"Finally, the Framers made one exception to the legislature's exclusive role in the impeachment process that promotes integrity in the proceedings. While the Presiding Officer of the Senate (typically the Vice President of the United States) usually presides at impeachment trials, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides in the event that the President of the United States is tried.14 This provision ensures that a Vice President shall not preside over proceedings that could result in his own elevation to the presidency, a particularly important concern at the time of the founding, when Presidents and Vice Presidents were not elected on the same ticket and could belong to rival parties.15"
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S3-C6-1-2/ALDE_00000707/
Powerful bit, a shame the link was broken. I sadly can't edit anything inside debates (had I such power, both parties would have to agree to such error correction).
If tackling this topic again, I do suggest outright highlighting that as a full quotation.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Safalcon7 // 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
**************************************************
My general takeaway is that the senate went about the impeachment trial in non-constitutional ways, not that impeaching a president or thereafter holding a trial inherently were in violation. That as a private citizen a former office holder can face normal criminal charges for their actions in office, was an excellent point to support this theme of how pointless holding a trial after they’ve left office is; however, I was not convinced that it would outright be unconstitutional, merely a waste of time (intuitively, both democrats and republicans are probably disappointed said criminal trials do not seem to occur with any regularity… I could have sworn each side promised to lock up the other’s presidential nominee for 2016).
In essence con was caught in a couple Catch-22s:
I. The actions of the senate could be considered constitutional because they did it, setting a new precedent and all that; but con was insisting from the outset that we should stick to an originalist interpretation, even while admitting there’s bizarre things like a Trump presidency they never could have imagined.
II. the senate only being able to try Mr. Trump if trying him as the president, but then deciding to not use the judge required for trying the president. This is a having your cake and eating it too kind of situation.
Well I feel sources lean toward pro, con did an adequate job engaging with them for me to leave this within the tied range.
And here is my thought stream from while reading through the contentions:
---PRO---
1. Chief Justice
A pretty good opening, and it immediately just seems weird that they wouldn't have the chief justice preside to minimize issues.
So pro points out the constitution requires the chief justice for the president.
Con defends on sementiuc grounds that it is the chief justice who is unconstitutional if he is not presiding, not the senate. Con further asserts that this is to prevent the VP running the trial and being able to take power (a source for this really would have been ideal). And finally that were such a clause in the constitution, that would unduly give the Chief Justice too much power in that he could decide if an impeachment trial will occur or not.
Pro leverages con insting an ex president can be impeached as a president to enhance the impacts on this point. He hammers on that the articles of impeachment drawn by the senate target the president, therefore as they are written requiring the Chief Justice.
Some back and forth nit-picking with the phrase “only current”
Note: I really don't see the big deal, but pro is hedging out ahead on this.
2. Trial of a Private Citizen in the Senate
Pro argues Trump is ineligible for impeachment due to being now out of office. The logic even includes Biden's failure to appoint him to challalor or something to make him eligible for impeachment. He does better in pointing to issues of former office holders such as VPs perhaps being able to gain weird power if current and former were interchangeable.
Con counters that there is no explicit limit stated as it would be if the word “only,” were included. Then builds toward it being a safeguard against someone's actions as president, which their central thesis is they should be able to be tried even afterwards.
Pro argues they must be removed from office before they can be barred from future service, and goes so far as to claim such power would allow them to impeach anyone from the presidency regardless of if they have ever been in politics (a rather obvious slippery slope, but we'll see if it's challenged). And finally an appeal to simplicity that it is easier to understand his take on the wording of the constitution. This basically ends with the slippery slope repeated, and an appeal to tradition that the founding fathers wanted to curb the power of congress against private citizens (whereas con complaints that pro uses that phrase too much... as a reader of this debate, repeating that phrase lets me follow the thread of argument throughout the rounds, so I am quite grateful for it).
Other parts of cons case (specifically Origins of Impeachment) address this better than his direct replies.
3. Past Impeachments/Trials
Pro brings up the impeachment of Judge Delahay, and the lack of a trial after his resignation. This certainly suggests a trial is not mandatory.
Pro brings up the impeachment of Secretary of War Belknap, who was acquitted due to lack of jurisdiction even when he abused his office on the way out.
"Secretary of War" is such a cooler title than Defense, since really when have we been invaded?
Pro brings up the impeachment of Judge Kent, and the trial being dropped due to him resigning. This affirms a trial is not mandatory.
Con gets off to a bad start in rebuttals: "previous senate’s do not determine the constitutionality of future senate’s actions" which is kinda the opposite of how our courts operate.
Con does well in pointing out the flaw in the Delahay case of them choosing he wasn't worth their time, but this does not take it off the table for consideration in how future impeachments are handled.
Con excels in the Belknap case, by pointing out the trial indeed proceeded following the vote to determine if they had jurisdiction. ... I expect a lot more back and forth on this.
Con does well in pointing out the flaw in the Kent case of them choosing he wasn't worth their time.
