You don't need to review every single clause, or even every argument. The problem is there is no sense of any of the arguments offered by one side outside of liking the other side's case more, which is unfair to their efforts.
**************************************************
>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:
This vote is almost really good, explaining why con took the lead... However, it falls short on analysis of what pro offered.
To cast a sufficient vote, for each category awarded, a voter must explicitly perform the following tasks:
(1) Provide specific references to each side’s utilization within the said category.
(2) Weigh the impacts against each other, including if any precluded others.
(3) Explain the decision within the greater context of the debate.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#casting-votes
Arguments must always be reviewed even if left a tie (in which case less detail is required, but some reason for said tie based on the debate content must still be comprehensible within the vote).
Arguments go to the side that, within the context of the debate rounds, successfully affirms (vote pro) or negates (vote con) the resolution. Ties are possible, particularly with pre-agreed competing claims, but in most cases failing to affirm the resolution means pro loses by default.
Weighing entails analyzing the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments and their impacts against another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
**************************************************
spacetime
Added: 2 days ago
#1
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
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.
I used to know a guy in Antifa who was convinced Hitler's mistake was which race is evil... He loved paraphrasing Hitler... But he was immune to criticism, since he claimed to be too genetically superior to be capable of racism. 🙄
To me the problem with such ideologies will never be in the minutia of which group or groups are targeted for death. Such hatred could be directed against people who wear socks under sandals, and it would still be nearly as awful.
Anyways, glad to see con is not defending Mein Kampf, but strictly targeting the other half of the resolution.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 7 to con.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
While 7 points can be justified, it risks a vote being labeled a votebomb. In this case it does not rise above that being a fair declaration.
Arguments are well reasoned.
Sources are borderline, but fair when factoring in the argument assessment.
Conduct is on thin ice, with the gist of it being a disagreement with pro's offered kritik (already well covered under arguments). This alone I would probably just call it borderline but let it stand.
Legibility is what seals the deal. How it is used here is clearly something the argument point is for, with there being no difficulty in understanding what his case (or lack thereof) was.
...
Legibility is an optional award as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, wherein sections of the debate become illegible or at least comparatively burdensome to decipher.
Examples:
• Unbroken walls of text, or similar formatting attempts to make an argument hard to follow.
• Terrible punctuation throughout.
• Overwhelming word confusion, or regularly distracting misspellings.
• Jarring font and/or formatting changes.
Conduct is an optional award as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, such as extreme unsportsmanlike or outright toxic behavior which distracted from the topical debate.
**************************************************
fauxlaw
Added: 7 days ago
#3
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Argument: Con presented clear evidence of Earth's physical shape as not being flat; his appropriate BoP as being a contender, though initiator of the debate. Thge best evidence, in my opinion, came from the lunar eclipse argument, demonstrating by shape of the Earth's shadow a full coverage of the lunar surface, rather than a single sliver of shadow across the Moon's surface were the Earth flat. By contrast, Pro never properly addressed his BoP, arguing instead, over four rounds that Con made an error in the short description of Theweakeredge being Pro; an error which, first, never appears in the debate page itself, and which, by Description and first argument, at least, clearly left notice to Pro which side of the argument Con was positioned before Pro ever had to produce an argument. Full reading of the debate information provided by Con, other than the erroneous Short Description, should have made clear to Con which opponent was to take which side of the argument. Con even advised Pro in R2, "Nevel... you must carefully analyze any debate before taking it..." giving Pro ample opportunity to see the positioning in the debate and respond accordingly for the balance of the debate. Even given this clear warning, Pro continued arguing the posiitn structure of the debate, rather than the debate Resoltuion, itself. By clear default, Con wins the points.
Sources: Con offered clear, numerous supporting sources, even sourcing definitions sources, and then sources supporting the argument of physical shape of Earth. Con had no sources supporting no arguments for the Resolution. Con wins the points.
Legibility: Con's texts on all rounds were clearly understood. Pro's text were also understood as bering entirely off-topic. point to Con.
Conduct: Pro's error, even after being told in R2 that his assumption of position was wrong, continued in arguing the position issue, which
pro refused to acknowledge, and was entirely off-topic relative to the Resolution. If Pro was so certain his position should have been pro, he failed to offer a single argument for the Resolution. Poor conduct by attitude throughout the debate loses the point. Point to Con.
