**************************************************
>Reported Vote: spacetime // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: winner to con.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
Any awarded point(s) must be based on the content presented inside the debate rounds. Content from the comment section, other votes, forums, your personal experience, etcetera, is ineligible for point allotments.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#based-on-outside-content
**************************************************
Coal opens up with arguments about current violation, failures of suspension based discipline, hurt of minority, and proof of corporal punishment successfully making children more "involved and optimistic". He adds upon authorities who agree that CP works, and that children would take it over missing out on school. This is the basis of his premise, and relatively solid.
FT counters with the idea that punishment should never be done, as it isn't necessary for learning or discipline. He also asserts that it conflicts with our needs. Here he creates a counter idea where you shouldn't need to correct children at all. I don't see how children can rehabilitate on themselves, but let's see if Pro notices this issue.
Pro notices that FT's idea of restorative justice may be problematic because punishment has still be universal in society. He also thinks about looking forward, backwards, to point out noticing the reason behind the punishment. The requirement by justice, or the prevent of future harm, are interesting ideas that somewhat echo with his first round. He continues by saying that CP is used to correct misbehavior, preventing disruption, and also that Con's system being quite vague to mitigate the problem -- something I noticed myself. Finally, he claims that the schools represent work, and that the submission to power is key. (However, this brings another can of worms in that Employees cannot be CP'd by Employers, potentially killing this comparison.)
Con continues with clarification by noting that the violence in particular makes the issue an issue, and that Restorative Justice is far more effective, using two strong studies. This is excellent and does big work to help support his impacts. Next, he uses common sense to show that psychological problems can form, and that the societal norm of harming children could be perpetuated -- bringing in the slippery slope of using CP on adults, something I noted myself. He counters that CP can result in worse behavior, and even says Pro has methodological weaknesses. The RCT's put the nail in the coffin to provide evidence supporting reduced spanking. Con also pierces through Fuller and L&B, noting that only parenting styles were analyzed rather than CP. Finally, he concludes with the same Gershoff Meta analysis to prove that compliance does not work. With this round in mind, he completely overturns all of Pro's arguments.
Pro continues asserting his same evidence, but he doesn't tell us how Hermann outweighs Gershoff's meta-analysis. He says Con's RJ system is contradiction, as it's a different type of punishment, but doesn't notice Con's crux that violence inflicted is the problem, not punishment. He says Con thinks some discipline is necessary, but doesn't tell us why the RJ has the same or bigger problems compared to CP. Then, he continues by arguing that Fuller 2015 was questioning the methodologies, going into detail about how Baumrind noticed he was overly broad in his analysis. This is excellent to reduce this study's impact. He also notices how Sweden's stats counter Con's slipper slope of violence. He concludes that CNN and other sources prove that CP have a significant effect.
Con crystallizes that the RJ is completely different from the infliction of harm, and that his case is uniquely strong especially in the promotion of responsibility while respecting rights, without mindless obedience. Con also notices that Pro drops most of the inherent harms, and that Gershoff's non-correlational ideas are still pretty strong, especially with 2016 and 2018 studies fixing the co-mingling of meta analysis. He furthers with the fact that the three sources only talk about parent-child relationship, rather than in-school CP. This greatly damages Pro's ideas. Finally, he concludes that RJ would promote a more democratic and free solution compared to CP.
With the anti-CP sources fixed by the end of the debate, and not much impact killed from Con's arguments about RJ, Pro fails to overturn the ideas that CP is inherently violent, damaging, and unjustifiable. Pro could have done better if he proved that the American school system was not all that different from parent-child relationship, and potentially bridge the gap between his studies and his results. However, Pro is losing by a landslide because he went into great detail about sources without noticing the bigger picture and the painted imagery of CP that Con produces. As such, vote to Con.
Thank you for the heads up. That is wantonly bad voting, to just copy/paste a vote from someone else. The Voting Policy literally states you may not vote based on the content of other votes.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: spacetime // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: Con.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
As previously stated... "This vote is almost really good, explaining why con took the lead... However, it falls short on analysis of what pro offered."
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2979/comment-links/37461
Just adding that pro argued the pro side to the resolution, does not indicate at attempt at understanding any contentions they used (or tried to use) in support of their Burden of Proof.
**************************************************
spacetime
Added: 1 day ago
Reason:
== Original RFD ==
PRO’s big mistake in this debate was neglecting to properly address CON’s “restorative justice” alternative.
His only attempt at addressing it was when he framed it as logically inconsistent with CON’s “punishment can’t be justified” argument. At best, all this does is invalidate CON’s “punishment can’t be justified” argument – it does nothing to mitigate restorative justice as a superior alternative to corporal punishment.
PRO made no attempt at contesting any of CON’s empirical evidence regarding the efficacy of restorative justice, so I’m left to conclude that restorative justice is indeed effective.
CON successfully contested PRO’s empirical evidence regarding the efficacy of corporal punishment. He argued that all of PRO’s studies are “talking about corporal punishment exclusively in the context of a loving parent-child relationship” and therefore aren’t applicable to corporal punishment in public schools. PRO completely ignored this rebuttal, so I’m left to conclude that corporal punishment isn’t actually effective.
