It seems like you do not understand the word should, and if you wish to do well in future debates you should look up the definition of should.
https://www.google.com/search?q=should
Your sentence was in contradiction with itself, even if not the resolution (granted, it could be twisted into a partial concession thereof).
E.g.: I'm not saying people should take a certain course of action, I'm saying it's better if they do because of X Y and Z.
The should is strongly implied by virtue of the argument being that it's better, thus denying the should is contradictory.
What I suspect you meant to say is that you don't believe mixed units must be disbanded or any such thing, merely that they would be better off homogeneous.
I don't think the resolution calls for disbanding all mixed combat units. I was merely pointing out a noteworthy phrasing error in one of your paragraphs.
The contradiction is you are saying there is a better way to do something, while denying anyone should do things the better way. If it's better, that in it of itself implies that it ought to be done that way.
Your student example is an apples to oranges comparison, as one is talking about proficiency in a job to which they will still be employed at roughly the same pay regardless of where they are assigned, the other is denying people a basic education due to racism.
"Im not arguing that combat units should only contain men. Simply that it is better off for a combat unit to be comprised of men alone, than any other assortment of sexes."
I can't get through this debate, but from how far I got into it, I'll give a few impressions...
BoP:
Back and forth on this rarely holds my interest in debates... Pro wants con to have primary BoP, yet this is clearly setup as a comparative debate. He advances this notion by mocking unfalsifiable beliefs. Con's counter to this includes an attack on the source for "his liberal view on sex and marriage did not coincide with the Christian worldview"; which is a poor tactic to try to refute it as it merely distracts from the issues in question...
I really like the setup for this debate having pre-agreed argument lines, among them this was not included, and it does not merit equal consideration to them.
Both debaters will obviously reach minimal BoP for their ideas to be taken seriously. Granted, a whole debate could be had on who has BoP.
Contention I: Anti-Kalam Cosmological argument
Such a loaded bit like this, should probably be its own debate. Also, hard for this to go anywhere we haven't read a dozen times over. I assume pro will list a bunch of scientists and their conclusion, and con will pull the Jesus card.
Pro operates as predicted...
Con, please do better at organizing arguments. Any voter needs to follow eight distinct contentions, through three rounds, each round being up to 50K characters. We should be able to type "Kalam" into the search bar to find your rebuttals. I get shortening it down to "AKCA," however, the first time you do that you should expand it like so: 'Anti-Kalam Cosmological argument (AKCA).' That said, you make some very good points on the limits of science and the remaining unknowns.
A lot of the problem I generally see with this whole line, is it feels like an invite for voters to vote their bias, without touching on which is "more fair and practical" which I believe should be the core focus of this debate given the resolution and definitions.
Anyways, it's very late, and I'm off to bed. Best of luck to you both.
If arguing this again, I really suggest focusing on that good ol' death toll. Even a statistically insignificant number of dead people, has a staggering intrinsic weight. Whereas saying millions of children suffered (should have been billions), doesn't have nearly the same impact. Granted, harm to children could be bridged to massive long term harms in science if we have a dumb generation.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Tradesecret // Mod action: Removed
>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:
This vote is non-specific to the debate, failing to name even a single contention. Please do better.
Arguments must always be reviewed.
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.
**************************************************
Tradesecret
Added: 14 hours ago
#1
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
I really enjoyed this debate although at times I got lost with the format. Both participants demonstrated excellent conduct and acquitted themselves admirably. the question of sources is a little contestable in my view - nevertheless, the participants both seemed at ease with this process and with the discussions as well.
I found I fell down on the side of Con - probably as I am more disposed towards the weight of his arguments. Pro however did not let himself down and gave lots of room for consideration of his POV.
For time you could have gained some ground with increased focus on opportunity cost. I don't think you would have won per cee, but you could have made it a lot closer.
I also suggest pre-loading definitions into the description, that way they are pre-agreed (some people will try to change them, but that's usually an obviously bastardly move).
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: FLRW // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 6 to con
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Basically you're crossing the line into vote bomb territory, as if trying to outweigh another vote without giving reasons for the assignments (doubly so for conduct, as the person you indicated had vastly superior conduct forfeited a round). Further, a vote really should be more than just quoting one of the debaters.
