Any source is a reference to outside content. The debaters citing them, is how they should enter consideration for voters. The voting policy stuff against outside content, is in reference to stuff not cited within the debate rounds.
I'm into creative writing, and showcasing a couple of the religions I've designed for my stories could be fun, they contextually wouldn't fit (they're part of the world I write, making sense there, but would certainly not have appeal to convert anyone here).
My point isn't to make you feel bad, it's criticism which should be able to help you grow.
Oh just had an idea for if doing this again and someone mentions the Netflix movie: twist such around using sexy chess clips from said movie, thereby giving the audience a reason to prefer Chess (I do strongly prefer chess, but I do my best to check my feelings at the door when reviewing a debate).
Here is a round by round development of my analysis...
R1:
I.
Pro: Chess is old and popular.
Con: Go is also old.
II.
Pro: Chess is popular.
Con: Chess would have died if not for Covid and Netflix.
III.
Con: Chess is not the "ultimate logic board game" (pro did not make that claim, as much as he probably should have). This is because Go has vastly more possible moves, resulting in it being much harder; and subsequently better AI's are developed for it.
R2:
I.
Pro R1: Chess is old and popular.
Con R1: Go is also old.
II.
Pro R1: Chess is popular.
Con R1: Chess would have died if not for Covid and Netflix.
III.
Con R1: Chess is not the "ultimate logic board game" (pro did not make that claim, as much as he probably should have). This is because Go has vastly more possible moves, resulting in it being much harder; and subsequently better AI's are developed for it.
Pro R2: Never spoke so highly of chess, and some replies to the comment section? Then an assertion that complexity marks an inferior game... Ah the complexity of the AI means players aren't able to learn from it as well with a YouTube blogger a source (seriously, this is against an explanation of chess computers using brute force instead of on the spot learning which Go computers use).
R3:
I.
Pro R1: Chess is old and popular.
Con R1: Go is also old.
II.
Pro R1: Chess is popular.
Con R1: Chess would have died if not for Covid and Netflix.
III.
Con R1: Chess is not the "ultimate logic board game" (pro did not make that claim, as much as he probably should have). This is because Go has vastly more possible moves, resulting in it being much harder; and subsequently better AI's are developed for it.
Pro R2: Never spoke so highly of chess, and some replies to the comment section? Then an assertion that complexity marks an inferior game which takes longer to play... Ah the complexity of the AI means players aren't able to learn from it as well with a YouTube blogger a source (seriously, this is against an explanation of chess computers using brute force instead of on the actual learning which Go computers use).
Con R2: Forfeiture.
Pro R3: Extend... (while new arguments were not allowed, expansion of the computer point to put the chess point into the lead would have been ideal)
Con R3: Forfeiture.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Intelligence_06 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: conduct to con
>Reason for Decision: forfeiting most of the rounds is not something to do in a debating match.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter scored points to the inverse of their own analysis. The vote has been removed to enable them to revote at their discretion.
**************************************************
With LinkedIn on here, it's basically a truism. LinkedIn is a job hunting website; with it on there the question could likewise be if employers should look at resumes... Therefore I advise not only removing LinkedIn from the list, but further specifying that it is outside the scope.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: gugigor // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 to pro.
>Reason for Decision:
NOTE: This is a vote to TIE the debate. Feel free to delete this when Zed-victor's vote has been deleted.
RFD in comments
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2978/comment-links/39375
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2978/comment-links/39376
>Reason for Mod Action:
While attempting to counter a perceived vote bomb (which indeed is under review), you created such a clear vote bomb that it doesn't even need discussion in the moderator channel.
Seriously, just tag the vote moderators in a comment as a reminder of your report, and if you want to be really good about it say why you believe a vote falls short of the standard.
As is your vote violates the outside content clause, by being based upon another vote (even to counter it).
**************************************************
The description specifies that being fine:
"Pick a different girl to advocate against mine or defend his hypothetical need for celebacy for the sake of the mission as his best canon relationship if you want. Or make Fredrick Wertham into a prophet and makes a cursed arguement for Robin. Whatever youd find the most entertaining."
I'm seriously surprised my vote hasn't been outweighed by a bunch of others yet. If it gets to within a few days like this, remind me and I'll reevaluate.
"You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means"
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/you-keep-using-that-word-i-do-not-think-it-means-what-you-think-it-means
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ragnar // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: Conduct to con.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Someone seriously reported this? Wow!