Pro defends "judicial precedents carry weight" which is common knowledge (see my above comment). Builds this up on the Belknap case with "defendant was acquitted not on evidentiary grounds but on jurisdictional grounds establishes this precedent" and a powerful quote by Luther Martin.
Pro closes this section out with an appeal to the lack of an "or" in the rules, tying back to the issues over ", and"
While I agree with con about the first and third demonstrating disinterest rather than binding law for how it must be done, his insistence that past impeachments have no bearing on the constitutionality of future ones doesn't hold up.
Coulter examples from the USA of constitutional interpretations in line with his case really would have been ideal.
---CON---
Con does a nice informative opening, in which he insists he should use an originalist framework for interpreting the constitution, and that precedents matter (specifically ones from England). Before building the logic that the founding fathers intended the senate to be able to keep former elected officials they deemed dangerous from ever holding office again, and that the loophole of no longer in office is stupid.
Pro counters that there's no reason precedents should only come from England and not various senate trials to include ones which set the actual rules of impeachment.
Apparently in England private citizens could be impeached even if they have not held office, to which our constitution seems to outright reject.
Pro counters the purpose of impeachment by pointing to non-elected offices a former VP could appoint their buddy to if there was not the power to bar from office in the impeachments (seems like a good safety net to have).
Pro goes into a slippery slope fallacy of suggesting a potential future desire to impeach Washington (R.I.P., he apparently “passed away decades ago.”) if Trump is impeached.
Con does some defenses, to include a great point that hopefully future debates like this will lead with: "when drafting an instructional document such as the constitution, not every question needs to be answered. Some prospective scenarios are just so preposterous that it would not have been worth the framers time and effort to address."
I got to say that this debate felt a little hamstrung by the rules for what had to be in each round. While no new points in the final round is good, the other limits made the flow feel oddly restrictive. Con even commented on this right at the end of the debate.
As there is most clearly not positive consent from both sides for the debate to be removed, nor extenuating circumstances, the debate shall be left in place.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: FLRW // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to con
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
While thematically at least touching on some of the broad strokes of the debate, this is a clear case of outside content over the actual debate. The debaters did not mention "Jamie Raskin," a "January Exception," or "what Trump's team argued in some of their filings yesterday."
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
**************************************************
FLRW
Added: 2 days ago
Reason:
ILikePie5 starts by saying that he Constitution clearly states the President, Vice President, and Civil Officers are the only people subject to conviction, not private citizens such as Mr. Trump. This is not true because Articles One and Two of the Constitution talk about impeachment. Nowhere do they expressly limit this power to sitting or current office holders. And a long standing trope of legal argument is, if a law doesn't tell you you can't do something, you basically have the green light unless a court or some other entity tells you otherwise. Second, and I think more compelling, [is] public policy. A lot of people point out the perverse incentives that would be created if you couldn't impeach someone who has just left the office. Jamie Raskin, the House manager, says there's no January exception to impeachment. The idea is that people might be emboldened to engage in misbehavior in the dwindling days of their tenure knowing full well that they couldn't be held accountable through impeachment, at least. And finally, contrary to what Trump's team argued in some of their filings yesterday, this case isn't moot just because Trump is now a private citizen. Among the punishments for impeachment, of course, [are] not just removal from office, but also disqualification from holding future federal office. And since Trump is, of course, a one-term president, he otherwise would be eligible to run again in 2024. So this is a very consequential proceeding.
> I spent 3 days writing my original 8,030-character RFV only to find the limit is 5,000. It is easier to rewrite it from scratch then squeeze it to fit
You can always use the comment section, and break it apart (if doing so, I suggest posting the end of it first for ease of reading). A common vote will state "RFD in comments" which so long as the RFD is easily accessible, it is fine to post wherever.
"I've posted the issue in moderation chat for group feedback.
This definitely would not have been a problem a week ago."
Your choice to delay things by so many days, has caused a situation in which both sides no longer consent to the debate being deleted. Deleting a debate against the wishes of one side largely because the other forgot about a debate and then forfeited, would be a massive expansion of moderation powers. Therefore, I've posted it in moderation chat for others to review.
From the extended policies, here are the current rulings on when a debate may be deleted:
"Subsection B1: Content Deletion
I. Debates may not be deleted, barring certain exceptions
II. Exceptions to PA.A2.SB.SbB1.PI are limited to:
a. Cases in which both debaters consent to a debate’s deletion
b. Cases in which the debate, either in its text or title, contains personal attacks against another user
c. Cases in which the debate constitutes spam or advertising
d. Cases in which the debate, either in its text or title, contains doxxing, PM-exposing, or seriously threatening content
e. Cases in which the debate was created by an account impersonating DART staff
f. Cases in which the debate was created by a multi-account of a user banned at the time of the debate’s creation"
Wait, he's already at about 1600?! ... That seems nigh impossible in such a short amount of time, when contrasted against his closest contenders who had years to build momentum. Is he writing down each item for his McDonalds order as an Executive Order or something like that?