CON also presented empirical evidence that corporal punishment is harmful to children. However, because CON waited until his rebuttal round to do so, the exchange got cut short – PRO never got a chance to respond to CON’s defense of Gershoff’s research. For that reason, I’m going to exclude this clash from my evaluation of the debate.
Regardless, by the end of the debate, I have more than enough reason to reject corporal punishment in favor of restorative justice. CON wins.
== Addendum ==
PRO argued that corporal punishment works, but the argument was defeated by CON's rebuttal that the studies he cited only apply within "the context of a loving parent-child relationship."
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Nevets // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to con.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
The one hesitation is that it gave conduct for what could be called an argument failure (wherein pro effectively missed half the debate). This would have likely caused the vote to be rejected if giving both (the policy specifies that lazy arguments don't need conduct as well), but just giving less points to something isn't inflicting any harm (and yes, the reason arguments were left a tie is explained, which is very important).
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Coal // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to con.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
It's a solid vote, especially when factoring in the extra commentary offered.
**************************************************
I feel you on that. Some stuff is clear as day, even if the implications of it are debatable.
Regarding your revised resolution, if doing this again I would toss a general statement into the description regarding how a human being (especially a sentient one) ought to be treated. ... Granted, given the common mistreatment of humans, how we ought to be treated is highly debatable.
Repeated forfeiture waives the need to consider arguments, and allows a conduct penalty without any argument consideration. If arguments are awarded, they must still be weighted.
It's the next level of forfeiture up ("full forfeitures") which allows any point assignments against them.
When I argue the greater topic, one of my key points is that human doesn't equal person. Granted, it does depend on definitions. Under some definitions cancer is human.
For enforcing the policy as it is written, which explicitly spells out how is it to be interpreted for this debate type? Would you prefer vote moderators that just do whatever they feel like day to day, instead of looking at the policy?
In any case, you are always welcome to appeal to another moderator. They might read those lines of the policy different than I.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Nevets // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: winner to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
This being a choose winner debate, the repeated forfeitures do allow a conduct only award to be the determinant without further consideration. Further consideration is of course allowed (encouraged even), but is not strictly required.
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
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
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Nevets // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to pro, 1 to con.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Mild misunderstanding of the forfeiture policy. While the repeated forfeitures mean arguments don't need to be considered to grade conduct, they may not be awarded solely for the conduct lapse. If con had done a full forfeiture (only one set of arguments, forfeited every round thereafter), then arguments against him for it would be warranted.
---
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
**************************************************
Nevets
Added: 1 day ago
#1
Reason:
Argument - 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). - Pro
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
Sources - Both produce sources and neither object - tie
S & G - Neither stands out as being under the influence of alcohol whilst typing - tie
Conduct - "Children the age of 12 years should not be harassed for their age on the internet by hypocrites (13 year olds) who had also been harassed for their age, and vowed to destroy those fucking gatekeepers the previous year.". The use of the eff word in the title was not a good start. If only Con had not forfeited 40% of the debate it was a certain victory. - Con
Right now the phrasing risks the special licensing as an exception with it still generally being illegal for the vast majority of drivers. It needlessly risks an unfavorable interpretation of the resolution against you.
Take marijuana as an example. In a state where it is criminal to use recreationally, if someone proposes legalizing it, no one says 'but it's already legal, since cancer patients may use it medicinally.'
If someone argues the right to bare arms should apply when visiting the white house, that secret service may carry loaded weapons, hardly means said weapons are generally legal there for any normal civilian.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Not Removed (non-moderated debate)
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: none
>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
Additionally the vote was tied anyway...
There are three types of tied votes:
(1) Ones which allot zero points. They have no meaningful impact on the debate outcome, and are thus only moderated if warranted for other reasons.
(2) Ones which cancel themselves out. While the category assignments may serve as feedback to the debaters, there is no still meaningful impact for moderation consider. These are in essence the same as the previous type.
(3) Votes which leave arguments tied, but assign other categories. While these need not meet the sufficiency standards for an argument vote, they must still evaluate arguments enough to justify no clear winner. There is however an exception for repeated forfeitures allowing conduct only with no further explanation.