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 make a habit of not removing tied votes, unless they're obviously melicious. In this case the vote gave good feedback, explaining why neither side came ahead in the eyes of that voter.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro, 4 to con.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
The vote opens with good feedback on the setup, then gives direct criteria by criteria overview.
Arguments could have gotten into detail of cons case, but it points well to the core issue of pro's BoP type failure that even factoring in a ton of outside knowledge he still could not follow how it was trying to connect.
Note: Had this been done lazily or with malice, the vote would be removed; as is, it gave pro a ton of feedback which hopefully he can make use of for future debates on this topic or stylifically any other.
Sources are fairly tied.
Legibility for the manner in which pro assembled his case, making it (at least to the voter) comparatively burdensome to decipher (and with the amount of cited material, the voter clearly did try to decipher it).
Conduct to pro for the forfeitures, in spite of the voter finding some of his behavior deplorable (finding behavior outright deplorable, could have easily been used to justify leaving conduct tied; or worse if it was believed to have been bad enough to chase off the other debater).
This is overall a very useful vote in terms of feedback, with clear review over what happened and why it makes the point allocations to each side.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: zero
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
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.
**************************************************
Quite awhile ago I had a debate proposing a similar system: https://www.debateart.com/debates/803-default-auto-loss-on-forfeit
While I'm way too busy for active debating these days, I would argue a default auto-loss is preferable to an instant loss. As much as when the margin of forfeiture increases, there would be some gain in not having such a debate sit around in the voting window.
The debate may only be removed if both sides consent.
In future, I highly suggest discussion of any pro/con confusion (or other matters of clarity) in the comment section before accepting challenges.
Regarding requesting people vote: So long as it's not clearly slanted (such as 'hey, vote for me and I'll vote for you on one of your debates'), vote requests are allowed. Further, someone in a "friends" list here, does not equate to being real friends; heck often people who are listed here as friends outright dislike each other.
To me this was not a real debate, and the vote in question had no chance of changing the outcome; therefore I did opt to waste anyone's time with a report.
Regarding complaints of misconduct:
Pro's case is weird with the side tangents. The level of focus on ancient child molesters, makes my mind jump to him using "worm" as a slang for that. However, that line of reasoning was present in his R1, and he never seemed to accuse con of being an a 1500 year old irish wizard, so the accusation that the Irish wizard Broichan was such a vile man, does not infer any accusation of con sharing in such depravity.
There should be a password reset option. Plus Benjamin seems to be the type that would allow a doover (copy/paste the original rounds into a new debate, and pick up like nothing happened, and then delete the original iteration of the debate ... if going that route, I would suggest a rule of him getting the conduct point automatically).
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: logicae // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: Arguments to con.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Not sure why this one was reported... High quality vote, with feedback for both sides. It does include outside content in mentioning another vote, and giving personal feelings on the issue; but that was clearly wholly separate from the point allocation weighing.
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: TheHammer // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: legibility to pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
In short, you did not even look at the arguments, and nitpicked a non-issue in punctuation to poorly justify giving points to one side. While punctuation can rise to be enough, it would have to be abysmal; either from the complete lack thereof, or, like' ungodly; terrible.
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.
Legibility is an optional award as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, wherein sections of the debate become illegible or at least comparatively burdensome to decipher.
Examples:
• Unbroken walls of text, or similar formatting attempts to make an argument hard to follow.
• Terrible punctuation throughout.
• Overwhelming word confusion, or regularly distracting misspellings.
• Jarring font and/or formatting changes.
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
**************************************************
TheHammer
Added: 19 hours ago
#1
Reason:
From CON:
"Regardless of race, if you complete your education, don’t have kids out of wedlock and maintain full time employment you’re far more likely to join the middle class than otherwise (Brookings 2013). "
The problem of any Gish Gallop is not about if the person offering it is right or wrong, or even if each bullet point is right or wrong, it's the style of argument. Certainly one could be done of chained fallacies, but it does not have to be.
"The Gish Gallop is the fallacious debate tactic of drowning your opponent in a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort"
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 6 to pro (everything except legibility)
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Good reasoning for arguments and sources, but the extra conduct award is excessive and getting close to vote bomb territory.