As someone who was raised by holocaust deniers, I actually disagree. While Holocaust denial is horrible, it is a symptom of worse problems in those who spread such disinformation.
Overly regulating what people can say, is a slippery slope. Back on DDO, a brilliant debate for Australia Doesn't Exist got taken down for somehow being a hate crime.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: gugigor // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 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.
This factors in both the initial RFD, and the offered expansion in comment #28.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: FLRW // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 7 to con.
>Reason for Decision:
Con's statement of Ships disappear over horizon is proof of a curved surface. Airplanes have started in one spot on the world and flown straight until they were back at the same point. This shows that the curve is a circle.
>Reason for Mod Action:
This is a pure vote bomb.
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
**************************************************
We can't reset the clock (I wish), but if you both desire that link be added to the description (pretty sure I'm seeing that definition already included), that is a change we can make. Similarly, if you both wish this debate can be canceled (even if making another) that is something we can do.
Lets see, I'm so overwhelmingly biased that I can't consider anything outside my bias to have merit.
I dislike RM so much, that I left a vote mildly in his favor in place...
I hate forfeitures so much, that when a voter considers something else to be worse (even in a case where I disagree), I leave the votes in place if they justify it...
How are either of these examples of me being controlled by bias?
You can argue the vote should be removed on many grounds, but claiming it's only left in place due to my well documented bias against forfeitures is crazy.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: conduct to con
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Arguments as tied is well justified. Conduct, while the voting policy specifies even a single forfeiture as calling for it unless there is some reason not to... Indeed a reason for the inverse of the presumptive award is listed and expanded upon.
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.
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.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: MisterChris // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro, 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.
Obviously the voter goes into detail on different contentions to warrant arguments, before mitigating them with conduct.
The voting policy gives the specific example of misconduct of a final round blitzkrieg, to which the debate did not suffer that level of sin, but a voter having a problem with lesser form of it (new contentions, as opposed to a whole new debate as some try) is a sound criticism. It is even better when able to be cast against the voter's majority awardee.
**************************************************
I’m at work on a coffee break. At a curtesy glance the most recent vote looks ok... granted the main thing that makes votes problematic to me is when they slap on extra points (even while I defend the ability to do so when warranted).
I work 12 hour days, so will probably not get around to voting in time.
That said, I'll get around to giving some feedback (I already know that I would leave everything but arguments tied, even while I consider sources worth discussing... I just don't think either side came out that much ahead on them).
I would of course like to see you two tackle this subject again sometime, with more rounds. If doing so, I advise some statement of the current level of video games in schools as a basis to better understand the competing proposals. While I would not want 10k characters, I am really curious what this as a law would look like (a debate specifically on the utility of that could be cool).
Your evidence that I did not read it, is that I did an analysis on a key part of it... By that logic you clearly did not read the debate, as you analysed key parts of it... Please tell me you see in retrospect how comical that statement is?
Of course as the vote is available below (#55), if you said you gave conduct for the "social deductions" argument in R3, please indicate which paragraph this was in? Because I admittedly did not read that within the conduct summary.
You did not cite in the vote what the extremely offending conduct was, beyond a vague reference to where (imagine a vote grading arguments without ever naming them specifically: 'that first argument held up, that second one did not, and that third WOW!'). My guess as to "projects" instead of "social deductions," doesn't change that key issue.
Got to say, this debate is exemplifying a good reason to post sources within the debate itself, as yours are becoming less accessible the more the debate is discussed. Also of note is that embedding links does not add to the character count of the text. So [1] could contain a link, as could [2], etc. Granted, I do like the presentation of a source list at the end of rounds, but the lack of it is not something I would outright penalize.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Theweakeredge // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 6 to pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Simply put: The conduct allocation is troubling. First, it does not list what the brand new argument was (I can guess projects, which was actually expanded from a previous round); which in the only other vote to find conduct noteworthy was fine as it ultimately did not score the point. Second, it honestly feels tacked on to try to score more points than the previous voter.
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
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.
**************************************************
Theweakeredge
Added: 22 hours ago
#4
Reason:
In round 2 Con summed up how I frame this debate: "If the effects of video games in school can be replaced by something that can be accomplished by a teacher, a staple of paper, and a single screen, then there is no need for video games"
Arguments:
The core argument starts off as follows: Pro claims and successfully substantiates that video games show academic benefit to students, Con counters that video games are either unfun and thus not conducive to learning or fun which would increase competition, and therefore also not being conducive to learning. The problem here is that neither argument is sourced, this is not very convincing. Con does have a second point however, that video games are not necessary. I don't really see the relevance. The resolution is whether we should include video games into school systems, not if school systems need video games.
In the second round we see Pro mostly rest on his laurels, pointing out that Con's claims are not sourced and logically dismantling the claims of Con, however, Con himself introduces some new arguments into the fold here. That Video Games are more likely to cause kids to care less for homework if they get a game system immediately, next that games will not stress learning, third that video games are more likely to go out of hand. I don't see the relevance of the first claim - if video games were implemented in school, they would be using the systems for homework. The second one isn't sourced, and the third one is a single example - in other words - it doesn't lend much impact to his claims.