**************************************************
Nevets
Added: 15 hours ago
Reason:
Argument - Pro opens by questioning the ambiguity of lying but does make a good argument strong argument that is easily comprehended. " Therefore, I would have to consider the exact situation. If I am lying to save an innocent man's life, and succeed, then no logical contradiction is formed, and lying becomes moral. However, if I lie to oppress someone and steal their fortunes, despite claiming to be good to them, this is a clear logical contradiction and lying is immoral in this situation. As you can see, Logicalism is much more clear than universalism.".. Con responds with some borderline criticisms regarding his opponents round 1, and offers an argument of his own which appears to translate to not everything is as black and white as Pro appears to be making it.. Pro comes back in round 2 and makes some very strong and convincing and easy to understand arguments and offers a critique regarding his opponents use of "ought". Con responds with some good examples of how not everything is black and white - "Premise 1: Humans need oxygen to live Premise 2: The earth is the only place where there is enough oxygen for humans to breathe, Conclusion: Humans have to live on the Earth to live"... At this point of the debate there is no winner or loser and it is a matter of opinion who one agrees with more. I may be inclined to buy Pros argument, but then what does he go and do? Forfeits. This means no argument of his own and no rebuttal of Cons argument.. Pro does not make amends either in the next round when he runs out of time. "Bleh ran out of time. Procrastination.".. The voting policy states that if a debater forfeits 40% of the debate then the argument can be handed to the opposition. Does that fact that Pro made it in time to write "Bleh ran out of time" enough to escape being viewed as a second forfeiture? Barely, but still offered absolutely nothing in terms of a rebuttal regards his opponents last argument, and Con is correct "My opponent has not rebuked my argument for two rounds consecutively, and my argument remains strong.", But as I actually thought that until Pro forfeited and succumbed to poor time keeping the argument was borderline and I may well have favoured Pro. Therefore I do not wish to punish the same crime of forfeiture and time keeping twice, and so will leave argument at a tie, as it is in fact a conduct violation and not an argument violation. - Tie
Sources - Pro only really ever took the time to produce one source. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/014017509190016J) ... Whilst neither participant objected to each others use of sources, Con did use sources far more extensively, and no objections were raised. - Con
S & G - Neither stood out as making mass typos - Tie
Conduct - As I explained before, the forfeiture and bad time keeping is being punished by Conduct rather than argument loss. - Con
If doing this one again, I suggest picking a single book of the bible, and a clear standard for evil (or with the one you're using, a clear standard of good).
There are also easily digestible sources for key bits. Like when I talk about the book of Job, I use a clip from South Park so that everyone is on the same page.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded:
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Preempting possible complaints: This being a concession debate, it's easy to get a ton of votes for a good safety net for the presumptive winner. The vote in question is tied but looks like it gives a lot of detail. If that detail was slightly abusive to the presumptive winner, then be glad the voter in question now has no power to cast a vote which assigns points (if it called him a bunch of names or something, let me know and I'll reevaluate).
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
There are three types of tied votes:
(1) Ones which allot zero points. They have no meaningful impact on the debate outcome, and are thus only moderated if warranted for other reasons.
(2) Ones which cancel themselves out. While the category assignments may serve as feedback to the debaters, there is no still meaningful impact for moderation consider. These are in essence the same as the previous type.
(3) Votes which leave arguments tied, but assign other categories. While these need not meet the sufficiency standards for an argument vote, they must still evaluate arguments enough to justify no clear winner. There is however an exception for repeated forfeitures allowing conduct only with no further explanation.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote isn't even eligible for moderation as it votes in favor of the presumptive winner under a disqualification...
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
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).
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ragnar // Mod action: Removed (borderline)
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: Winner to con.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Written with feedback from MisterChris.
The vote was borderline. By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient. As the voter is a moderator, a little more is expected.
While the vote mentioned some highlights, it didn't truly weigh the majority of the arguments against each other in any meaningful manner.
Arguments must always be reviewed even if left a tie (in which case less detail is required, but some reason for said tie based on the debate content must still be comprehensible within the vote).
Arguments go to the side that, within the context of the debate rounds, successfully affirms (vote pro) or negates (vote con) the resolution. Ties are possible, particularly with pre-agreed competing claims, but in most cases failing to affirm the resolution means pro loses by default.
Weighing entails analyzing the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments and their impacts against another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
**************************************************
Ragnar
Added: 1 day ago
#1
Reason:
The two things are so interconnected, but with our greater dependence on visuals con was able to coast to victory. With how open ended the definitions were, it is really hard to say definitely if any moving part of the movie is considered outside the scope (much like how pro was fast to claim silence for his side of the debate).
One thing I disliked about con's case was how much of it was a history lesson (pro did well on defense here), instead of analysis of scenes which he got into later. Con's later use of Stanley Kubrick removed all doubt from giving him the victory; as great scenes like that can be watched muted, but are just confusing to try to listen to without watching.
Pro's biggest weakness I believe would be relying on how sound can reshape scenes, instead of focus on scenes made by the sound.
The vote against your argument placed by Ragnar has been submitted for review. For obvious reasons I cannot review it. When another moderator is less busy, they'll probably get around to it.
I made my vote short, but I read the debate. That I added commentary about one being truly critical and the other not, based on evidence offered during the debate doesn't change that. I do not think this debate was on the subject of banning either of them, rather just which aspect it more important to movies; to which con by asking the audience to watch a short clip muted, was able to powerfully demonstrate we are dependant on one and not the other.
I reviewed a sampling of the sources. Notably your Jack Pierce piece and Force Awakens clip, along with the one singled out in my vote (no, I was not going to read through the full 20 or however many sources con had).
The thought steam was as I was reading it. I thought the end decision would be a lot harder. Additionally with my messed up upbringing, I would have left things tied if there was any doubt to either direction.
If I could apply a bonus point over to pro for quality and effort, I would. I definitely saw merit to the greater theme, but with on onus particularly just for the USA, it fell short due to con's rebuttals.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Removed (non-moderated debate)
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to pro.
>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
**************************************************
---Expanded RFD (1 of 2)---
Going to write this as a thought stream. It is not all inclusive.
Pro almost immediately challenges the assumed point of dispute of freedom of speech, most notably in saying that not banning the denial would promote a repeat of the genocide (FYI, a common line from neo-nazis is that the hollocaust didn’t happen, but since the jews faked it, they deserve that to happen for real). I got to say, the opening could have been stronger; perhaps with some cited example of repeated crime from denial of crime.