The extra conduct point is really unmerited given the character limit. Pro filled the first round with a Gish Gallop, if it won arguments fine, but to then penalize con extra for constructing a counter case instead of addressing each line it (of which any one would probably take more than the 500 characters)... Simply put, it's a low blow. This seemed enhanced further by really disliking their argument tactic, feeling personally offended they did not make the same flat earth arguments someone else would make; which would be impossible to wholly separate from how arguments are graded, such is understandable, but argument points are enough for that, conduct as well is overkill.
Conduct is an optional award as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, such as extreme unsportsmanlike or outright toxic behavior which distracted from the topical debate.
**************************************************
RationalMadman
Added: 8 days ago
#6
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
In this debate, Pro not only accepted the debate in 100% bad faith but did so lazily and in a humiliating manner not just to his opponent, no not at all, but to all flat-earthers. Too many clowns take the flat earth stance as a joke and misrepresent the logic within the theory, this goes beyond that and flat out humiliates the entire concept implying that Pro couldn't ever defend flat-earth theory itself so has to resort to nonsensical semantics to win.
On top of completely ignoring the debte description's definition of what the flat Earth model is, Pro furthermore claims Con has 'conceded' when Con did nothing of the sort. I take this personally, as I myself believe the Earth is flat and know just how much stigma there is against this theory because it indeed involves conspiracy theories regarding NASA and Roscosmos (other space stations all answer to them). I do not vote based on that bias, nonetheless I am telling you that I don't find this shit funny, it's debates like this that make people assume all flat-earthers are faking it or are morons, instead of that there are intelligent and genuine flat-earthers.
Con uses sources to back up every single point he makes, from that NASA claims to have travelled to space to even turning the satellite point against Pro (which Pro tried to weirdly turn against Con and used a NASA and Space.com source to back up flat-earth theory...) I don't know what more to say, Pro doesn't use sources close to as efficiently or without self-harm to his case as Con does.
Pro tries to make the debate about the Earth being curved in 'spacetime'. Spacetime is a concept strictly tied to round-earth theory and is based on us being in a massive universe with galaxies in it (such that lightyears exist as a unit of spacetime), as opposed to flat-earth theory that holds that the sky is largely an illusion and perhaps a destiny map with only the sun and moon being actual objects rotating around the Earth.
Now, I am aware this is me debating against Pro, it is therefore pertinent to notice that Con doesn't need to dismiss any of these ridiculous points because the debate description (which Pro agreed to upon accepting the debate) defines flat-earth model as the archaic model which I know is one with Antarctica as an outer edge/barrier and is by no means whatsoever a 'spacetime' semantic loophole.
Pro does NOT REPLY TO ANY of Con's arguments AT ALL!
He doesn't explain how refraction of light explains ships disappearing over the horizon (due to the 'falling effect' of distanct objects as they mesh with the ground up to a point of no distinction that's more blatant on sunny days due to mirage effects), in fact every single point Con makes in Round 1 hold true by the end of the debate because Pro is too lazy to address a single one in his (absence of) rebuttals.
Regarding the recent Muslim mass murderer, that would of course not be enough evidence to proclaim Muslims are in general murderers, let alone terrorists.
Since this seems like a class assignment thing, I'm not deleting the debate unless one or both of you indicate desire for such.
However, I suggest using a longer argument window in the setup. The option to take longer to get started, doesn't mean you can't be very quick. The arguments will be time stamped afterall.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Fauxlaw // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 6 to con
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Good reasoning for arguments and sources, but the extra legibility award is excessive and getting close to vote bomb territory. It's given for apparent confusion of a single word (while noteworthy in harming both his argument and sources, it is otherwise not an overwhelming mistake which made the debate harder to read). "It appears Pro is confused by his own source material" is clearly already penalized under sources, there's no need to toss extra points for anything at all related.
Legibility is an optional award as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, wherein sections of the debate become illegible or at least comparatively burdensome to decipher.
Examples:
• Unbroken walls of text, or similar formatting attempts to make an argument hard to follow.
• Terrible punctuation throughout.
• Overwhelming word confusion, or regularly distracting misspellings.
• Jarring font and/or formatting changes.