For the final round Pro tidies everything up, rebuking a claim from last round that an example he cited was a video game, and generally rebuked the points - Pro essentially claims that with guidance from teachers the problems that Con points out would be mitigated. The problem really comes with Con's response, while he does briefly touch on Pro's arguments he spends most of the last round establishing a new argument. Con uses two sources to substantiate their claims, though one doesn't work, and the other one was referring to video games implemented specifically at home. I don't factor this into the impacts either. Ultimately Con never demonstrated that something as effective and cheaper than Video Games are or could be added to school, especially considering Con never sourced that Video Games were uniquely expensive or that they are harmful.
A comparison of the impacts: Pro has a solid foundation of video games being beneficial to a wide array of subjects, in contrast Con has a lot of assertions and irrelevant arguments. The arguments easily goes to Pro.
Sources:
Though Con had some interesting sources and claims, I think overall Pro had sources that were more relevant not only to the resolution at hand, so topicality apriority, but also to his argument. In contrast, Con uses several arguments that barely relate to the resolution, some sources not even being available. Not only that but the quality of Pro's sources was superior to Con's - with half of Con's being newspapers with no studies behind them, and Pro's being journals with hundreds of studies. Pro wins this one too.
Conduct:
Con introduced a brand new argument in the last round, giving Pro no room to rebuke them or even answer them at all - Con should therefore be penalized for such an action, I give it to Pro.
Reading some of this, I've got to say that con missed a huge opening pro left with this statement: "Con also claims that the video playing devices would be expensive and not many schools would afford it, but remember this is a state's law, so the money is out of the government, not out of the school. There's no statement on how detrimental this cost is."
With any source showing schools having bad computers or such from funding issues, this would have majorly hurt pro. As is, it seems to favor pro. Still, con was able to leverage the implemented as law point to box pro in.
Pro had a couple weeks to contest the vote review. While more detail would have been preferable, the paraphrase to which there was no question raised of the accuracy was a valid reason for a conduct penalty.
Interesting thing, apparently in 1960 there may have been an election stolen:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/10/donald-trump-2016-rigged-nixon-kennedy-1960-214395/
I thought it was weird that they decided to wait until after he was out of office... Like if it's a priority, knock the whole thing out immediately and troll him by kicking him out a mere day or two early.
You apparently had "Sloppy and contradictory use of sourcing," even disagreeing with your own source at one point. Whereas con apparently used ones which "systematically support his arguments and rebuttals, such as his rebuttal of AI-hard, and more particularly by his defining of neuron, cell, and think."
Legibility may be awarded for "at least comparatively burdensome to decipher" with one specific example being "Overwhelming word confusion." Clearly the voter became distracted by issues of this, especially when your language directly conflicted with itself. Again, it's not an award I would give on this debate, but not everyone needs to vote the same way to have still put the thought and effort into attempting to fairly grade your work.
I really would have preferred this to have been reported much earlier...
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Undefeatable // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded:
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The sources award lacks the depth of comparison.
Additionally, this vote runs the risk of being based on outside content. I am not seeing where in the debate where pro proves that Kant protects animals, rather I just see con using Kantian ethics, and pro calling it "terrible logic." The vote doesn't indicate /how/ pro defeated it.
**************************************************
Reason:
Con tried many ways to refute pro, but I can’t buy any of his rebuttals because they’re immensely flawed. Pro successfully shows that the suffering of any being should be prevented — Kant does not successfully allow animals’ tortured. I recommend using a different philosophy. Pro used a great environmental argument, even if it wasn’t mentioned many times con did not bat if away successfully. Sources to pro because con mostly only used common sense. In the end, pro has a net benefit analysis that is largely in his favor, while con only had a kritique that not everyone will convert to veganism. Next time, I recommend that con try to resolve the problems with meat industry, because there’s too many problems that he can’t defeat. In addition pro’s suffering argument is near impossible to defeat. Don’t try to refute it using Kant.
Please understand this was a lengthy debate and a well detailed vote, with very little time for review...
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Fauxlaw // Mod action: Not Removed (borderline)
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 6 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.
My only hesitation is the legibility award. While I personally find the legibility award to nitpicky, the voter does not seem to be attempting an unfair allotment but rather trying to guide pro in an important way to do better next time. To be clear, that I would personally not award something, does not mean someone else is wrong to do so.
That said, the vote left me understanding the debate pretty well (and my skimming using a word search for key phrases backed this up). The resolution failed due to a key bit of word confusion, calling on theoretically instead of hypothetically.
**************************************************
"Finally, the Framers made one exception to the legislature's exclusive role in the impeachment process that promotes integrity in the proceedings. While the Presiding Officer of the Senate (typically the Vice President of the United States) usually presides at impeachment trials, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides in the event that the President of the United States is tried.14 This provision ensures that a Vice President shall not preside over proceedings that could result in his own elevation to the presidency, a particularly important concern at the time of the founding, when Presidents and Vice Presidents were not elected on the same ticket and could belong to rival parties.15"
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S3-C6-1-2/ALDE_00000707/
Powerful bit, a shame the link was broken. I sadly can't edit anything inside debates (had I such power, both parties would have to agree to such error correction).