Con opens with definitions (while it may seem like overkill, there was a recent debate on a myth I was unfamiliar with, which due to lacking a primer on it, I really couldn’t properly weigh). Before going into a rather effective quote (please make it more obvious when quoting). Then making a rather nifty point: “disallowing the survivors and their families the chance to answer to the accusations of holocaust deniers, or the survivors chance to hold holocaust deniers accountable” and goes on to make a point about lack of evidence that the laws in 17 countries have actually curbed antisemitism. Then backed this with a study on Germany.
Pro makes a good opening comeback, challenging that con cited an antisemite. Something felt off about this, and it held as pro used a pretty obvious slippery slope and false dilemma that to not ban holocaust denial means it must therefore be encouraged. He gets back on track with going into that we should acknowledge there are limits (intuitively tying things back to his early point about shouting fire in a theater). Pro moves on to explain the success of some antisemitism to attempts to censor it, which would seem to be con’s point rather than his own. He then boldly claims that if not for banning holocaust denial, Germany would have repeated it.
Con of course gets into pro misrepresenting his case, and points out that libel and slander and off topic. Then asserts the benefit of allowing data analysis for verification. He made an interesting assertion that if there is a ban people will work around it to say the good works were not finished… Which much like his request for evidence from his opponent, I would like to see evidence of this happening where the denial is forbidden.
Pro defends that holocaust denial is slander and libel, using a punny gas analogy. And proclaims that accepting libel and something lawsuit worthy is basically a confession of the whole topic (I find this immediately dubious, due to how limited pro’s case on this was in the previous round). He does however make a good point that the first victims of any violence encouraged by deniers would logically be survivors of the original atrocity.
Con’s reply this round opened on a mixed point. Declaring the audience part of the masses pro talked about perhaps unduly poisons the well if believed. I think it goes a bit far with the “raised by wolves” declaration putting words in pro’s mouth. And yet, the language does get his point across quite well… Hence, it’s mixed; or at least my feelings toward it are.
Con goes into a point about comparing the deniers to the masses, ultimately denying that they would be more effective at lying than similar (but non-vile) people seeing through it. This is pretty risky, since it invites statistics on fake news, but we’ll see if that develops or not. Further supporting this he makes a point about positive social movements (while intuitively true, some citation of their impacts would have really solidified this).
---Expanded RFD (2 of 2)---
Pro opens R4 with a copy/paste from his previous closing. Then compares not having it banned to making murder legal ala The Purge. He does do a good counter to con’s point about social movements, with Nazis proving they can be dangerous too (citing the frequency of hate groups would have been very effective here). He ends with a declaration of victory from Germany not repeating the holocaust due to denial being forbidden there, and states that that the con wishes holocaust denial be to legalized over there (and in other countries), which is straying from the resolution of the USA.
Con latches onto pro admitting such a ban would likely be ineffective, and basically rests his case.
Final round…
Got to right away caution pro on the use of quotation marks around things an opponent has not actually written (the italics saved the day, but it’s still dangerous territory).
Pro argues that if their policy would be ineffective, there is no reason not to implement it… Then insists it could potentially save millions of lives. I got to say, this is a powerful piece of rhetoric, and under blindly implemented impact analysis on a spreadsheet it would ultimately win automatically (assuming any chance above zero; which is why sources to warrant points are important).
Con does not maintain resting their case, but does final defenses. Let’s see, questions are not automatically libel; that Germany even with anti-denial laws is more antisemitic than the USA; an appeal to people being better than they’ve proven to be (tied back to if the audience is part of the masses); and a repeat of the unfinished job point.
Ragnar: Debate resolutions and descriptions are not pre-approved by admins.
RM: Wrong. They are.
...
I don't believe I was semantically misrepresenting your words. I had no way to infer you meant how could this debate be allowed to be rated instead of unrated from the first post in the conversation, nor your second.
Please quote any part of the CoC which dictates what debate types must be unrated? To my knowledge it is not there. If I'm correct, you are of course welcome to initiate a referendum to change that.
If you really think I'm wrong to believe that I have not manually approved the creation of each debate before it goes live, you're welcome to challenge me to a debate on that topic; or any of the subtopics such as which debates are allowed to be rated.
As for minutea of this specific debate: I really don't want to say too much ahead of time for fear of influencing the debate arguments.
The key problem with spacetime's vote was that even when pressured to, he could not name a single contention offered by pro.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: spacetime // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: winner to con.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
Any awarded point(s) must be based on the content presented inside the debate rounds. Content from the comment section, other votes, forums, your personal experience, etcetera, is ineligible for point allotments.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#based-on-outside-content
**************************************************
spacetime
Added: 33 minutes ago
#2
Reason:
RFD
Coal opens up with arguments about current violation, failures of suspension based discipline, hurt of minority, and proof of corporal punishment successfully making children more "involved and optimistic". He adds upon authorities who agree that CP works, and that children would take it over missing out on school. This is the basis of his premise, and relatively solid.