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
**************************************************
FLRW
Added: 2 hours ago
#2
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Pro says Con's argument is growing weaker by each round and it is very illogical. Con actually counters this by a number of statements including this one: I countered pillar 2 with the idea that not only has the recommendation algorithm remained in place (and it takes dislikes into account) but that it's often 'smarter' about an individual's taste than they expect. In other words, to put my previous 2 Rounds together, I am asserting that there is such a thing as content that people will like that many disliked, which they cannot know they'd dislike for sure without viewing it. The only real thing influencing them seeing it faster and more expectant of high content should be either that it had many views and likes or that they got recommended it via the YouTube algorithm.
In case I come back to finish voting on this, here is the start to a review (read into R3).
1. Audience review -- Video quality
Pro argues that the ratio serves as an effective review, which the absence can be harmful for tutorial videos.
Con adds that the dislikes were already hidden before opening the video, so very disliked videos still get viewed; and further that videos are art, so we shouldn't base our opinion on it on a bandwagon. And finally that the increased engagement of negative comments (which unless I'm mistaken can be upvoted) toward bad videos are encouraged by hiding the main dislike counter (pro has pre-defended this by pointing out that creators can disable comments).
Pro asserts that the dislike ratio defines if a video is good or not.
2. Encouragement of Bad Content
Pro seems to propose that any video with too many dislikes should be automatically deleted, to save YouTube employees from having to manually review them.
3. Youtube is a hypocrite
This gets immediately muddled, as pro accuses YouTube of removing it to hide their own shame at a disliked video, and further that the existence of dislike attacks is a myth. Further they apparently already brought it back (which would invalidate the resolution, since they can't bring back what they already brought back).
Pro repeats his request for proof.
4. Peer Pressure
Con asserts we shouldn't be pressured into disliking a video.
Pro compares watching YouTube videos to purchases on Amazon (and claims to have done so in R1, which I am not spotting).
5. Recommended videos
Con asserts a band wagon effect of dislikes, which unfairly prevents videos from being suggested to other potential watchers.
Pro repeats his request for proof, and tying to point 1 shows a bad tutorial video.
6. Uploaders don't want to flex dislikes
Enough said.
7. Uploaders can still see the count
Con asserts that it is made more accurate due to not having the bandwagon effect, which can in turn still motivate them to make better videos.
Pro asserts that a more powerful motivator would be the public shame.
"Holding down a job or running a successful business is not easy at all and requires learning, responding, planning, social skills and all manner of executive functions. Therefore, my opponent's suggestion that managing financial resources has nothing to do with parents' psychology is simply untrue."
Note the word planning in the above, with direct connections to men being better with money therefore psychologically better suited to raise children. Which you repeated at the end for emphasis:
"Empathy and praise are nice, but they are certainly not the only psychological attributes that contribute to raising kids. Planning skills, fortitude and reason are also important."
...
You deny you moved from logic to emotion, and admit that you indeed made the appeal about the cold starving children, but deny that such an appeal of basically 'think of the children!' has anything to do with pathos... Need I even say it?
"I would never argue that men are better planners,"
You may want to Ctrl+F your own arguments.
In R2 I thought you would win. Then pro made a comeback, and you chose to just drop that he had flipped your best source and argument to be directly against you. Yes, you moved to a pathos appeal of imagined cold hungry children, but those don't work on everyone. Moving from logic to pure emotion and dropping so much at a critical time, IMO cost you the debate.
I passed that vote along to other moderators. These days I pretty much only handle votes if they are very clear cut one way or another. I will say it is unlikely to be removed, as it passes the smell test, so is most likely borderline at worst (borderline votes are by default not removed). But the actual decision on that will come from another moderator who will probably get more in depth.
I should add that different aspects of a debate stand out to different readers, and (in most cases) one voting one way does not challenge the validity of another voting a different way.
I advise some level of conciseness to the contentions. It should be simple to show if something was done, or was not done, or even was not done when it should have been.
Due to you forfeiting the entire debate, votes placed against you are not eligible for moderation (barring extreme circumstances). I am marking them all as handled.