I'm not going to bother asking MisterChris to fairly and impartially review the vote, as there's nothing subjective about the vote point allocation to be contested.
From the voting policy:
"The disrespect of even a single forfeiture necessitates this penalty unless there is reason to withhold it. Repeated forfeitures are grounds for casting conduct only votes without any consideration to arguments (continued in Forfeitures)."
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#conduct
**************************************************
There are so many obvious non-sequiturs... I'll never forget when the Neo-Nazi argued that whites are too weak and infirm to survive on their own, which begs some obvious questions about white colonization (which I am not saying it's good that they did that; merely that it'd be impossible if they were too busy being dead from lack of slaves to feed them and such).
Already feels like this debate will shift focus to the rules in the description > the actual topic.
"A debate may have special rules specified within the description. These are not strictly enforced by moderation, but a voter may choose to abide. If a voter is choosing to and there was a challenge to said rules within the debate, some analysis of that challenge is highly suggested."
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#further-notes
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: drlebronski // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 7 to pro.
>Reason for Decision: "The arguments were irrelevant, but pro managed to express herself in a more professional fashion."
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
As with comment #10, voting privileges are revoked until further notice (this is applied to both brothers, a junk debate like this should not count for unlocking voting privileges anyway).
While brothers may use the site together, it's literally outlined in the Code of Conduct not to use such exploitatively by voting on each others debates, and to then cast such a clear vote bomb... Not spam debating each other should go without saying (right now I would say not debating each other at all, until a little more maturity is shown).
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/rules#user-accounts
**************************************************
To be clear, I believe the resolution dealt with "Proof of COVID vaccination," as opposed to mandatory vaccination in it of itself. If a desired debate is that we shouldn't force everyone to get the currently available vaccines, that is what the resolution should be.
IMO if the vaccine is good or bad, people already have it. A debate on proving you already have it, should focus on that instead of if it was a mistake to get it.
The description needs more depth. Seriously, a debate like this could come down to definitions, so making them a point of contention leads to needless confusion. Similarly making BoP declarations after the start, is risky, as they are likewise open to contention when not pre-agreed.
---
Con says humans should not be judged due to their limited information, but God should be due to his unlimited information. … Fair enough (pun intended).
Arguments start with God sending people to hell. Good use of limited crime vs unlimited consequence. He then declares that adultery equals hell (I expect pro to counter with better context, but in my haste I did not spot it). It moves on to Jesus cautioning against calling people fools, and him having actually done just that. He then plays the other side, that maybe everyone does deserve hell, arguing that it would then be wrong to not send people there. Then a touch of comedy with God sinning against Jesus.
Pro focuses on humanity, and how we should judge humans instead of God. Explains that God does things not as punishments, for he will only punish later, at some unknown time. Then moves on to point out that since the bible says God is righteous, therefore God is righteous (obviously as this is the only source of information on God, it can’t be dismissed out of hand as con argued in his opening).
---
Sorry to say it, but this is not holding my attention, and I have so much more to do with my limited time this weekend (just started a new job, so I'll be voting a lot less in general).
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: TheUnderdog // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: conduct to con
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Due to only being two rounds, the single forfeiture makes this debate fall into the full forfeiture category.
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
**************************************************
By starting this debate, you asked someone to assert that kids are simple minded within the confines of the argument. Further, nothing in how he framed his points implies even a dislike (let alone hatred) for anyone of any age. Please don't attempt to drag someone's name through the mud without warrant; even more so in the comments where it could be taken for trying to get pity votes.
Your behavior in the comments, is showing difficultly with: informed decisions, planning skills, and an unsophisticated logical framework with regards to applying it. (quotes from con's argument, which you are choosing to emulate).
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded:
>Reason for Decision:
>Reason for Mod Action:
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Sum1hugme // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: none
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
The vote references comments #13 https://www.debateart.com/debates/3024/comment-links/37747
and comment #15 https://www.debateart.com/debates/3024/comment-links/38067
While usually comments shouldn't be factored into votes, both debaters calling it a tie in the comments seems fair game (the main point of vote moderation is to ensure things are fair to them, so no issue here).
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: whiteflame // Mod action: Not Removed (borderline)
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: arguments and sources to con.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Of course this is already outside the voting period. From the voting policy: "For cases of suspected malicious voting patterns, votes may be reviewed up to one month after voting has concluded." This is not such a case. However, I'll review what's there anyway...
The argument allotment makes sense, the voter bought the moral framework and value offered in artistic freedom, over the slippery slope. There's a couple things that could be nitpicked, but it would still pass muster without hesitation.