FT counters with the idea that punishment should never be done, as it isn't necessary for learning or discipline. He also asserts that it conflicts with our needs. Here he creates a counter idea where you shouldn't need to correct children at all. I don't see how children can rehabilitate on themselves, but let's see if Pro notices this issue.
Pro notices that FT's idea of restorative justice may be problematic because punishment has still be universal in society. He also thinks about looking forward, backwards, to point out noticing the reason behind the punishment. The requirement by justice, or the prevent of future harm, are interesting ideas that somewhat echo with his first round. He continues by saying that CP is used to correct misbehavior, preventing disruption, and also that Con's system being quite vague to mitigate the problem -- something I noticed myself. Finally, he claims that the schools represent work, and that the submission to power is key. (However, this brings another can of worms in that Employees cannot be CP'd by Employers, potentially killing this comparison.)
Con continues with clarification by noting that the violence in particular makes the issue an issue, and that Restorative Justice is far more effective, using two strong studies. This is excellent and does big work to help support his impacts. Next, he uses common sense to show that psychological problems can form, and that the societal norm of harming children could be perpetuated -- bringing in the slippery slope of using CP on adults, something I noted myself. He counters that CP can result in worse behavior, and even says Pro has methodological weaknesses. The RCT's put the nail in the coffin to provide evidence supporting reduced spanking. Con also pierces through Fuller and L&B, noting that only parenting styles were analyzed rather than CP. Finally, he concludes with the same Gershoff Meta analysis to prove that compliance does not work. With this round in mind, he completely overturns all of Pro's arguments.
Pro continues asserting his same evidence, but he doesn't tell us how Hermann outweighs Gershoff's meta-analysis. He says Con's RJ system is contradiction, as it's a different type of punishment, but doesn't notice Con's crux that violence inflicted is the problem, not punishment. He says Con thinks some discipline is necessary, but doesn't tell us why the RJ has the same or bigger problems compared to CP. Then, he continues by arguing that Fuller 2015 was questioning the methodologies, going into detail about how Baumrind noticed he was overly broad in his analysis. This is excellent to reduce this study's impact. He also notices how Sweden's stats counter Con's slipper slope of violence. He concludes that CNN and other sources prove that CP have a significant effect.
Con crystallizes that the RJ is completely different from the infliction of harm, and that his case is uniquely strong especially in the promotion of responsibility while respecting rights, without mindless obedience. Con also notices that Pro drops most of the inherent harms, and that Gershoff's non-correlational ideas are still pretty strong, especially with 2016 and 2018 studies fixing the co-mingling of meta analysis. He furthers with the fact that the three sources only talk about parent-child relationship, rather than in-school CP. This greatly damages Pro's ideas. Finally, he concludes that RJ would promote a more democratic and free solution compared to CP.
With the anti-CP sources fixed by the end of the debate, and not much impact killed from Con's arguments about RJ, Pro fails to overturn the ideas that CP is inherently violent, damaging, and unjustifiable. Pro could have done better if he proved that the American school system was not all that different from parent-child relationship, and potentially bridge the gap between his studies and his results. However, Pro is losing by a landslide because he went into great detail about sources without noticing the bigger picture and the painted imagery of CP that Con produces. As such, vote to Con.
Thank you for the heads up. That is wantonly bad voting, to just copy/paste a vote from someone else. The Voting Policy literally states you may not vote based on the content of other votes.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: spacetime // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: Con.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
As previously stated... "This vote is almost really good, explaining why con took the lead... However, it falls short on analysis of what pro offered."
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2979/comment-links/37461
Just adding that pro argued the pro side to the resolution, does not indicate at attempt at understanding any contentions they used (or tried to use) in support of their Burden of Proof.
**************************************************
spacetime
Added: 1 day ago
Reason:
== Original RFD ==
PRO’s big mistake in this debate was neglecting to properly address CON’s “restorative justice” alternative.
His only attempt at addressing it was when he framed it as logically inconsistent with CON’s “punishment can’t be justified” argument. At best, all this does is invalidate CON’s “punishment can’t be justified” argument – it does nothing to mitigate restorative justice as a superior alternative to corporal punishment.
PRO made no attempt at contesting any of CON’s empirical evidence regarding the efficacy of restorative justice, so I’m left to conclude that restorative justice is indeed effective.
CON successfully contested PRO’s empirical evidence regarding the efficacy of corporal punishment. He argued that all of PRO’s studies are “talking about corporal punishment exclusively in the context of a loving parent-child relationship” and therefore aren’t applicable to corporal punishment in public schools. PRO completely ignored this rebuttal, so I’m left to conclude that corporal punishment isn’t actually effective.
CON also presented empirical evidence that corporal punishment is harmful to children. However, because CON waited until his rebuttal round to do so, the exchange got cut short – PRO never got a chance to respond to CON’s defense of Gershoff’s research. For that reason, I’m going to exclude this clash from my evaluation of the debate.
Regardless, by the end of the debate, I have more than enough reason to reject corporal punishment in favor of restorative justice. CON wins.
== Addendum ==
PRO argued that corporal punishment works, but the argument was defeated by CON's rebuttal that the studies he cited only apply within "the context of a loving parent-child relationship."
I keep forgetting to watch that show... Maybe on my upcoming short break between jobs I'll binge it.
Not a promising opening.
Fun setup!