From the voting policy:
"wholly tied votes are generally considered borderline and not removed, due to their lack of any meaningful impact on the outcome. Still, if they fail to be better than spam, they will be removed."
Granted, had that vote assigned any points, its lack of any analysis would be a huge problem.
Previous debate on this topic:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3194-suppose-there-is-a-monkey-on-a-pole-constantly-facing-a-man-the-man-walks-around-the-pole-such-man-did-not-go-around-the-monkey
While dislikes can be misused, a display of their number can be very informative. I defend YouTube's right to change the display, and it may work out for the betterment of their site, but short term it seems a step backward.
I ran out of time before starting work, so hard to keep that brief. My point was that I was impressed by how he articulated so much, seemingly without any chance for air pressure to return to his lungs to fuel said articulation.
Good luck on this debate. It's the first time in awhile I've been genuinely tempted to accept one; but I have to remind myself that I retired for good reasons, and this is going to be a busy few weeks for me with work.
Unchallenged in the debate, but it's not known if they actually killed the drop-outs. When the game ended, player #1 had not died, nor had player #456; yet if trusting the count as actually being per player death, they should have been dead. It seems to me the money is actually a fixed amount, with increases during the game just being one more way to mess with the players.
"Should either side forfeit every round or every round after their initial arguments (waiving is not an argument), the debate is considered a Full Forfeiture,"
I do advise against the semantic tactic of benefits not being 100% assured (unless you add "definitely" into the resolution). That said, that there are costs in trying to reach whatever space destination, are absolutely assured, and the weight of many of the benefits are somewhat mitigated by uncertainty.
From the voting policy:
Should either side forfeit every round or every round after their initial arguments (waiving is not an argument), the debate is considered a Full Forfeiture, and any majority votes against the absent side are not moderated (a vote may still be cast in their favor of the absentee, but is eligible for moderation to verify that it is justified via the normal voting standards).
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#forfeitures
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: 949havoc // Mod action: Not Removed (non-moderated debate)
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 7 to con
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
This debate clearly falls into one or more category of non-moderated debate, 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
Any unexcused forfeited round merits an automatic conduct loss, but arguments must still be voted on or justified as a tie. Repeated forfeitures waives the need to consider arguments (you still may, but by the choice of one side to miss at least 40% of the debate, the requirement ceases. And yes, this does apply to Choose Winner, which otherwise would not allow conduct to be the sole determinant).
Should either side forfeit every round or every round after their initial arguments (waiving is not an argument), the debate is considered a Full Forfeiture, and any majority votes against the absent side are not moderated (a vote may still be cast in their favor of the absentee, but is eligible for moderation to verify that it is justified via the normal voting standards).
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#forfeitures
**************************************************
Regarding this website in particular:
Alternative tally result systems would actually be pretty easy to implement. That said, it's an apples to oranges comparison. Voting here isn't about popularity and people trying to express support for something (thankfully fluffer voting blocs never got going here), it's a series of hopefully rational judgements in which people are supposed to vote against who they want to win when said person has a comparatively poor case.
It seems like you do not understand the word should, and if you wish to do well in future debates you should look up the definition of should.
https://www.google.com/search?q=should
Your sentence was in contradiction with itself, even if not the resolution (granted, it could be twisted into a partial concession thereof).
E.g.: I'm not saying people should take a certain course of action, I'm saying it's better if they do because of X Y and Z.
The should is strongly implied by virtue of the argument being that it's better, thus denying the should is contradictory.
What I suspect you meant to say is that you don't believe mixed units must be disbanded or any such thing, merely that they would be better off homogeneous.
I don't think the resolution calls for disbanding all mixed combat units. I was merely pointing out a noteworthy phrasing error in one of your paragraphs.
The contradiction is you are saying there is a better way to do something, while denying anyone should do things the better way. If it's better, that in it of itself implies that it ought to be done that way.
Your student example is an apples to oranges comparison, as one is talking about proficiency in a job to which they will still be employed at roughly the same pay regardless of where they are assigned, the other is denying people a basic education due to racism.
"Im not arguing that combat units should only contain men. Simply that it is better off for a combat unit to be comprised of men alone, than any other assortment of sexes."
Bit of a contradiction there.