Sources gives a hesitation, due to not dotting the i's and crossing the t's so to speak. While it is clear on why the award, it does not spell out any specific source from con; even while mentioning better utilization. It does spell out a couple specific ones from pro, and names lack of applicability. I'd most likely still let it stand, even if I prefer seeing a source from each side named to make my job less difficult.
**************************************************
My understanding is that it uses pretty standard formulas if a voted tie, so not as much of a shift as if there were a winner, but still some shift. So pro's 1688 would drop slightly, and con's 1551 would increase slightly.
The debaters may of course request to have debates changed from rated to unrated and vice versa, so long as the voting period has not concluded.
Finished R1, and written some preliminaries from it.
I'll try to come back during the weekend.
I suggest reading at least R1 of the following debate, which while not having the best arguments (they're intentionally comical), does show how to be concise and clearly build interconnected points: https://www.debateart.com/debates/3090-roman-catholicism-is-false
I have not read the specific arguments to this case yet, nor are they even quite finished unless I'm mistaken.
I advise distilling points down in general terms, as even at a glance this debate is using far more characters than it most likely needs (which makes it less likely to attract any voters). I literally copy/pasted the syllogism samples from the guide, to which I highly doubt Monty Python comes up inside this debate.
Next time defining a couple key terms in the description, would be very ideal.
Probably too late for this debate, but simple syllogisms for key determinants would be useful to distill things down. Such as...
I offer this simple Modus Ponens (“mode of affirming”) refutation of pro’s case:
P1: If she weighs the same as a duck, then she’s a witch.
P2: She weighs the same as a duck.
C1: Therefore, she’s a witch!
OR
I offer this simple Modus Tollens (“mode of taking”) refutation of pro’s case:
P1: If she’s human, then she must weigh more than a duck.
P2: She does not weigh more than a duck.
C1: Therefore, she’s not human!
She Weighs The Same As A Duck (P2)
This video proves she weighs as much as a duck, thus affirming P2. Since the logical syllogism is valid, this affirms the whole argument in favor of burning her.
NOT
I offer this simple Affirming The Consequent refutation of pro’s case:
P1: If she’s a witch, then we burn her!
P2: We burnt her!
C1: Therefore, she must have been a witch!
I suggest changing "could" to “most likely,” and give con the BoP of most likely harmful. A tie of course would then be implied as the outcome being indeterminate.
Below is my thought stream from as I read the debate. It supplements supports the RFD I'll be posting in a bit.
---(1 of 4)---
Trying to give fair feedback, unsure if this will lead to a score assignment. That said, having not gotten the benefits of public school (or literally any pre-college education), I am a rare impartial person to this topic.
First of all, a strong setup. In gist, pro is arguing for an option to be available. The only problem with it is the danger of a truism (all unreasonable still banned, so any precise application could be called unreasonable… I don’t think that tactic will be used, as good examples of unreasonable ones were given). On that note, good to see clearly identifies competing burdens.
R1 (initial cases):
Pro makes it clear that he is talking theoretically, without any precise form of it in mind (presumably not the bees or whatever he had in the description).
Pro builds that the currently applied treatments enhance the problems and deny the students an education, so a compounded harm without benefit. Then nicely magnified with details on the consequences to them later. An over the top bit with them more likely to kill themselves as a result (on that one I had to check the source, yup, the implications and causations are not well established, but the bullet point is there on the findings).
Having well established the problem, pro moves on to his suggested solution. He immediately gives evidence for lack of lasting harm from it (at least in one form of it), and points to the lack of evidence in favor of a ban (giving research papers as evidence of the lack of evidence… well played). He ends it with some anecdotal evidence of student testimonials in favor of it over other the current status quo method.
Overall, a clear case from pro, which at least initially allows him to meet his BoP (if he does it better than con, is TBD).
Con opens with a statement to the effect that it shouldn’t even be considered due to the harm it causes, and that teachers do not care about children (at least not more than their hourly wage).
Apparently we should just leave it up to God to fix the discipline problems…
He gets better with children self motivating.
He proposes an alternative system of a judicial committee which meets every day, which is not allowed to inflict any form of punishment. He outlines that there is no risk of any harm from this system… With this the debate could get really good, since we can compare the benefits and harms under each proposed system.
He builds a case against punishment systems from the 19th century (which pro will no doubt explain were not within the scope of reasonable). Then moves on to what looks like an appeal to replace the whole school system? It got deep into flowering imagery at the end, so I could have misread that.