If tackling this topic again, I do suggest outright highlighting that as a full quotation.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Safalcon7 // 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
**************************************************
RFD 1 of 3.
My general takeaway is that the senate went about the impeachment trial in non-constitutional ways, not that impeaching a president or thereafter holding a trial inherently were in violation. That as a private citizen a former office holder can face normal criminal charges for their actions in office, was an excellent point to support this theme of how pointless holding a trial after they’ve left office is; however, I was not convinced that it would outright be unconstitutional, merely a waste of time (intuitively, both democrats and republicans are probably disappointed said criminal trials do not seem to occur with any regularity… I could have sworn each side promised to lock up the other’s presidential nominee for 2016).
In essence con was caught in a couple Catch-22s:
I. The actions of the senate could be considered constitutional because they did it, setting a new precedent and all that; but con was insisting from the outset that we should stick to an originalist interpretation, even while admitting there’s bizarre things like a Trump presidency they never could have imagined.
II. the senate only being able to try Mr. Trump if trying him as the president, but then deciding to not use the judge required for trying the president. This is a having your cake and eating it too kind of situation.
Well I feel sources lean toward pro, con did an adequate job engaging with them for me to leave this within the tied range.
And here is my thought stream from while reading through the contentions:
---PRO---
1. Chief Justice
A pretty good opening, and it immediately just seems weird that they wouldn't have the chief justice preside to minimize issues.
So pro points out the constitution requires the chief justice for the president.
Con defends on sementiuc grounds that it is the chief justice who is unconstitutional if he is not presiding, not the senate. Con further asserts that this is to prevent the VP running the trial and being able to take power (a source for this really would have been ideal). And finally that were such a clause in the constitution, that would unduly give the Chief Justice too much power in that he could decide if an impeachment trial will occur or not.
Pro leverages con insting an ex president can be impeached as a president to enhance the impacts on this point. He hammers on that the articles of impeachment drawn by the senate target the president, therefore as they are written requiring the Chief Justice.
Some back and forth nit-picking with the phrase “only current”
Note: I really don't see the big deal, but pro is hedging out ahead on this.
2. Trial of a Private Citizen in the Senate
Pro argues Trump is ineligible for impeachment due to being now out of office. The logic even includes Biden's failure to appoint him to challalor or something to make him eligible for impeachment. He does better in pointing to issues of former office holders such as VPs perhaps being able to gain weird power if current and former were interchangeable.
Con counters that there is no explicit limit stated as it would be if the word “only,” were included. Then builds toward it being a safeguard against someone's actions as president, which their central thesis is they should be able to be tried even afterwards.
Pro argues they must be removed from office before they can be barred from future service, and goes so far as to claim such power would allow them to impeach anyone from the presidency regardless of if they have ever been in politics (a rather obvious slippery slope, but we'll see if it's challenged). And finally an appeal to simplicity that it is easier to understand his take on the wording of the constitution. This basically ends with the slippery slope repeated, and an appeal to tradition that the founding fathers wanted to curb the power of congress against private citizens (whereas con complaints that pro uses that phrase too much... as a reader of this debate, repeating that phrase lets me follow the thread of argument throughout the rounds, so I am quite grateful for it).
Other parts of cons case (specifically Origins of Impeachment) address this better than his direct replies.
3. Past Impeachments/Trials
Pro brings up the impeachment of Judge Delahay, and the lack of a trial after his resignation. This certainly suggests a trial is not mandatory.
Pro brings up the impeachment of Secretary of War Belknap, who was acquitted due to lack of jurisdiction even when he abused his office on the way out.
"Secretary of War" is such a cooler title than Defense, since really when have we been invaded?
Pro brings up the impeachment of Judge Kent, and the trial being dropped due to him resigning. This affirms a trial is not mandatory.
Con gets off to a bad start in rebuttals: "previous senate’s do not determine the constitutionality of future senate’s actions" which is kinda the opposite of how our courts operate.
Con does well in pointing out the flaw in the Delahay case of them choosing he wasn't worth their time, but this does not take it off the table for consideration in how future impeachments are handled.
Con excels in the Belknap case, by pointing out the trial indeed proceeded following the vote to determine if they had jurisdiction. ... I expect a lot more back and forth on this.
Con does well in pointing out the flaw in the Kent case of them choosing he wasn't worth their time.
Pro defends "judicial precedents carry weight" which is common knowledge (see my above comment). Builds this up on the Belknap case with "defendant was acquitted not on evidentiary grounds but on jurisdictional grounds establishes this precedent" and a powerful quote by Luther Martin.
Pro closes this section out with an appeal to the lack of an "or" in the rules, tying back to the issues over ", and"
While I agree with con about the first and third demonstrating disinterest rather than binding law for how it must be done, his insistence that past impeachments have no bearing on the constitutionality of future ones doesn't hold up.