Having been in a combat unit, having a female medic with us allowed for searches of female detainees.
I can't get through this debate, but from how far I got into it, I'll give a few impressions...
BoP:
Back and forth on this rarely holds my interest in debates... Pro wants con to have primary BoP, yet this is clearly setup as a comparative debate. He advances this notion by mocking unfalsifiable beliefs. Con's counter to this includes an attack on the source for "his liberal view on sex and marriage did not coincide with the Christian worldview"; which is a poor tactic to try to refute it as it merely distracts from the issues in question...
I really like the setup for this debate having pre-agreed argument lines, among them this was not included, and it does not merit equal consideration to them.
Both debaters will obviously reach minimal BoP for their ideas to be taken seriously. Granted, a whole debate could be had on who has BoP.
Contention I: Anti-Kalam Cosmological argument
Such a loaded bit like this, should probably be its own debate. Also, hard for this to go anywhere we haven't read a dozen times over. I assume pro will list a bunch of scientists and their conclusion, and con will pull the Jesus card.
Pro operates as predicted...
Con, please do better at organizing arguments. Any voter needs to follow eight distinct contentions, through three rounds, each round being up to 50K characters. We should be able to type "Kalam" into the search bar to find your rebuttals. I get shortening it down to "AKCA," however, the first time you do that you should expand it like so: 'Anti-Kalam Cosmological argument (AKCA).' That said, you make some very good points on the limits of science and the remaining unknowns.
A lot of the problem I generally see with this whole line, is it feels like an invite for voters to vote their bias, without touching on which is "more fair and practical" which I believe should be the core focus of this debate given the resolution and definitions.
Anyways, it's very late, and I'm off to bed. Best of luck to you both.
If arguing this again, I really suggest focusing on that good ol' death toll. Even a statistically insignificant number of dead people, has a staggering intrinsic weight. Whereas saying millions of children suffered (should have been billions), doesn't have nearly the same impact. Granted, harm to children could be bridged to massive long term harms in science if we have a dumb generation.
I have a job interview I am prepping for today, so I will not have time to vote.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Tradesecret // Mod action: Removed
>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:
This vote is non-specific to the debate, failing to name even a single contention. Please do better.
Arguments must always be reviewed.
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.
**************************************************
Tradesecret
Added: 14 hours ago
#1
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
I really enjoyed this debate although at times I got lost with the format. Both participants demonstrated excellent conduct and acquitted themselves admirably. the question of sources is a little contestable in my view - nevertheless, the participants both seemed at ease with this process and with the discussions as well.
I found I fell down on the side of Con - probably as I am more disposed towards the weight of his arguments. Pro however did not let himself down and gave lots of room for consideration of his POV.
thanks gentlemen for the debate.
I have a bad feeling about where this will go...
You have a rather large barrier to victory with the doubts on if time can actually be sacrificed.
As for mixed enjoyment and non-enjoyment... That resembles an investment instead of a sacrifice.
You're welcome. And very good point about distractions.
For time you could have gained some ground with increased focus on opportunity cost. I don't think you would have won per cee, but you could have made it a lot closer.
I also suggest pre-loading definitions into the description, that way they are pre-agreed (some people will try to change them, but that's usually an obviously bastardly move).
Glancing at this; but there's not enough time left for me to give a fair and proper evaluation.
Regarding the request to not vote on this one, I have changed it to unrated to make any tied votes affect nothing.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: FLRW // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 6 to con
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Basically you're crossing the line into vote bomb territory, as if trying to outweigh another vote without giving reasons for the assignments (doubly so for conduct, as the person you indicated had vastly superior conduct forfeited a round). Further, a vote really should be more than just quoting one of the debaters.
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
**************************************************
FLRW
Added: 2 hours ago
#2
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Pro says Con's argument is growing weaker by each round and it is very illogical. Con actually counters this by a number of statements including this one: I countered pillar 2 with the idea that not only has the recommendation algorithm remained in place (and it takes dislikes into account) but that it's often 'smarter' about an individual's taste than they expect. In other words, to put my previous 2 Rounds together, I am asserting that there is such a thing as content that people will like that many disliked, which they cannot know they'd dislike for sure without viewing it. The only real thing influencing them seeing it faster and more expectant of high content should be either that it had many views and likes or that they got recommended it via the YouTube algorithm.