Yes. I try not the judge why when handling reported votes, but sometimes 'Why?!' goes across my brain.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Nevets // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to con.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
The one hesitation is that it gave conduct for what could be called an argument failure (wherein pro effectively missed half the debate). This would have likely caused the vote to be rejected if giving both (the policy specifies that lazy arguments don't need conduct as well), but just giving less points to something isn't inflicting any harm (and yes, the reason arguments were left a tie is explained, which is very important).
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Coal // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to con.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
It's a solid vote, especially when factoring in the extra commentary offered.
**************************************************
I feel you on that. Some stuff is clear as day, even if the implications of it are debatable.
Regarding your revised resolution, if doing this again I would toss a general statement into the description regarding how a human being (especially a sentient one) ought to be treated. ... Granted, given the common mistreatment of humans, how we ought to be treated is highly debatable.
Good luck on the debate!
Per the voting policy, arguments must be weighted except in cases of disqualification; to which this was not.
Repeated forfeiture waives the need to consider arguments, and allows a conduct penalty without any argument consideration. If arguments are awarded, they must still be weighted.
It's the next level of forfeiture up ("full forfeitures") which allows any point assignments against them.
When I argue the greater topic, one of my key points is that human doesn't equal person. Granted, it does depend on definitions. Under some definitions cancer is human.
For enforcing the policy as it is written, which explicitly spells out how is it to be interpreted for this debate type? Would you prefer vote moderators that just do whatever they feel like day to day, instead of looking at the policy?
In any case, you are always welcome to appeal to another moderator. They might read those lines of the policy different than I.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Nevets // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: winner to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
This being a choose winner debate, the repeated forfeitures do allow a conduct only award to be the determinant without further consideration. Further consideration is of course allowed (encouraged even), but is not strictly required.
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
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
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Nevets // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to pro, 1 to con.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Mild misunderstanding of the forfeiture policy. While the repeated forfeitures mean arguments don't need to be considered to grade conduct, they may not be awarded solely for the conduct lapse. If con had done a full forfeiture (only one set of arguments, forfeited every round thereafter), then arguments against him for it would be warranted.
---
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
**************************************************
Nevets
Added: 1 day ago
#1
Reason:
Argument - 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). - Pro
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
Sources - Both produce sources and neither object - tie
S & G - Neither stands out as being under the influence of alcohol whilst typing - tie
Conduct - "Children the age of 12 years should not be harassed for their age on the internet by hypocrites (13 year olds) who had also been harassed for their age, and vowed to destroy those fucking gatekeepers the previous year.". The use of the eff word in the title was not a good start. If only Con had not forfeited 40% of the debate it was a certain victory. - Con
Right now the phrasing risks the special licensing as an exception with it still generally being illegal for the vast majority of drivers. It needlessly risks an unfavorable interpretation of the resolution against you.
Take marijuana as an example. In a state where it is criminal to use recreationally, if someone proposes legalizing it, no one says 'but it's already legal, since cancer patients may use it medicinally.'
If someone argues the right to bare arms should apply when visiting the white house, that secret service may carry loaded weapons, hardly means said weapons are generally legal there for any normal civilian.
If doing this again I advise clarifying the resolution, as you seem to be arguing for there to be a path for legality, as opposed to general legality.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Not Removed (non-moderated debate)
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: none
>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
Additionally the vote was tied anyway...
There are three types of tied votes:
(1) Ones which allot zero points. They have no meaningful impact on the debate outcome, and are thus only moderated if warranted for other reasons.
(2) Ones which cancel themselves out. While the category assignments may serve as feedback to the debaters, there is no still meaningful impact for moderation consider. These are in essence the same as the previous type.
(3) Votes which leave arguments tied, but assign other categories. While these need not meet the sufficiency standards for an argument vote, they must still evaluate arguments enough to justify no clear winner. There is however an exception for repeated forfeitures allowing conduct only with no further explanation.
**************************************************
Sounds like an odd thing to complain about, as a majority of points in his favor is a majority of points in his favor. Anyways, done.
Removed by request:
Nevets
Added: 15 hours ago
Reason:
Argument - Pro opens by questioning the ambiguity of lying but does make a good argument strong argument that is easily comprehended. " Therefore, I would have to consider the exact situation. If I am lying to save an innocent man's life, and succeed, then no logical contradiction is formed, and lying becomes moral. However, if I lie to oppress someone and steal their fortunes, despite claiming to be good to them, this is a clear logical contradiction and lying is immoral in this situation. As you can see, Logicalism is much more clear than universalism.".. Con responds with some borderline criticisms regarding his opponents round 1, and offers an argument of his own which appears to translate to not everything is as black and white as Pro appears to be making it.. Pro comes back in round 2 and makes some very strong and convincing and easy to understand arguments and offers a critique regarding his opponents use of "ought". Con responds with some good examples of how not everything is black and white - "Premise 1: Humans need oxygen to live Premise 2: The earth is the only place where there is enough oxygen for humans to breathe, Conclusion: Humans have to live on the Earth to live"... At this point of the debate there is no winner or loser and it is a matter of opinion who one agrees with more. I may be inclined to buy Pros argument, but then what does he go and do? Forfeits. This means no argument of his own and no rebuttal of Cons argument.. Pro does not make amends either in the next round when he runs out of time. "Bleh ran out of time. Procrastination.".. The voting policy states that if a debater forfeits 40% of the debate then the argument can be handed to the opposition. Does that fact that Pro made it in time to write "Bleh ran out of time" enough to escape being viewed as a second forfeiture? Barely, but still offered absolutely nothing in terms of a rebuttal regards his opponents last argument, and Con is correct "My opponent has not rebuked my argument for two rounds consecutively, and my argument remains strong.", But as I actually thought that until Pro forfeited and succumbed to poor time keeping the argument was borderline and I may well have favoured Pro. Therefore I do not wish to punish the same crime of forfeiture and time keeping twice, and so will leave argument at a tie, as it is in fact a conduct violation and not an argument violation. - Tie
Sources - Pro only really ever took the time to produce one source. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/014017509190016J) ... Whilst neither participant objected to each others use of sources, Con did use sources far more extensively, and no objections were raised. - Con
S & G - Neither stood out as making mass typos - Tie
Conduct - As I explained before, the forfeiture and bad time keeping is being punished by Conduct rather than argument loss. - Con
FYI, you are still allowed to weigh arguments and vote on them if you so choose.