Coulter examples from the USA of constitutional interpretations in line with his case really would have been ideal.
---CON---
Con does a nice informative opening, in which he insists he should use an originalist framework for interpreting the constitution, and that precedents matter (specifically ones from England). Before building the logic that the founding fathers intended the senate to be able to keep former elected officials they deemed dangerous from ever holding office again, and that the loophole of no longer in office is stupid.
Pro counters that there's no reason precedents should only come from England and not various senate trials to include ones which set the actual rules of impeachment.
Apparently in England private citizens could be impeached even if they have not held office, to which our constitution seems to outright reject.
Pro counters the purpose of impeachment by pointing to non-elected offices a former VP could appoint their buddy to if there was not the power to bar from office in the impeachments (seems like a good safety net to have).
Pro goes into a slippery slope fallacy of suggesting a potential future desire to impeach Washington (R.I.P., he apparently “passed away decades ago.”) if Trump is impeached.
Con does some defenses, to include a great point that hopefully future debates like this will lead with: "when drafting an instructional document such as the constitution, not every question needs to be answered. Some prospective scenarios are just so preposterous that it would not have been worth the framers time and effort to address."
I got to say that this debate felt a little hamstrung by the rules for what had to be in each round. While no new points in the final round is good, the other limits made the flow feel oddly restrictive. Con even commented on this right at the end of the debate.
As there is most clearly not positive consent from both sides for the debate to be removed, nor extenuating circumstances, the debate shall be left in place.
I am impressed by pro's dedication to applying plain packaging laws to his case.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: FLRW // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to con
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
While thematically at least touching on some of the broad strokes of the debate, this is a clear case of outside content over the actual debate. The debaters did not mention "Jamie Raskin," a "January Exception," or "what Trump's team argued in some of their filings yesterday."
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
**************************************************
FLRW
Added: 2 days ago
Reason:
ILikePie5 starts by saying that he Constitution clearly states the President, Vice President, and Civil Officers are the only people subject to conviction, not private citizens such as Mr. Trump. This is not true because Articles One and Two of the Constitution talk about impeachment. Nowhere do they expressly limit this power to sitting or current office holders. And a long standing trope of legal argument is, if a law doesn't tell you you can't do something, you basically have the green light unless a court or some other entity tells you otherwise. Second, and I think more compelling, [is] public policy. A lot of people point out the perverse incentives that would be created if you couldn't impeach someone who has just left the office. Jamie Raskin, the House manager, says there's no January exception to impeachment. The idea is that people might be emboldened to engage in misbehavior in the dwindling days of their tenure knowing full well that they couldn't be held accountable through impeachment, at least. And finally, contrary to what Trump's team argued in some of their filings yesterday, this case isn't moot just because Trump is now a private citizen. Among the punishments for impeachment, of course, [are] not just removal from office, but also disqualification from holding future federal office. And since Trump is, of course, a one-term president, he otherwise would be eligible to run again in 2024. So this is a very consequential proceeding.
> I spent 3 days writing my original 8,030-character RFV only to find the limit is 5,000. It is easier to rewrite it from scratch then squeeze it to fit
You can always use the comment section, and break it apart (if doing so, I suggest posting the end of it first for ease of reading). A common vote will state "RFD in comments" which so long as the RFD is easily accessible, it is fine to post wherever.
> Ragnar, go ahead and delete the bloody debate.
Again:
"I've posted the issue in moderation chat for group feedback.
This definitely would not have been a problem a week ago."
Your choice to delay things by so many days, has caused a situation in which both sides no longer consent to the debate being deleted. Deleting a debate against the wishes of one side largely because the other forgot about a debate and then forfeited, would be a massive expansion of moderation powers. Therefore, I've posted it in moderation chat for others to review.
From the extended policies, here are the current rulings on when a debate may be deleted:
"Subsection B1: Content Deletion
I. Debates may not be deleted, barring certain exceptions
II. Exceptions to PA.A2.SB.SbB1.PI are limited to:
a. Cases in which both debaters consent to a debate’s deletion
b. Cases in which the debate, either in its text or title, contains personal attacks against another user
c. Cases in which the debate constitutes spam or advertising
d. Cases in which the debate, either in its text or title, contains doxxing, PM-exposing, or seriously threatening content
e. Cases in which the debate was created by an account impersonating DART staff
f. Cases in which the debate was created by a multi-account of a user banned at the time of the debate’s creation"
I've posted the issue in moderation chat for group feedback.
This definitely would not have been a problem a week ago.
> Joe Biden at 392.3 EOs per year
Wait, he's already at about 1600?! ... That seems nigh impossible in such a short amount of time, when contrasted against his closest contenders who had years to build momentum. Is he writing down each item for his McDonalds order as an Executive Order or something like that?
As someone who was raised by holocaust deniers, I actually disagree. While Holocaust denial is horrible, it is a symptom of worse problems in those who spread such disinformation.