In case I come back to finish voting on this, here is the start to a review (read into R3).
1. Audience review -- Video quality
Pro argues that the ratio serves as an effective review, which the absence can be harmful for tutorial videos.
Con adds that the dislikes were already hidden before opening the video, so very disliked videos still get viewed; and further that videos are art, so we shouldn't base our opinion on it on a bandwagon. And finally that the increased engagement of negative comments (which unless I'm mistaken can be upvoted) toward bad videos are encouraged by hiding the main dislike counter (pro has pre-defended this by pointing out that creators can disable comments).
Pro asserts that the dislike ratio defines if a video is good or not.
2. Encouragement of Bad Content
Pro seems to propose that any video with too many dislikes should be automatically deleted, to save YouTube employees from having to manually review them.
3. Youtube is a hypocrite
This gets immediately muddled, as pro accuses YouTube of removing it to hide their own shame at a disliked video, and further that the existence of dislike attacks is a myth. Further they apparently already brought it back (which would invalidate the resolution, since they can't bring back what they already brought back).
Pro repeats his request for proof.
4. Peer Pressure
Con asserts we shouldn't be pressured into disliking a video.
Pro compares watching YouTube videos to purchases on Amazon (and claims to have done so in R1, which I am not spotting).
5. Recommended videos
Con asserts a band wagon effect of dislikes, which unfairly prevents videos from being suggested to other potential watchers.
Pro repeats his request for proof, and tying to point 1 shows a bad tutorial video.
6. Uploaders don't want to flex dislikes
Enough said.
7. Uploaders can still see the count
Con asserts that it is made more accurate due to not having the bandwagon effect, which can in turn still motivate them to make better videos.
Pro asserts that a more powerful motivator would be the public shame.
"Holding down a job or running a successful business is not easy at all and requires learning, responding, planning, social skills and all manner of executive functions. Therefore, my opponent's suggestion that managing financial resources has nothing to do with parents' psychology is simply untrue."
Note the word planning in the above, with direct connections to men being better with money therefore psychologically better suited to raise children. Which you repeated at the end for emphasis:
"Empathy and praise are nice, but they are certainly not the only psychological attributes that contribute to raising kids. Planning skills, fortitude and reason are also important."
...
You deny you moved from logic to emotion, and admit that you indeed made the appeal about the cold starving children, but deny that such an appeal of basically 'think of the children!' has anything to do with pathos... Need I even say it?
"I would never argue that men are better planners,"
You may want to Ctrl+F your own arguments.
In R2 I thought you would win. Then pro made a comeback, and you chose to just drop that he had flipped your best source and argument to be directly against you. Yes, you moved to a pathos appeal of imagined cold hungry children, but those don't work on everyone. Moving from logic to pure emotion and dropping so much at a critical time, IMO cost you the debate.
I passed that vote along to other moderators. These days I pretty much only handle votes if they are very clear cut one way or another. I will say it is unlikely to be removed, as it passes the smell test, so is most likely borderline at worst (borderline votes are by default not removed). But the actual decision on that will come from another moderator who will probably get more in depth.
I should add that different aspects of a debate stand out to different readers, and (in most cases) one voting one way does not challenge the validity of another voting a different way.
Removing your vote so that you have the option to recast it, as you clearly had a typo in the point selection.
Reason:
Con wins primarily, by virtue of their better argument.
But one must also take into account Pro's lazy use of the space key.........Pimplies Q for example.
And their ultimate forfeiture.
"what does CON need to prove?"
That is for each voter to decide for themselves. There's too much nuance in types of resolutions to easily codify it.
That said, I see some qualifiers in the description that it is not trying to say 100% of the time but rather just a strong majority of the time.
It's a fine idea. I don't know how feasible it would be given the resource constraints, but it would probably be a net benefit.
I advise some level of conciseness to the contentions. It should be simple to show if something was done, or was not done, or even was not done when it should have been.
In debating any two figures and neither of them are named Biden, talking about Biden gets you no points.