At the end of this round, pro is well in the lead. I suspect con’s tactics would have worked really well in a speech, but I’m a highly educated numbers guy. I appreciate quick references to great philosophers, but not as much as scientific research into the subject matter.
R2 (pure rebuttals):
Pro is quick to define punishment within common usage, so as to identify that pro’s plan which offers the benefit of zero punishments actually contains punishments as pro has described it, along with submission to authority (another of pro’s benefits was getting away from that mindset). Pro does a hard counter to con’s claim that punishment cannot ever be justified, both in general terms to the two types of punishment (forward or backward looking), as well as to the context of children.
Pro gives examples of why it can be necessary to combat disruptive behaviors for the good of all other students in a class wishing to learn.
Pro targets con’s lack of evidence that his proposed system would net the promised benefits.
Pro counters the need of society, by pointing to workplace activity monitoring, to suggest an instilled sense of discipline is needed throughout life in our society.
Con blaims all of pro’s states problems on the increased punishments in schools after the removal of corporal punishment, and makes a very risky statement to a debate like this: “The problem isn't the means of punishment, but rather the use of punishment itself.”
He slides in an anti-Trump pathos appeal (“make American schools great again”).
He pulls out a good source for why his proposal is superior (really would have preferred that in R1, to build it up initially). And another which uses some good data mining on the status quo vs another system, to which an alternative to the status quo came ahead on several metrics including standardized test scores.
He notably does not use any source (saying “common sense” is a source, does not raise something above an assertion) when claiming the intent of corporal punishment is to harm the childen, rather than to seek any improvement. He cites that a paper cites it’s a proven cause, which much as I nitpicked the suicide claim earlier, the abstract to said paper states “ whether causal conclusions can be drawn from this largely nonexperimental research and whether the conclusions generalize across contexts are issues that remain unresolved.” Then ironically moves on to disputing what pro’s sources said, and should really really use some direct quotes for verifications (checking for “Optimism” I found it clearly in the table of contents for the one it was stated to not be in, but that big one about punishment should be done by families, that one could have sealed the debate were it cited better… like the cherry picking done for the CNN source (one which was giving both sides arguments, but still a good catch)).
On the edge. Very curious how each will defend their cases.
R3 (defense and closing statements):
Pro lays out several voting issues, one that really pops out is: “Likewise, CON provided no evidence illustrating that without punishment, the status quo's harms would be solved.”
Pro reiterates that con’s proposal of blame the existence of punishments so replace them with different punishments, is still just that, punishments.
He repeats that he’s not talking about random torture as a motivator.
Sources defense (could have been more detailed as per quotations, but decent). On this I must say, with Gershoff having been discredited in R1, con really should not have turned to them as a key source.
And more reiteration, such as one of con’s core contentions being any punishment is completely unjustifiable.
Con disagrees with anything he proposes being able to be called punishment.
Con denies pro ever showed that punishment can be justified, because we must leave all punishment to God to handle…
Some slippery slope hyperboles (not sure if I mentioned them enough above, but they’ve been seeded throughout).
A list of harms, some of which I clearly remember pro directly challenging earlier (like with sources about the lack of long term harm).
Some more copy paste, like his claims against teachers, insistence that the other one’s source support him (I think both are doing this a lot), and of course the claim that if pro is right we’ll all be living in a dystopian nightmare of mindless obedience.
I am going to sleep on this, but con has lost a lot of credibility to his side with the outlandish claims.
Not quite yet in the voting period.
Any source is a reference to outside content. The debaters citing them, is how they should enter consideration for voters. The voting policy stuff against outside content, is in reference to stuff not cited within the debate rounds.
I'm into creative writing, and showcasing a couple of the religions I've designed for my stories could be fun, they contextually wouldn't fit (they're part of the world I write, making sense there, but would certainly not have appeal to convert anyone here).
My point isn't to make you feel bad, it's criticism which should be able to help you grow.
Oh just had an idea for if doing this again and someone mentions the Netflix movie: twist such around using sexy chess clips from said movie, thereby giving the audience a reason to prefer Chess (I do strongly prefer chess, but I do my best to check my feelings at the door when reviewing a debate).
Here is a round by round development of my analysis...
R1:
I.
Pro: Chess is old and popular.
Con: Go is also old.
II.
Pro: Chess is popular.
Con: Chess would have died if not for Covid and Netflix.
III.