Overly regulating what people can say, is a slippery slope. Back on DDO, a brilliant debate for Australia Doesn't Exist got taken down for somehow being a hate crime.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: gugigor // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 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.
This factors in both the initial RFD, and the offered expansion in comment #28.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: FLRW // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 7 to con.
>Reason for Decision:
Con's statement of Ships disappear over horizon is proof of a curved surface. Airplanes have started in one spot on the world and flown straight until they were back at the same point. This shows that the curve is a circle.
>Reason for Mod Action:
This is a pure vote bomb.
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
**************************************************
Voting will be over tomorrow, after that almost any type of discussion will be fair game.
Would you mind giving your reasoning for why Pro's logical proof failed?
I highly advise judges try to think not in terms of Mr. Trump, but in terms of a hypothetical president Mr. X., or even Mr. Orange.
We can't reset the clock (I wish), but if you both desire that link be added to the description (pretty sure I'm seeing that definition already included), that is a change we can make. Similarly, if you both wish this debate can be canceled (even if making another) that is something we can do.
Voting closes in 1 week.
You could tag him in a post, or message him directly.
Lets see, I'm so overwhelmingly biased that I can't consider anything outside my bias to have merit.
I dislike RM so much, that I left a vote mildly in his favor in place...
I hate forfeitures so much, that when a voter considers something else to be worse (even in a case where I disagree), I leave the votes in place if they justify it...
How are either of these examples of me being controlled by bias?
You can argue the vote should be removed on many grounds, but claiming it's only left in place due to my well documented bias against forfeitures is crazy.
> "biased"
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/you-keep-using-that-word-i-do-not-think-it-means-what-you-think-it-means
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: conduct to con
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Arguments as tied is well justified. Conduct, while the voting policy specifies even a single forfeiture as calling for it unless there is some reason not to... Indeed a reason for the inverse of the presumptive award is listed and expanded upon.
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.
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.
**************************************************
Not sure why this debate was just reported... If there's a specific reason, someone please let me know.
Good luck with the revised debate setup!
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: MisterChris // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro, 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.
Obviously the voter goes into detail on different contentions to warrant arguments, before mitigating them with conduct.
The voting policy gives the specific example of misconduct of a final round blitzkrieg, to which the debate did not suffer that level of sin, but a voter having a problem with lesser form of it (new contentions, as opposed to a whole new debate as some try) is a sound criticism. It is even better when able to be cast against the voter's majority awardee.
**************************************************
I’m at work on a coffee break. At a curtesy glance the most recent vote looks ok... granted the main thing that makes votes problematic to me is when they slap on extra points (even while I defend the ability to do so when warranted).
Hottest debate we’ve had in awhile!
I work 12 hour days, so will probably not get around to voting in time.
That said, I'll get around to giving some feedback (I already know that I would leave everything but arguments tied, even while I consider sources worth discussing... I just don't think either side came out that much ahead on them).
I would of course like to see you two tackle this subject again sometime, with more rounds. If doing so, I advise some statement of the current level of video games in schools as a basis to better understand the competing proposals. While I would not want 10k characters, I am really curious what this as a law would look like (a debate specifically on the utility of that could be cool).
Your evidence that I did not read it, is that I did an analysis on a key part of it... By that logic you clearly did not read the debate, as you analysed key parts of it... Please tell me you see in retrospect how comical that statement is?
Of course as the vote is available below (#55), if you said you gave conduct for the "social deductions" argument in R3, please indicate which paragraph this was in? Because I admittedly did not read that within the conduct summary.
> "it makes zero sense to delete it."
You did not cite in the vote what the extremely offending conduct was, beyond a vague reference to where (imagine a vote grading arguments without ever naming them specifically: 'that first argument held up, that second one did not, and that third WOW!'). My guess as to "projects" instead of "social deductions," doesn't change that key issue.
Got to say, this debate is exemplifying a good reason to post sources within the debate itself, as yours are becoming less accessible the more the debate is discussed. Also of note is that embedding links does not add to the character count of the text. So [1] could contain a link, as could [2], etc. Granted, I do like the presentation of a source list at the end of rounds, but the lack of it is not something I would outright penalize.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Theweakeredge // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 6 to pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Simply put: The conduct allocation is troubling. First, it does not list what the brand new argument was (I can guess projects, which was actually expanded from a previous round); which in the only other vote to find conduct noteworthy was fine as it ultimately did not score the point. Second, it honestly feels tacked on to try to score more points than the previous voter.
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
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.
**************************************************
Theweakeredge
Added: 22 hours ago
#4
Reason:
In round 2 Con summed up how I frame this debate: "If the effects of video games in school can be replaced by something that can be accomplished by a teacher, a staple of paper, and a single screen, then there is no need for video games"
Arguments:
The core argument starts off as follows: Pro claims and successfully substantiates that video games show academic benefit to students, Con counters that video games are either unfun and thus not conducive to learning or fun which would increase competition, and therefore also not being conducive to learning. The problem here is that neither argument is sourced, this is not very convincing. Con does have a second point however, that video games are not necessary. I don't really see the relevance. The resolution is whether we should include video games into school systems, not if school systems need video games.
