comment section and I'll include it in my R1.
Dude, you're down to an hour.
I hope you live a really long time; certainly far longer than the life expectancy of any of these sites.
As a reminder, you're down to 4 hours to post arguments.
The irony of your last statement...
Tabula Rasa is one voting paradigm people may attempt to use. It however is not mandated on this site.
Our voting policy can be found at: https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
We have one core principle: Strive to be fair.
If someone started a debate titled: "dogs meow" and then in R1 defined dogs as cats, I do not see it as favorable for voters to feign ignorance as to common knowledge of what dogs really are. To even understand logic for any good debate, necessitates some knowledge (as opposed to being swept up by every weak assertion as if it were golden).
Not that I see it as important for this debate. Both pro and con argued against creationism (at least as pro originally defined it) being taught in schools. To me at least, that was something pro did not overcome. I don't take any offense at the existence of votes going in the other direction.
With the profanity, I inferred some degree of hostility. To try to prevent any future issues between you two stemming from a misunderstanding related to it, I clarified his lack of involvement. Further, there was risk of voters fearing that Benjamin reports any votes against him, which this dispels.
Is there some reason you believe it to be harmful to correct such misinformation?
> "Don't fuck around with me reporting my vote, Benjamin if you're not ready for a good spanking in the re-write. You're an absolute coward. I mean it."
Two things:
1. At least for the revote, Ben did not report it, nor did any moderator. It was some rando.
2. I have a hard time believing any RFD with that line connected to it is truly "tabula rasa."
In another debate you referenced me voting against you as "biased, dishonest, and bad-faith"
Yet, you still have not indicated to any flaw in my vote.
This is so lop sided that it's tempting.
Good luck.
I advise defining your terms in the description. Right now, the movies featuring it existing could be used as a type of existence onto itself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWzlQ2N6qqg
This topic can be particularly hard to garner votes.
Imagine trying to read the exact same proofs for the dozenth time, while excluding previous insight from your rulings on it.
Other than it not agreeing with you, what (if anything) do you consider bad about the vote?
While I disagree on if it was or was not a K, as a moderator I believe I should be held to a higher standard so take no offense at the removal for something which was getting into grey areas.
As for it being a K, I'll give a hypothetical example:
For the debate Dogs Meow, pro holds off definitions until R1, at which point he defines dogs as cats. This is inherently a semantic kritik, in which a commonly understood word is changed out for an disharmonious meaning to what anyone would assume going into the debate.
While this debate is note that bad, it takes the same form.
That said, I'll leave conduct out when I revote.
I'm unsure why this debate was reported. If anyone wants to add any notes explaining, please do so.
Please clarify what you're trying to ask.
If you're curious about my behavior, you should probably ask me instead of someone else. ... Or you know, scroll on this page to where I already answered the question (such as in #18).
If you mean why an obviously bad vote was reviewed, while an a near infinitely more detailed vote is still pending review: Time and effort constraints.
Too many can distract from the arguments, especially with how they tend to be aimed (at the person one is arguing against, instead of as part of a logical argument to the topic). It does of course take a lot.
More at:
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#conduct
A quick thing about grading debates:
For arguments it doesn't matter if you win by an inch or a mile, but for every other category it should be a significant lead if points are to be assigned. Not one motspelled word, not one damned curse word, not one bit of bad, punctuation.
Defining against common usage, is a basic semantics kritik.
Two people can read the same debate, and draw different conclusions about the outcome.
I believe a key place we differ is our understandings of kritiks. To me, pro was worse on this by immediately playing a semantics Kritik (which my vote wouldn't have known about to mention had I not read his case) into a debate to which he specifically set a rule against doing just that.
Welcome to the site. Please do stick around for your debates, even when your opponents disagree with you (you're basically asking them to by initiating).
That many nukes on American soil, would defeat the US military (and most civilian populations in the northern hemisphere) without Steve ever manifesting.
I'll look at this debate later and vote. While cut short, there should be enough material to grade.
Clearly con is higher level than pro.
A couple points:
Steve is most likely controlled by a non-optimum player.
With merely knowing Steve's approximate location, an area could be hit with one or more JDAMs before Steve has a chance to react https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1OqbwtIPy4
I suggest a low character limit, to make it easier on potential voters.
Neat one! Not a real debate, but should be interesting all the same.
For future debates, I suggest using a much lower character limit.
You've got less than an hour to post your defenses and rebuttals.
Good luck, and welcome to the site.
He tried to dox someone.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3024-public-moderation-log?page=2&post_number=42
Note: This debate concluded before the ban.
One day remains for voting.
It certainly would have benefited from a different topic selection.
Only three days remain for voting.
R1... Well played con, well played!
---RFD (1 of 3)---
For this debate on if combat units are better off if they exclude all women, pro was not able to sufficiently prove the merits of their case as applicable to all graduated female soldiers (as opposed to just random sampling of trainees). While pro repeatedly showed that female trainees are less effective than male combat veterans, this really doesn’t secure and hold the BoP to be applied to all female soldiers.
The biggest thing that could have improved this debate would have been better organization from pro in R2, seriously, I shouldn’t have to export your case into a word document and reformate it for you.
After that, comparisons using actual combat performance, rather than theoretical ones. While it was pro who pointed this out about cons case, his own case likewise suffered from this (albeit not as badly, seeing how he at least used military specific examples).