Con: Chess is not the "ultimate logic board game" (pro did not make that claim, as much as he probably should have). This is because Go has vastly more possible moves, resulting in it being much harder; and subsequently better AI's are developed for it.
R2:
I.
Pro R1: Chess is old and popular.
Con R1: Go is also old.
II.
Pro R1: Chess is popular.
Con R1: Chess would have died if not for Covid and Netflix.
III.
Con R1: Chess is not the "ultimate logic board game" (pro did not make that claim, as much as he probably should have). This is because Go has vastly more possible moves, resulting in it being much harder; and subsequently better AI's are developed for it.
Pro R2: Never spoke so highly of chess, and some replies to the comment section? Then an assertion that complexity marks an inferior game... Ah the complexity of the AI means players aren't able to learn from it as well with a YouTube blogger a source (seriously, this is against an explanation of chess computers using brute force instead of on the spot learning which Go computers use).
R3:
I.
Pro R1: Chess is old and popular.
Con R1: Go is also old.
II.
Pro R1: Chess is popular.
Con R1: Chess would have died if not for Covid and Netflix.
III.
Con R1: Chess is not the "ultimate logic board game" (pro did not make that claim, as much as he probably should have). This is because Go has vastly more possible moves, resulting in it being much harder; and subsequently better AI's are developed for it.
Pro R2: Never spoke so highly of chess, and some replies to the comment section? Then an assertion that complexity marks an inferior game which takes longer to play... Ah the complexity of the AI means players aren't able to learn from it as well with a YouTube blogger a source (seriously, this is against an explanation of chess computers using brute force instead of on the actual learning which Go computers use).
Con R2: Forfeiture.
Pro R3: Extend... (while new arguments were not allowed, expansion of the computer point to put the chess point into the lead would have been ideal)
Con R3: Forfeiture.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Intelligence_06 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: conduct to con
>Reason for Decision: forfeiting most of the rounds is not something to do in a debating match.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter scored points to the inverse of their own analysis. The vote has been removed to enable them to revote at their discretion.
**************************************************
With LinkedIn on here, it's basically a truism. LinkedIn is a job hunting website; with it on there the question could likewise be if employers should look at resumes... Therefore I advise not only removing LinkedIn from the list, but further specifying that it is outside the scope.
Full respect for thinking someone ultimately won, and also that another vote in their favor was BS.
A lot of people can't accept that basic duality, and instead subscribe to bad virtue ethics.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: gugigor // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 to pro.
>Reason for Decision:
NOTE: This is a vote to TIE the debate. Feel free to delete this when Zed-victor's vote has been deleted.
RFD in comments
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2978/comment-links/39375
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2978/comment-links/39376
>Reason for Mod Action:
While attempting to counter a perceived vote bomb (which indeed is under review), you created such a clear vote bomb that it doesn't even need discussion in the moderator channel.
Seriously, just tag the vote moderators in a comment as a reminder of your report, and if you want to be really good about it say why you believe a vote falls short of the standard.
As is your vote violates the outside content clause, by being based upon another vote (even to counter it).
**************************************************
The description specifies that being fine:
"Pick a different girl to advocate against mine or defend his hypothetical need for celebacy for the sake of the mission as his best canon relationship if you want. Or make Fredrick Wertham into a prophet and makes a cursed arguement for Robin. Whatever youd find the most entertaining."
If it is or not, it is apparently better for cat calling:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mev7iy6gwIQ
You forfeited twice as much.
I'm seriously surprised my vote hasn't been outweighed by a bunch of others yet. If it gets to within a few days like this, remind me and I'll reevaluate.
I seriously doubt pro could pull together a winning argument for even proving their boogeyman exists.
FYI, fauxlaw only recognizes being called fauxlaw, without any variant in capitalization (all caps, or even first letter caps).
It's a distinction similar to the oxford comma. Not a big thing, but still meaningful.
"You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means"
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/you-keep-using-that-word-i-do-not-think-it-means-what-you-think-it-means
https://theoatmeal.com/comics/literally
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ragnar // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: Conduct to con.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Someone seriously reported this? Wow!
I'm not going to bother asking MisterChris to fairly and impartially review the vote, as there's nothing subjective about the vote point allocation to be contested.
From the voting policy:
"The disrespect of even a single forfeiture necessitates this penalty unless there is reason to withhold it. Repeated forfeitures are grounds for casting conduct only votes without any consideration to arguments (continued in Forfeitures)."