Was there another debate on this topic I should be looking for? This one looks to have only just started.
I don't assume he's correct, merely that it is a good topic. Even more so since the status quo is he's wrong.
Good topic.
If doing this one again, I suggest picking a single book of the bible, and a clear standard for evil (or with the one you're using, a clear standard of good).
There are also easily digestible sources for key bits. Like when I talk about the book of Job, I use a clip from South Park so that everyone is on the same page.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded:
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Preempting possible complaints: This being a concession debate, it's easy to get a ton of votes for a good safety net for the presumptive winner. The vote in question is tied but looks like it gives a lot of detail. If that detail was slightly abusive to the presumptive winner, then be glad the voter in question now has no power to cast a vote which assigns points (if it called him a bunch of names or something, let me know and I'll reevaluate).
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
There are three types of tied votes:
(1) Ones which allot zero points. They have no meaningful impact on the debate outcome, and are thus only moderated if warranted for other reasons.
(2) Ones which cancel themselves out. While the category assignments may serve as feedback to the debaters, there is no still meaningful impact for moderation consider. These are in essence the same as the previous type.
(3) Votes which leave arguments tied, but assign other categories. While these need not meet the sufficiency standards for an argument vote, they must still evaluate arguments enough to justify no clear winner. There is however an exception for repeated forfeitures allowing conduct only with no further explanation.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote isn't even eligible for moderation as it votes in favor of the presumptive winner under a disqualification...
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
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).
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ragnar // Mod action: Removed (borderline)
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: Winner to con.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Written with feedback from MisterChris.
The vote was borderline. By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient. As the voter is a moderator, a little more is expected.
While the vote mentioned some highlights, it didn't truly weigh the majority of the arguments against each other in any meaningful manner.
Arguments must always be reviewed even if left a tie (in which case less detail is required, but some reason for said tie based on the debate content must still be comprehensible within the vote).
Arguments go to the side that, within the context of the debate rounds, successfully affirms (vote pro) or negates (vote con) the resolution. Ties are possible, particularly with pre-agreed competing claims, but in most cases failing to affirm the resolution means pro loses by default.
Weighing entails analyzing the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments and their impacts against another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
**************************************************
Ragnar
Added: 1 day ago
#1
Reason:
The two things are so interconnected, but with our greater dependence on visuals con was able to coast to victory. With how open ended the definitions were, it is really hard to say definitely if any moving part of the movie is considered outside the scope (much like how pro was fast to claim silence for his side of the debate).
One thing I disliked about con's case was how much of it was a history lesson (pro did well on defense here), instead of analysis of scenes which he got into later. Con's later use of Stanley Kubrick removed all doubt from giving him the victory; as great scenes like that can be watched muted, but are just confusing to try to listen to without watching.
Pro's biggest weakness I believe would be relying on how sound can reshape scenes, instead of focus on scenes made by the sound.
The vote against your argument placed by Ragnar has been submitted for review. For obvious reasons I cannot review it. When another moderator is less busy, they'll probably get around to it.
I made my vote short, but I read the debate. That I added commentary about one being truly critical and the other not, based on evidence offered during the debate doesn't change that. I do not think this debate was on the subject of banning either of them, rather just which aspect it more important to movies; to which con by asking the audience to watch a short clip muted, was able to powerfully demonstrate we are dependant on one and not the other.
I reviewed a sampling of the sources. Notably your Jack Pierce piece and Force Awakens clip, along with the one singled out in my vote (no, I was not going to read through the full 20 or however many sources con had).
Only 7 hours remain for voting.
At a casual glance, that forfeiture almost certainly seals it.
The thought steam was as I was reading it. I thought the end decision would be a lot harder. Additionally with my messed up upbringing, I would have left things tied if there was any doubt to either direction.
If I could apply a bonus point over to pro for quality and effort, I would. I definitely saw merit to the greater theme, but with on onus particularly just for the USA, it fell short due to con's rebuttals.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Removed (non-moderated debate)
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to pro.