I should also mention that for definitions to be binding, they should be in the description. Granted, not much ambiguity in the language to really need them here.
Training and injury:
Pro shows that a high number of women are less suited than men at PT (and that is even with alternative standards). And further, when in training are more likely to be injured in trying (note: I lost several friends to this; and where there are various causes, it really boils down to it being an evil to not offer women some extra weeks of hardening training before boot camp).
Con points out that this is irrelevant due to combat units being composed of graduates from training.
Pro insists all members of military in combat units are just trainees (this is a painfully bad misunderstanding of his own data).
Pro doubles down with a focus on random soldiers in training instead of graduates, by making a big deal out of “CON concedes that significantly fewer women even pass the army fitness test.” Missing the core theme of con’s replies that a group doing worse on average in training are not all the people who will be even considered for a combat role.
Misc:
Pro argues that men usually do better at a bunch of stuff (reaction, taking action, etc.).
Much later pro adds in that boys get distracted by the presence of women.
Comparative:
Pro argues that male-only units perform better at a bunch of stuff evaluated. I've got to say, the focus on wall climbing abilities, implies other assorted jungle gym activities, which unless we redefine combat to kindergarten recess, is not nearly as strong point as pro most likely meant to it be.
---RFD (2 of 3)---
Monty Hall problem:
Con turns this around elegantly by pointing out that pro is speaking of averages among random unknowns from potential future soldiers, ignoring both that units are assembled from graduated soldiers, and further the existence of exceptional women whose abilities may be known.
Pro does a decent job defending that his data was from real world combat units (not real units, and not real combat, but still a decent defense). It fell apart at the end, and was magnified by his accusations that con was lying.
Unique value propositions:
Con brings up that women are better at relationships in workplace settings, which does apply to combat units (trust me, we don't just alternate between chewing bubblegum and kicking ass, there's a ton that needs to be accomplished in order to even get to combat).
Con adds to this an appeal that mixed units are less likely to commit war crimes.
Women apparently have better senses, so are better for guarding (indeed a common task for combat units).
Pro counters that one of cons studies used morale as a metric (presumably the military has no need for any of that?), and a better study would have focused on task completion (agreed on that, but highly disagreed on dismissing morale), and further the article did not seem scientific (catching this was good work on sources)... Pro goes on about this source for awhile...
Pro disputes cons claim that male soldiers have ever committed rape or other war crimes due to it not being sourced... Certain common knowledge stuff does not need to be cited, such as Australia existing, or who the current US president is…
Pro adds that it’s too rare to matter, and that it’s only due to having too high a percentage of men… Why challenge the claim, then agree with it but concede that the problem is due to too high a percentage of men?
“CON does not give a single example of which specific claim is sexist”:
Seriously? Please open a dictionary. For future debates I advise not getting off topic every time someone describes your case with a word you don’t like.
---RFD (3 of 3)---
Conduct:
Missed round.
Sources:
I wanted to favor pro on this, but his counters harmed themselves with being so scatter brained. E.g., quoting a source saying “cohesion” and then claiming con is lying about women being better at that, making me have to read the whole source to find that it used the word “collaboration” instead of cohesion (nearly synonymous words).
Con catches a huge flaw in pro’s sourcing, to which I double checked the source and will quote it directly: “many of of the male study participants had previously served in combat units, whereas female participants, by necessity, came directly from infantry schools or from noncombat jobs.” This seriously sealed everything, defusing so much that pro put emphasis on (had it not been implied earlier, I would likely dismiss it for being such a late addition).
Leaving sources tied due to good effort on both sides (even while leaning toward con in the end).
Legibility:
Weird formatting and dividers from pro, which made reading his case inorganic.
===
Such as if this replied to the above, instead of intuitively beginning another section.
But this is not a reply within the same section it's positioned
===
Oh, and this is sometimes to the above, but not always, sometimes it's a new section... This goes on, seriously harming the ability to track pro's case in R2.
Sorry to hear you were having technical difficulties. I suggest emptying your cache, and/or trying a different browser.
It is also advisable to challenge your opponent to a rematch, with R1 and the first half of R2 copy/pasted from this one.
With the debate not being too long, as this being a case of two juggernauts going head to head, I really hope this debate gets more votes.
Related to this topic, here is a very useful tool:
https://tiny.cc/Kritik
Previous debate on this topic:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2168-minecraft-steve-can-beat-any-ufc-fighter-in-a-fight
Not really. I've basically retired from debating, and I feel this debate would most likely boil down to semantics of definite threats.
While you're unlikely win at this point, I hope you're able to post something for the next round. There's no shame in losing as long as you make an honest effort.
Good first round, a shame about your opponent forfeiting.
You specially complained that moderators had not interceded in such an extreme controlling manner to prevent this debate from even being initiated.
"The CoC not only bans "criminal activity" but "promoting criminal activity" In fact a literal reading of the CoC would forbid arguing for a higher speed limit."
That is not how anyone else interprets the CoC. That you want to CoC to do things it doesn't do, doesn't make it so. You are of course welcome to initiate a referendum to refine any part of it you feel is in need of refinement.
Regarding your report that the very existence of this debate topic breaks the law:
It does not in any nation to which I am familiar.
Were either debater to reveal credible information that they have kidnapped someone with the intent to make them a slave, and moderators saw it (again, not every word posted here gets read and approved before it is displayed), the police would be notified.