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#conduct
**************************************************
There are so many obvious non-sequiturs... I'll never forget when the Neo-Nazi argued that whites are too weak and infirm to survive on their own, which begs some obvious questions about white colonization (which I am not saying it's good that they did that; merely that it'd be impossible if they were too busy being dead from lack of slaves to feed them and such).
A tool you might find to be useful:
tiny.cc/DebateArt
Aside from that, my only advice is to not get sucked in so as to use up the character count (it's a waste of your time, and makes voting a chore).
This might be a good one for you to practice with. Pro is a very easy to refute Neo-Nazi (by any other name).
Already feels like this debate will shift focus to the rules in the description > the actual topic.
"A debate may have special rules specified within the description. These are not strictly enforced by moderation, but a voter may choose to abide. If a voter is choosing to and there was a challenge to said rules within the debate, some analysis of that challenge is highly suggested."
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#further-notes
Honestly, I was tempted under the "morally" heading... To be clear, I would never argue for such being an inherent state.
This might be a concept to take to the forums, to workshop out your thought process into logical proofs.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: drlebronski // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 7 to pro.
>Reason for Decision: "The arguments were irrelevant, but pro managed to express herself in a more professional fashion."
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
As with comment #10, voting privileges are revoked until further notice (this is applied to both brothers, a junk debate like this should not count for unlocking voting privileges anyway).
While brothers may use the site together, it's literally outlined in the Code of Conduct not to use such exploitatively by voting on each others debates, and to then cast such a clear vote bomb... Not spam debating each other should go without saying (right now I would say not debating each other at all, until a little more maturity is shown).
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/rules#user-accounts
**************************************************
See comment #17.
It's not that there can be zero discussion, just that debaters themselves should exercise some restraint to not unduly influence voters.
Do you disagree with the notion that repetition at the very least increases rote learning?
While there's no hard rule against discussing the debate in the comment section, as David points out, such can still cross the line into poor conduct.
IMO, comment #13 clearly belonged in the argument rounds, as opposed to the comment section.
To be clear, I believe the resolution dealt with "Proof of COVID vaccination," as opposed to mandatory vaccination in it of itself. If a desired debate is that we shouldn't force everyone to get the currently available vaccines, that is what the resolution should be.
IMO if the vaccine is good or bad, people already have it. A debate on proving you already have it, should focus on that instead of if it was a mistake to get it.
One day remains for voting.
The description needs more depth. Seriously, a debate like this could come down to definitions, so making them a point of contention leads to needless confusion. Similarly making BoP declarations after the start, is risky, as they are likewise open to contention when not pre-agreed.
---
Con says humans should not be judged due to their limited information, but God should be due to his unlimited information. … Fair enough (pun intended).
Arguments start with God sending people to hell. Good use of limited crime vs unlimited consequence. He then declares that adultery equals hell (I expect pro to counter with better context, but in my haste I did not spot it). It moves on to Jesus cautioning against calling people fools, and him having actually done just that. He then plays the other side, that maybe everyone does deserve hell, arguing that it would then be wrong to not send people there. Then a touch of comedy with God sinning against Jesus.
Pro focuses on humanity, and how we should judge humans instead of God. Explains that God does things not as punishments, for he will only punish later, at some unknown time. Then moves on to point out that since the bible says God is righteous, therefore God is righteous (obviously as this is the only source of information on God, it can’t be dismissed out of hand as con argued in his opening).
---
Sorry to say it, but this is not holding my attention, and I have so much more to do with my limited time this weekend (just started a new job, so I'll be voting a lot less in general).
Not a clue. He was apparently last online 7 hours ago.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: TheUnderdog // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: conduct to con
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Due to only being two rounds, the single forfeiture makes this debate fall into the full forfeiture category.
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
**************************************************
For such a debate, there are probably some good quotes to be found at: https://www.debate.org/opinions/should-fourth-trimester-abortion-be-legal
Voting closes within 1 day.
By starting this debate, you asked someone to assert that kids are simple minded within the confines of the argument. Further, nothing in how he framed his points implies even a dislike (let alone hatred) for anyone of any age. Please don't attempt to drag someone's name through the mud without warrant; even more so in the comments where it could be taken for trying to get pity votes.
Your behavior in the comments, is showing difficultly with: informed decisions, planning skills, and an unsophisticated logical framework with regards to applying it. (quotes from con's argument, which you are choosing to emulate).