>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
**************************************************
---Expanded RFD (1 of 2)---
Going to write this as a thought stream. It is not all inclusive.
Pro almost immediately challenges the assumed point of dispute of freedom of speech, most notably in saying that not banning the denial would promote a repeat of the genocide (FYI, a common line from neo-nazis is that the hollocaust didn’t happen, but since the jews faked it, they deserve that to happen for real). I got to say, the opening could have been stronger; perhaps with some cited example of repeated crime from denial of crime.
Con opens with definitions (while it may seem like overkill, there was a recent debate on a myth I was unfamiliar with, which due to lacking a primer on it, I really couldn’t properly weigh). Before going into a rather effective quote (please make it more obvious when quoting). Then making a rather nifty point: “disallowing the survivors and their families the chance to answer to the accusations of holocaust deniers, or the survivors chance to hold holocaust deniers accountable” and goes on to make a point about lack of evidence that the laws in 17 countries have actually curbed antisemitism. Then backed this with a study on Germany.
Pro makes a good opening comeback, challenging that con cited an antisemite. Something felt off about this, and it held as pro used a pretty obvious slippery slope and false dilemma that to not ban holocaust denial means it must therefore be encouraged. He gets back on track with going into that we should acknowledge there are limits (intuitively tying things back to his early point about shouting fire in a theater). Pro moves on to explain the success of some antisemitism to attempts to censor it, which would seem to be con’s point rather than his own. He then boldly claims that if not for banning holocaust denial, Germany would have repeated it.
Con of course gets into pro misrepresenting his case, and points out that libel and slander and off topic. Then asserts the benefit of allowing data analysis for verification. He made an interesting assertion that if there is a ban people will work around it to say the good works were not finished… Which much like his request for evidence from his opponent, I would like to see evidence of this happening where the denial is forbidden.
Pro defends that holocaust denial is slander and libel, using a punny gas analogy. And proclaims that accepting libel and something lawsuit worthy is basically a confession of the whole topic (I find this immediately dubious, due to how limited pro’s case on this was in the previous round). He does however make a good point that the first victims of any violence encouraged by deniers would logically be survivors of the original atrocity.
Con’s reply this round opened on a mixed point. Declaring the audience part of the masses pro talked about perhaps unduly poisons the well if believed. I think it goes a bit far with the “raised by wolves” declaration putting words in pro’s mouth. And yet, the language does get his point across quite well… Hence, it’s mixed; or at least my feelings toward it are.
Con goes into a point about comparing the deniers to the masses, ultimately denying that they would be more effective at lying than similar (but non-vile) people seeing through it. This is pretty risky, since it invites statistics on fake news, but we’ll see if that develops or not. Further supporting this he makes a point about positive social movements (while intuitively true, some citation of their impacts would have really solidified this).
---Expanded RFD (2 of 2)---
Pro opens R4 with a copy/paste from his previous closing. Then compares not having it banned to making murder legal ala The Purge. He does do a good counter to con’s point about social movements, with Nazis proving they can be dangerous too (citing the frequency of hate groups would have been very effective here). He ends with a declaration of victory from Germany not repeating the holocaust due to denial being forbidden there, and states that that the con wishes holocaust denial be to legalized over there (and in other countries), which is straying from the resolution of the USA.
Con latches onto pro admitting such a ban would likely be ineffective, and basically rests his case.
Final round…
Got to right away caution pro on the use of quotation marks around things an opponent has not actually written (the italics saved the day, but it’s still dangerous territory).
Pro argues that if their policy would be ineffective, there is no reason not to implement it… Then insists it could potentially save millions of lives. I got to say, this is a powerful piece of rhetoric, and under blindly implemented impact analysis on a spreadsheet it would ultimately win automatically (assuming any chance above zero; which is why sources to warrant points are important).
Con does not maintain resting their case, but does final defenses. Let’s see, questions are not automatically libel; that Germany even with anti-denial laws is more antisemitic than the USA; an appeal to people being better than they’ve proven to be (tied back to if the audience is part of the masses); and a repeat of the unfinished job point.
Just got the final round left to read. However, I have some things to get done today.
If I'm "retarded" and "incapable of basic reading comprehension," please quote your vote for the main couple contentions offered by pro.
Additionally, you can always re-cast it with additional information. Not like anyone's stopping you.
While you've automatically lost at this point due to forfeitures, I'm sure David would gladly do a rematch.
Also you are still free to make closing statements.
This is great!
RM: How is a debate like this allowed?
Ragnar: Debate resolutions and descriptions are not pre-approved by admins.
RM: Wrong. They are.
...
I don't believe I was semantically misrepresenting your words. I had no way to infer you meant how could this debate be allowed to be rated instead of unrated from the first post in the conversation, nor your second.
Please quote any part of the CoC which dictates what debate types must be unrated? To my knowledge it is not there. If I'm correct, you are of course welcome to initiate a referendum to change that.
If you really think I'm wrong to believe that I have not manually approved the creation of each debate before it goes live, you're welcome to challenge me to a debate on that topic; or any of the subtopics such as which debates are allowed to be rated.
As for minutea of this specific debate: I really don't want to say too much ahead of time for fear of influencing the debate arguments.
I'll probably cast a vote this weekend.
Quite glad there's a long voting window.