Due to you forfeiting the entire debate, votes placed against you are not eligible for moderation (barring extreme circumstances). I am marking them all as handled.
From the voting policy:
"wholly tied votes are generally considered borderline and not removed, due to their lack of any meaningful impact on the outcome. Still, if they fail to be better than spam, they will be removed."
Granted, had that vote assigned any points, its lack of any analysis would be a huge problem.
Certainly hard to call it a real debate. That said, jumping to negative conclusions about the intent without any pattern, seems overly hasty.
Core would be another good option for consideration (basically Roblox in the Fortnite graphics engine).
I'll try to vote on this one.
Previous debate on this topic:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3194-suppose-there-is-a-monkey-on-a-pole-constantly-facing-a-man-the-man-walks-around-the-pole-such-man-did-not-go-around-the-monkey
While dislikes can be misused, a display of their number can be very informative. I defend YouTube's right to change the display, and it may work out for the betterment of their site, but short term it seems a step backward.
I ran out of time before starting work, so hard to keep that brief. My point was that I was impressed by how he articulated so much, seemingly without any chance for air pressure to return to his lungs to fuel said articulation.
Good luck on this debate. It's the first time in awhile I've been genuinely tempted to accept one; but I have to remind myself that I retired for good reasons, and this is going to be a busy few weeks for me with work.
Unchallenged in the debate, but it's not known if they actually killed the drop-outs. When the game ended, player #1 had not died, nor had player #456; yet if trusting the count as actually being per player death, they should have been dead. It seems to me the money is actually a fixed amount, with increases during the game just being one more way to mess with the players.
Entirely subjective to the definition of exist.
For the 3rd time...
"Should either side forfeit every round or every round after their initial arguments (waiving is not an argument), the debate is considered a Full Forfeiture,"
What rounds besides the third are you claiming pro did not forfeit?
Good luck with your debate.
I do advise against the semantic tactic of benefits not being 100% assured (unless you add "definitely" into the resolution). That said, that there are costs in trying to reach whatever space destination, are absolutely assured, and the weight of many of the benefits are somewhat mitigated by uncertainty.
Pro only showed up for one round.
From the voting policy:
Should either side forfeit every round or every round after their initial arguments (waiving is not an argument), the debate is considered a Full Forfeiture, and any majority votes against the absent side are not moderated (a vote may still be cast in their favor of the absentee, but is eligible for moderation to verify that it is justified via the normal voting standards).
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#forfeitures
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: 949havoc // Mod action: Not Removed (non-moderated debate)
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 7 to con
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
This debate clearly falls into one or more category of non-moderated debate, 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
Any unexcused forfeited round merits an automatic conduct loss, but arguments must still be voted on or justified as a tie. Repeated forfeitures waives the need to consider arguments (you still may, but by the choice of one side to miss at least 40% of the debate, the requirement ceases. And yes, this does apply to Choose Winner, which otherwise would not allow conduct to be the sole determinant).
Should either side forfeit every round or every round after their initial arguments (waiving is not an argument), the debate is considered a Full Forfeiture, and any majority votes against the absent side are not moderated (a vote may still be cast in their favor of the absentee, but is eligible for moderation to verify that it is justified via the normal voting standards).
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#forfeitures
**************************************************
Good luck on your first debate.
I highly advise adding a second round, so that you can defend whatever case you make. Right now, it's going to be nearly an automatic loss for you.
Regarding this website in particular:
Alternative tally result systems would actually be pretty easy to implement. That said, it's an apples to oranges comparison. Voting here isn't about popularity and people trying to express support for something (thankfully fluffer voting blocs never got going here), it's a series of hopefully rational judgements in which people are supposed to vote against who they want to win when said person has a comparatively poor case.
While obsessing over something from so very long ago, you're also committing to a rather obvious false dilemma.
How many obvious spam debates did fauxlaw accept from paper12? And what evidence is there to suggest fauxlaw knew paper12 would be banned?
Currently all signs point to fauxlaw having accepted this single debate in good faith.
But why would the monkey's perspective be greater than the man's or the world beyond?
Welcome to the site.
This debate could use some scope statements. Such as "assuming Jesus exists as shown in the Bible."
Sounds boring and possibly dead.