**************************************************
fauxlaw
Added: 10 days ago
#5
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Argument: Con [initiator] presents 8 R1 arguments, all of which Pro fails to rebut in 3 rounds. Whereas, Pro offers argument “Gravity is not a force, in R1, but in R2 presents same argument with a citation that includes, “The force tugging between two bodies depends…” Tug, or pull, are forces, contradicting Pro’s argument that gravity is not a force. A non-supporting source of an opponent’s argument does not support, but combats an argument. Con may have used this source effectively, but as it contradicts Pro’s argument, the same purpose is achieved. Pro argued in R1 “P1: Moving in a straight line results in an orbit.” Con correctly rebuts that Pro’s source [1] does not say that, but the orbit is caused by a larger object’s gravitation pulls the otherwise straight-line motion of a smaller object [Newton Law #1] into an orbit, and not that the smaller object’s straight line inclination of motion creates the orbit motion on its own. Pro incorrectly argues in R2 the Con agrees in R2 “earth is flat.” Wrong interpretation of Con’s argument. Con said, “Earth *surface* is flat in space time, but does not prove that Earth itself is flat.” Con is clearly arguing against the flat-earth theory. Points to Con.
Sources: Con’s sources consistently support Con’s arguments such as Con’s 9 R1 arguments not rebutted by Pro. Pro’s conflict due to conflicting source use noted above, Con also wins source points.
Legibility: Pro provides one “logical proof” source [ScienceDirect] as a syllogism argument to “prove” an Con “concession” that used anisotropy as a basis for the argument. However, anisotropy is not a matter of consistency of an object’s property of shape, such as regarding a flat-earth. Rather, anisotropy is the property of an object which allows it to change properties, such as shape, in different directions of perception. It appears Pro is confused by his own source material, and, therefore, the legibility of his argument fails because it does not adequately describe his objective BoP of the exclusive shape of a flat earth. Point to Con
Conduct: Both opponents had proper regard for one another. Tie.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Intelligence_06 // Mod action: Not Removed
>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:
The voter seemed to find one side more compelling of a case, and cited in debate reasons for this. While not rebutting points is understandable in a 500 character debate, the voter being moved by a critical one is likewise understandable.
The only potential issue I'm seeing is labeling fallacies in a way that was not done in the debate. IMO this level of it does not seem to cross the line into outside content, as he's not generating his own arguments, merely using a shorthand for why he did not find one to be more convincing; which leaves it more in the realm of feedback to help improve future arguments.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Puachu // Mod action: Not Removed
>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:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
Clearly the voter read everything and tried to be fair about grading it. That with 500 characters it was hard for him to follow it, is a fault which rests with the setup of the debate.
**************************************************
I've been procrastinating on handling reported votes...
While the premise may seem absurd, a casual glance at the arguments do not suggest it is a comedy debate or any other category of non-moderated debate.
Removed Benjamin’s vote by request:
Pro never proves that they are out to get him - he just makes a subjective assertion that since he "feels" that they are after him they really are. CON proves that if they were they would not be "ARE" after him.
Sources to PRO, obviously, CON never used sources.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: gugigor // Mod action: Not Removed (borderline)
>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 borderline. By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient.
I'd be curious for a review on sources given the the disparity. Otherwise having read the debate, I can completely understand a voter getting lost in how pro setup his case; and even not understanding the pro's challenges to the equality issue that was con's case (the voter seemed to have read them, as they did paraphrase one of the numbers from it).
As a numbers guy, I am going to have very different takeaways from a debate like this than the average person. This kind of thing is to be expected. Different audiences, different outcomes.,
**************************************************
Precedent becomes a weird thing. The result of the recent trail, will be evidence in future impeachment trials; yet any case could be argued that the senate interpreted the constitution wrong or otherwise acted against it.
I vividly remember the first impeachment of Trump, and the repeated claims by GOP senators that impeachment of a sitting president is unconstitutional... Which that level of unbridled stupidity in the senate, is suggestive of deeper problems with the system.
You don't need to review every single clause, or even every argument. The problem is there is no sense of any of the arguments offered by one side outside of liking the other side's case more, which is unfair to their efforts.
**************************************************
>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:
This vote is almost really good, explaining why con took the lead... However, it falls short on analysis of what pro offered.
To cast a sufficient vote, for each category awarded, a voter must explicitly perform the following tasks:
(1) Provide specific references to each side’s utilization within the said category.
(2) Weigh the impacts against each other, including if any precluded others.
(3) Explain the decision within the greater context of the debate.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#casting-votes
Arguments must always be reviewed even if left a tie (in which case less detail is required, but some reason for said tie based on the debate content must still be comprehensible within the vote).