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded:
>Reason for Decision:
>Reason for Mod Action:
Voter request.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Sum1hugme // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: none
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
The vote references comments #13 https://www.debateart.com/debates/3024/comment-links/37747
and comment #15 https://www.debateart.com/debates/3024/comment-links/38067
While usually comments shouldn't be factored into votes, both debaters calling it a tie in the comments seems fair game (the main point of vote moderation is to ensure things are fair to them, so no issue here).
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: whiteflame // Mod action: Not Removed (borderline)
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: arguments and sources to con.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Of course this is already outside the voting period. From the voting policy: "For cases of suspected malicious voting patterns, votes may be reviewed up to one month after voting has concluded." This is not such a case. However, I'll review what's there anyway...
The argument allotment makes sense, the voter bought the moral framework and value offered in artistic freedom, over the slippery slope. There's a couple things that could be nitpicked, but it would still pass muster without hesitation.
Sources gives a hesitation, due to not dotting the i's and crossing the t's so to speak. While it is clear on why the award, it does not spell out any specific source from con; even while mentioning better utilization. It does spell out a couple specific ones from pro, and names lack of applicability. I'd most likely still let it stand, even if I prefer seeing a source from each side named to make my job less difficult.
**************************************************
Before this gets underway... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sE-tpiAiiHo
My understanding is that it uses pretty standard formulas if a voted tie, so not as much of a shift as if there were a winner, but still some shift. So pro's 1688 would drop slightly, and con's 1551 would increase slightly.
The debaters may of course request to have debates changed from rated to unrated and vice versa, so long as the voting period has not concluded.
Finished R1, and written some preliminaries from it.
I'll try to come back during the weekend.
I suggest reading at least R1 of the following debate, which while not having the best arguments (they're intentionally comical), does show how to be concise and clearly build interconnected points: https://www.debateart.com/debates/3090-roman-catholicism-is-false
Loving this debate so far!
What is a webos?
I have not read the specific arguments to this case yet, nor are they even quite finished unless I'm mistaken.
I advise distilling points down in general terms, as even at a glance this debate is using far more characters than it most likely needs (which makes it less likely to attract any voters). I literally copy/pasted the syllogism samples from the guide, to which I highly doubt Monty Python comes up inside this debate.
Next time defining a couple key terms in the description, would be very ideal.
Probably too late for this debate, but simple syllogisms for key determinants would be useful to distill things down. Such as...
I offer this simple Modus Ponens (“mode of affirming”) refutation of pro’s case:
P1: If she weighs the same as a duck, then she’s a witch.
P2: She weighs the same as a duck.
C1: Therefore, she’s a witch!
OR
I offer this simple Modus Tollens (“mode of taking”) refutation of pro’s case:
P1: If she’s human, then she must weigh more than a duck.
P2: She does not weigh more than a duck.
C1: Therefore, she’s not human!
She Weighs The Same As A Duck (P2)
This video proves she weighs as much as a duck, thus affirming P2. Since the logical syllogism is valid, this affirms the whole argument in favor of burning her.
NOT
I offer this simple Affirming The Consequent refutation of pro’s case:
P1: If she’s a witch, then we burn her!
P2: We burnt her!
C1: Therefore, she must have been a witch!
Please don't forfeit again. Especially not with a 1 week window to post an argument, or even a concession.
I suggest changing "could" to “most likely,” and give con the BoP of most likely harmful. A tie of course would then be implied as the outcome being indeterminate.
Below is my thought stream from as I read the debate. It supplements supports the RFD I'll be posting in a bit.
---(1 of 4)---
Trying to give fair feedback, unsure if this will lead to a score assignment. That said, having not gotten the benefits of public school (or literally any pre-college education), I am a rare impartial person to this topic.
First of all, a strong setup. In gist, pro is arguing for an option to be available. The only problem with it is the danger of a truism (all unreasonable still banned, so any precise application could be called unreasonable… I don’t think that tactic will be used, as good examples of unreasonable ones were given). On that note, good to see clearly identifies competing burdens.
R1 (initial cases):
Pro makes it clear that he is talking theoretically, without any precise form of it in mind (presumably not the bees or whatever he had in the description).
Pro builds that the currently applied treatments enhance the problems and deny the students an education, so a compounded harm without benefit. Then nicely magnified with details on the consequences to them later. An over the top bit with them more likely to kill themselves as a result (on that one I had to check the source, yup, the implications and causations are not well established, but the bullet point is there on the findings).