Arguments go to the side that, within the context of the debate rounds, successfully affirms (vote pro) or negates (vote con) the resolution. Ties are possible, particularly with pre-agreed competing claims, but in most cases failing to affirm the resolution means pro loses by default.
Weighing entails analyzing the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments and their impacts against another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
**************************************************
spacetime
Added: 2 days ago
#1
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
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.
Debate resolutions and descriptions are not pre-approved by admins.
I used to know a guy in Antifa who was convinced Hitler's mistake was which race is evil... He loved paraphrasing Hitler... But he was immune to criticism, since he claimed to be too genetically superior to be capable of racism. 🙄
To me the problem with such ideologies will never be in the minutia of which group or groups are targeted for death. Such hatred could be directed against people who wear socks under sandals, and it would still be nearly as awful.
Anyways, glad to see con is not defending Mein Kampf, but strictly targeting the other half of the resolution.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 7 to con.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
While 7 points can be justified, it risks a vote being labeled a votebomb. In this case it does not rise above that being a fair declaration.
Arguments are well reasoned.
Sources are borderline, but fair when factoring in the argument assessment.
Conduct is on thin ice, with the gist of it being a disagreement with pro's offered kritik (already well covered under arguments). This alone I would probably just call it borderline but let it stand.
Legibility is what seals the deal. How it is used here is clearly something the argument point is for, with there being no difficulty in understanding what his case (or lack thereof) was.
...
Legibility is an optional award as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, wherein sections of the debate become illegible or at least comparatively burdensome to decipher.
Examples:
• Unbroken walls of text, or similar formatting attempts to make an argument hard to follow.
• Terrible punctuation throughout.
• Overwhelming word confusion, or regularly distracting misspellings.
• Jarring font and/or formatting changes.
Conduct is an optional award as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, such as extreme unsportsmanlike or outright toxic behavior which distracted from the topical debate.
**************************************************
fauxlaw
Added: 7 days ago
#3
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Argument: Con presented clear evidence of Earth's physical shape as not being flat; his appropriate BoP as being a contender, though initiator of the debate. Thge best evidence, in my opinion, came from the lunar eclipse argument, demonstrating by shape of the Earth's shadow a full coverage of the lunar surface, rather than a single sliver of shadow across the Moon's surface were the Earth flat. By contrast, Pro never properly addressed his BoP, arguing instead, over four rounds that Con made an error in the short description of Theweakeredge being Pro; an error which, first, never appears in the debate page itself, and which, by Description and first argument, at least, clearly left notice to Pro which side of the argument Con was positioned before Pro ever had to produce an argument. Full reading of the debate information provided by Con, other than the erroneous Short Description, should have made clear to Con which opponent was to take which side of the argument. Con even advised Pro in R2, "Nevel... you must carefully analyze any debate before taking it..." giving Pro ample opportunity to see the positioning in the debate and respond accordingly for the balance of the debate. Even given this clear warning, Pro continued arguing the posiitn structure of the debate, rather than the debate Resoltuion, itself. By clear default, Con wins the points.
Sources: Con offered clear, numerous supporting sources, even sourcing definitions sources, and then sources supporting the argument of physical shape of Earth. Con had no sources supporting no arguments for the Resolution. Con wins the points.
Legibility: Con's texts on all rounds were clearly understood. Pro's text were also understood as bering entirely off-topic. point to Con.
Conduct: Pro's error, even after being told in R2 that his assumption of position was wrong, continued in arguing the position issue, which
pro refused to acknowledge, and was entirely off-topic relative to the Resolution. If Pro was so certain his position should have been pro, he failed to offer a single argument for the Resolution. Poor conduct by attitude throughout the debate loses the point. Point to Con.
I've given this time, but I still can't imagine Eve murdering all those people.
A great show and a great character.
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 don't even look at if debates are rated or not. However, if you want to revise your vote, just say the word and I'll pull the current one down.
I make a habit of not removing tied votes, unless they're obviously melicious. In this case the vote gave good feedback, explaining why neither side came ahead in the eyes of that voter.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro, 4 to con.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
The vote opens with good feedback on the setup, then gives direct criteria by criteria overview.