Having well established the problem, pro moves on to his suggested solution. He immediately gives evidence for lack of lasting harm from it (at least in one form of it), and points to the lack of evidence in favor of a ban (giving research papers as evidence of the lack of evidence… well played). He ends it with some anecdotal evidence of student testimonials in favor of it over other the current status quo method.
Overall, a clear case from pro, which at least initially allows him to meet his BoP (if he does it better than con, is TBD).
Con opens with a statement to the effect that it shouldn’t even be considered due to the harm it causes, and that teachers do not care about children (at least not more than their hourly wage).
Apparently we should just leave it up to God to fix the discipline problems…
He gets better with children self motivating.
He proposes an alternative system of a judicial committee which meets every day, which is not allowed to inflict any form of punishment. He outlines that there is no risk of any harm from this system… With this the debate could get really good, since we can compare the benefits and harms under each proposed system.
He builds a case against punishment systems from the 19th century (which pro will no doubt explain were not within the scope of reasonable). Then moves on to what looks like an appeal to replace the whole school system? It got deep into flowering imagery at the end, so I could have misread that.
At the end of this round, pro is well in the lead. I suspect con’s tactics would have worked really well in a speech, but I’m a highly educated numbers guy. I appreciate quick references to great philosophers, but not as much as scientific research into the subject matter.
R2 (pure rebuttals):
Pro is quick to define punishment within common usage, so as to identify that pro’s plan which offers the benefit of zero punishments actually contains punishments as pro has described it, along with submission to authority (another of pro’s benefits was getting away from that mindset). Pro does a hard counter to con’s claim that punishment cannot ever be justified, both in general terms to the two types of punishment (forward or backward looking), as well as to the context of children.
Pro gives examples of why it can be necessary to combat disruptive behaviors for the good of all other students in a class wishing to learn.
Pro targets con’s lack of evidence that his proposed system would net the promised benefits.
Pro counters the need of society, by pointing to workplace activity monitoring, to suggest an instilled sense of discipline is needed throughout life in our society.
Con blaims all of pro’s states problems on the increased punishments in schools after the removal of corporal punishment, and makes a very risky statement to a debate like this: “The problem isn't the means of punishment, but rather the use of punishment itself.”
He slides in an anti-Trump pathos appeal (“make American schools great again”).
He pulls out a good source for why his proposal is superior (really would have preferred that in R1, to build it up initially). And another which uses some good data mining on the status quo vs another system, to which an alternative to the status quo came ahead on several metrics including standardized test scores.
He notably does not use any source (saying “common sense” is a source, does not raise something above an assertion) when claiming the intent of corporal punishment is to harm the childen, rather than to seek any improvement. He cites that a paper cites it’s a proven cause, which much as I nitpicked the suicide claim earlier, the abstract to said paper states “ whether causal conclusions can be drawn from this largely nonexperimental research and whether the conclusions generalize across contexts are issues that remain unresolved.” Then ironically moves on to disputing what pro’s sources said, and should really really use some direct quotes for verifications (checking for “Optimism” I found it clearly in the table of contents for the one it was stated to not be in, but that big one about punishment should be done by families, that one could have sealed the debate were it cited better… like the cherry picking done for the CNN source (one which was giving both sides arguments, but still a good catch)).
On the edge. Very curious how each will defend their cases.
R3 (defense and closing statements):
Pro lays out several voting issues, one that really pops out is: “Likewise, CON provided no evidence illustrating that without punishment, the status quo's harms would be solved.”
Pro reiterates that con’s proposal of blame the existence of punishments so replace them with different punishments, is still just that, punishments.
He repeats that he’s not talking about random torture as a motivator.
Sources defense (could have been more detailed as per quotations, but decent). On this I must say, with Gershoff having been discredited in R1, con really should not have turned to them as a key source.
And more reiteration, such as one of con’s core contentions being any punishment is completely unjustifiable.
Con disagrees with anything he proposes being able to be called punishment.
Con denies pro ever showed that punishment can be justified, because we must leave all punishment to God to handle…
Some slippery slope hyperboles (not sure if I mentioned them enough above, but they’ve been seeded throughout).
A list of harms, some of which I clearly remember pro directly challenging earlier (like with sources about the lack of long term harm).
Some more copy paste, like his claims against teachers, insistence that the other one’s source support him (I think both are doing this a lot), and of course the claim that if pro is right we’ll all be living in a dystopian nightmare of mindless obedience.
I am going to sleep on this, but con has lost a lot of credibility to his side with the outlandish claims.