Arguments could have gotten into detail of cons case, but it points well to the core issue of pro's BoP type failure that even factoring in a ton of outside knowledge he still could not follow how it was trying to connect.
Note: Had this been done lazily or with malice, the vote would be removed; as is, it gave pro a ton of feedback which hopefully he can make use of for future debates on this topic or stylifically any other.
Sources are fairly tied.
Legibility for the manner in which pro assembled his case, making it (at least to the voter) comparatively burdensome to decipher (and with the amount of cited material, the voter clearly did try to decipher it).
Conduct to pro for the forfeitures, in spite of the voter finding some of his behavior deplorable (finding behavior outright deplorable, could have easily been used to justify leaving conduct tied; or worse if it was believed to have been bad enough to chase off the other debater).
This is overall a very useful vote in terms of feedback, with clear review over what happened and why it makes the point allocations to each side.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: zero
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
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.
**************************************************
Quite awhile ago I had a debate proposing a similar system: https://www.debateart.com/debates/803-default-auto-loss-on-forfeit
While I'm way too busy for active debating these days, I would argue a default auto-loss is preferable to an instant loss. As much as when the margin of forfeiture increases, there would be some gain in not having such a debate sit around in the voting window.
The debate may only be removed if both sides consent.
In future, I highly suggest discussion of any pro/con confusion (or other matters of clarity) in the comment section before accepting challenges.
Regarding requesting people vote: So long as it's not clearly slanted (such as 'hey, vote for me and I'll vote for you on one of your debates'), vote requests are allowed. Further, someone in a "friends" list here, does not equate to being real friends; heck often people who are listed here as friends outright dislike each other.
Good luck on the debate.
To me this was not a real debate, and the vote in question had no chance of changing the outcome; therefore I did opt to waste anyone's time with a report.
Ahh... Reset the password for said email account then.
Regarding complaints of misconduct:
Pro's case is weird with the side tangents. The level of focus on ancient child molesters, makes my mind jump to him using "worm" as a slang for that. However, that line of reasoning was present in his R1, and he never seemed to accuse con of being an a 1500 year old irish wizard, so the accusation that the Irish wizard Broichan was such a vile man, does not infer any accusation of con sharing in such depravity.
To me this really seems like a comedic riddle debate, therefore not moderated.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#non-moderated-debates
There should be a password reset option. Plus Benjamin seems to be the type that would allow a doover (copy/paste the original rounds into a new debate, and pick up like nothing happened, and then delete the original iteration of the debate ... if going that route, I would suggest a rule of him getting the conduct point automatically).
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: logicae // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: Arguments to con.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Not sure why this one was reported... High quality vote, with feedback for both sides. It does include outside content in mentioning another vote, and giving personal feelings on the issue; but that was clearly wholly separate from the point allocation weighing.
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: TheHammer // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: legibility to pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
In short, you did not even look at the arguments, and nitpicked a non-issue in punctuation to poorly justify giving points to one side. While punctuation can rise to be enough, it would have to be abysmal; either from the complete lack thereof, or, like' ungodly; terrible.
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.
Legibility is an optional award as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, wherein sections of the debate become illegible or at least comparatively burdensome to decipher.
Examples:
• Unbroken walls of text, or similar formatting attempts to make an argument hard to follow.
• Terrible punctuation throughout.
• Overwhelming word confusion, or regularly distracting misspellings.
• Jarring font and/or formatting changes.
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
**************************************************
TheHammer
Added: 19 hours ago
#1
Reason:
From CON:
"Regardless of race, if you complete your education, don’t have kids out of wedlock and maintain full time employment you’re far more likely to join the middle class than otherwise (Brookings 2013). "
Pretty sure he's missing a comma or two.
That pro never will, is not indicative of what he should do.
Thank you for refining your vote point allotments.
Call it a Gish Gallop-lite if you wish.
The problem of any Gish Gallop is not about if the person offering it is right or wrong, or even if each bullet point is right or wrong, it's the style of argument. Certainly one could be done of chained fallacies, but it does not have to be.
"The Gish Gallop is the fallacious debate tactic of drowning your opponent in a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort"
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 6 to pro (everything except legibility)
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Good reasoning for arguments and sources, but the extra conduct award is excessive and getting close to vote bomb territory.
The extra conduct point is really unmerited given the character limit. Pro filled the first round with a Gish Gallop, if it won arguments fine, but to then penalize con extra for constructing a counter case instead of addressing each line it (of which any one would probably take more than the 500 characters)... Simply put, it's a low blow. This seemed enhanced further by really disliking their argument tactic, feeling personally offended they did not make the same flat earth arguments someone else would make; which would be impossible to wholly separate from how arguments are graded, such is understandable, but argument points are enough for that, conduct as well is overkill.
Conduct is an optional award as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, such as extreme unsportsmanlike or outright toxic behavior which distracted from the topical debate.
**************************************************
RationalMadman
Added: 8 days ago
#6
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
In this debate, Pro not only accepted the debate in 100% bad faith but did so lazily and in a humiliating manner not just to his opponent, no not at all, but to all flat-earthers. Too many clowns take the flat earth stance as a joke and misrepresent the logic within the theory, this goes beyond that and flat out humiliates the entire concept implying that Pro couldn't ever defend flat-earth theory itself so has to resort to nonsensical semantics to win.
On top of completely ignoring the debte description's definition of what the flat Earth model is, Pro furthermore claims Con has 'conceded' when Con did nothing of the sort. I take this personally, as I myself believe the Earth is flat and know just how much stigma there is against this theory because it indeed involves conspiracy theories regarding NASA and Roscosmos (other space stations all answer to them). I do not vote based on that bias, nonetheless I am telling you that I don't find this shit funny, it's debates like this that make people assume all flat-earthers are faking it or are morons, instead of that there are intelligent and genuine flat-earthers.
Con uses sources to back up every single point he makes, from that NASA claims to have travelled to space to even turning the satellite point against Pro (which Pro tried to weirdly turn against Con and used a NASA and Space.com source to back up flat-earth theory...) I don't know what more to say, Pro doesn't use sources close to as efficiently or without self-harm to his case as Con does.
Pro tries to make the debate about the Earth being curved in 'spacetime'. Spacetime is a concept strictly tied to round-earth theory and is based on us being in a massive universe with galaxies in it (such that lightyears exist as a unit of spacetime), as opposed to flat-earth theory that holds that the sky is largely an illusion and perhaps a destiny map with only the sun and moon being actual objects rotating around the Earth.
Now, I am aware this is me debating against Pro, it is therefore pertinent to notice that Con doesn't need to dismiss any of these ridiculous points because the debate description (which Pro agreed to upon accepting the debate) defines flat-earth model as the archaic model which I know is one with Antarctica as an outer edge/barrier and is by no means whatsoever a 'spacetime' semantic loophole.
Pro does NOT REPLY TO ANY of Con's arguments AT ALL!
He doesn't explain how refraction of light explains ships disappearing over the horizon (due to the 'falling effect' of distanct objects as they mesh with the ground up to a point of no distinction that's more blatant on sunny days due to mirage effects), in fact every single point Con makes in Round 1 hold true by the end of the debate because Pro is too lazy to address a single one in his (absence of) rebuttals.
This is not how to debate. I refuse to reward it.
Good luck in your pursuit of higher education. It is a noble goal.
Well, you did die for our sins!
Taking certain comments to their logical conclusion, apparently your parents are God...
Regarding the recent Muslim mass murderer, that would of course not be enough evidence to proclaim Muslims are in general murderers, let alone terrorists.
Only 12 hours remain for voting.
Thank you so much for the incredibly detailed vote. It was more than this debate deserved!
The Death Star was an inside job!
I am expecting a personal relationship angle in this debate.
Since this seems like a class assignment thing, I'm not deleting the debate unless one or both of you indicate desire for such.
However, I suggest using a longer argument window in the setup. The option to take longer to get started, doesn't mean you can't be very quick. The arguments will be time stamped afterall.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Fauxlaw // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 6 to con
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Good reasoning for arguments and sources, but the extra legibility award is excessive and getting close to vote bomb territory. It's given for apparent confusion of a single word (while noteworthy in harming both his argument and sources, it is otherwise not an overwhelming mistake which made the debate harder to read). "It appears Pro is confused by his own source material" is clearly already penalized under sources, there's no need to toss extra points for anything at all related.
Legibility is an optional award as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, wherein sections of the debate become illegible or at least comparatively burdensome to decipher.
Examples:
• Unbroken walls of text, or similar formatting attempts to make an argument hard to follow.
• Terrible punctuation throughout.
• Overwhelming word confusion, or regularly distracting misspellings.
• Jarring font and/or formatting changes.
**************************************************
fauxlaw
Added: 10 days ago
#5
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Argument: Con [initiator] presents 8 R1 arguments, all of which Pro fails to rebut in 3 rounds. Whereas, Pro offers argument “Gravity is not a force, in R1, but in R2 presents same argument with a citation that includes, “The force tugging between two bodies depends…” Tug, or pull, are forces, contradicting Pro’s argument that gravity is not a force. A non-supporting source of an opponent’s argument does not support, but combats an argument. Con may have used this source effectively, but as it contradicts Pro’s argument, the same purpose is achieved. Pro argued in R1 “P1: Moving in a straight line results in an orbit.” Con correctly rebuts that Pro’s source [1] does not say that, but the orbit is caused by a larger object’s gravitation pulls the otherwise straight-line motion of a smaller object [Newton Law #1] into an orbit, and not that the smaller object’s straight line inclination of motion creates the orbit motion on its own. Pro incorrectly argues in R2 the Con agrees in R2 “earth is flat.” Wrong interpretation of Con’s argument. Con said, “Earth *surface* is flat in space time, but does not prove that Earth itself is flat.” Con is clearly arguing against the flat-earth theory. Points to Con.
Sources: Con’s sources consistently support Con’s arguments such as Con’s 9 R1 arguments not rebutted by Pro. Pro’s conflict due to conflicting source use noted above, Con also wins source points.
Legibility: Pro provides one “logical proof” source [ScienceDirect] as a syllogism argument to “prove” an Con “concession” that used anisotropy as a basis for the argument. However, anisotropy is not a matter of consistency of an object’s property of shape, such as regarding a flat-earth. Rather, anisotropy is the property of an object which allows it to change properties, such as shape, in different directions of perception. It appears Pro is confused by his own source material, and, therefore, the legibility of his argument fails because it does not adequately describe his objective BoP of the exclusive shape of a flat earth. Point to Con
Conduct: Both opponents had proper regard for one another. Tie.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Intelligence_06 // Mod action: Not Removed
>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:
The voter seemed to find one side more compelling of a case, and cited in debate reasons for this. While not rebutting points is understandable in a 500 character debate, the voter being moved by a critical one is likewise understandable.
The only potential issue I'm seeing is labeling fallacies in a way that was not done in the debate. IMO this level of it does not seem to cross the line into outside content, as he's not generating his own arguments, merely using a shorthand for why he did not find one to be more convincing; which leaves it more in the realm of feedback to help improve future arguments.
**************************************************
Got pulled into something else, I'll get around to the rest of the reported ones.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Puachu // Mod action: Not Removed
>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:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
Clearly the voter read everything and tried to be fair about grading it. That with 500 characters it was hard for him to follow it, is a fault which rests with the setup of the debate.
**************************************************
I've been procrastinating on handling reported votes...
While the premise may seem absurd, a casual glance at the arguments do not suggest it is a comedy debate or any other category of non-moderated debate.
Removed Benjamin’s vote by request:
Pro never proves that they are out to get him - he just makes a subjective assertion that since he "feels" that they are after him they really are. CON proves that if they were they would not be "ARE" after him.
Sources to PRO, obviously, CON never used sources.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: gugigor // Mod action: Not Removed (borderline)
>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 borderline. By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient.
I'd be curious for a review on sources given the the disparity. Otherwise having read the debate, I can completely understand a voter getting lost in how pro setup his case; and even not understanding the pro's challenges to the equality issue that was con's case (the voter seemed to have read them, as they did paraphrase one of the numbers from it).
As a numbers guy, I am going to have very different takeaways from a debate like this than the average person. This kind of thing is to be expected. Different audiences, different outcomes.,
**************************************************
At a glance it looks like you each offered compelling cases. However, I likely have too much bias on this topic to be a fair judge.
Precedent becomes a weird thing. The result of the recent trail, will be evidence in future impeachment trials; yet any case could be argued that the senate interpreted the constitution wrong or otherwise acted against it.
I vividly remember the first impeachment of Trump, and the repeated claims by GOP senators that impeachment of a sitting president is unconstitutional... Which that level of unbridled stupidity in the senate, is suggestive of deeper problems with the system.
But defining them as non-human is a social construct!
/joke