In the second round we see Pro mostly rest on his laurels, pointing out that Con's claims are not sourced and logically dismantling the claims of Con, however, Con himself introduces some new arguments into the fold here. That Video Games are more likely to cause kids to care less for homework if they get a game system immediately, next that games will not stress learning, third that video games are more likely to go out of hand. I don't see the relevance of the first claim - if video games were implemented in school, they would be using the systems for homework. The second one isn't sourced, and the third one is a single example - in other words - it doesn't lend much impact to his claims.
For the final round Pro tidies everything up, rebuking a claim from last round that an example he cited was a video game, and generally rebuked the points - Pro essentially claims that with guidance from teachers the problems that Con points out would be mitigated. The problem really comes with Con's response, while he does briefly touch on Pro's arguments he spends most of the last round establishing a new argument. Con uses two sources to substantiate their claims, though one doesn't work, and the other one was referring to video games implemented specifically at home. I don't factor this into the impacts either. Ultimately Con never demonstrated that something as effective and cheaper than Video Games are or could be added to school, especially considering Con never sourced that Video Games were uniquely expensive or that they are harmful.
A comparison of the impacts: Pro has a solid foundation of video games being beneficial to a wide array of subjects, in contrast Con has a lot of assertions and irrelevant arguments. The arguments easily goes to Pro.
Sources:
Though Con had some interesting sources and claims, I think overall Pro had sources that were more relevant not only to the resolution at hand, so topicality apriority, but also to his argument. In contrast, Con uses several arguments that barely relate to the resolution, some sources not even being available. Not only that but the quality of Pro's sources was superior to Con's - with half of Con's being newspapers with no studies behind them, and Pro's being journals with hundreds of studies. Pro wins this one too.
Conduct:
Con introduced a brand new argument in the last round, giving Pro no room to rebuke them or even answer them at all - Con should therefore be penalized for such an action, I give it to Pro.
Fun setup!
Reading some of this, I've got to say that con missed a huge opening pro left with this statement: "Con also claims that the video playing devices would be expensive and not many schools would afford it, but remember this is a state's law, so the money is out of the government, not out of the school. There's no statement on how detrimental this cost is."
With any source showing schools having bad computers or such from funding issues, this would have majorly hurt pro. As is, it seems to favor pro. Still, con was able to leverage the implemented as law point to box pro in.
Pro had a couple weeks to contest the vote review. While more detail would have been preferable, the paraphrase to which there was no question raised of the accuracy was a valid reason for a conduct penalty.
🐢 was able to do that? Damn!
“ Whether we like it or not, about 75 million Americans feel this election was rigged.”
This should not summarize so much of a debate.
Interesting thing, apparently in 1960 there may have been an election stolen:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/10/donald-trump-2016-rigged-nixon-kennedy-1960-214395/
I thought it was weird that they decided to wait until after he was out of office... Like if it's a priority, knock the whole thing out immediately and troll him by kicking him out a mere day or two early.
"They just stool the election"
I don't know why I find this typo so amusing.
You apparently had "Sloppy and contradictory use of sourcing," even disagreeing with your own source at one point. Whereas con apparently used ones which "systematically support his arguments and rebuttals, such as his rebuttal of AI-hard, and more particularly by his defining of neuron, cell, and think."
Legibility may be awarded for "at least comparatively burdensome to decipher" with one specific example being "Overwhelming word confusion." Clearly the voter became distracted by issues of this, especially when your language directly conflicted with itself. Again, it's not an award I would give on this debate, but not everyone needs to vote the same way to have still put the thought and effort into attempting to fairly grade your work.
Our timing... lol
I really would have preferred this to have been reported much earlier...
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Undefeatable // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded:
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The sources award lacks the depth of comparison.
Additionally, this vote runs the risk of being based on outside content. I am not seeing where in the debate where pro proves that Kant protects animals, rather I just see con using Kantian ethics, and pro calling it "terrible logic." The vote doesn't indicate /how/ pro defeated it.
**************************************************
Undefeatable
Added: 29 days ago
#1
Reason:
Con tried many ways to refute pro, but I can’t buy any of his rebuttals because they’re immensely flawed. Pro successfully shows that the suffering of any being should be prevented — Kant does not successfully allow animals’ tortured. I recommend using a different philosophy. Pro used a great environmental argument, even if it wasn’t mentioned many times con did not bat if away successfully. Sources to pro because con mostly only used common sense. In the end, pro has a net benefit analysis that is largely in his favor, while con only had a kritique that not everyone will convert to veganism. Next time, I recommend that con try to resolve the problems with meat industry, because there’s too many problems that he can’t defeat. In addition pro’s suffering argument is near impossible to defeat. Don’t try to refute it using Kant.
Please understand this was a lengthy debate and a well detailed vote, with very little time for review...
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Fauxlaw // Mod action: Not Removed (borderline)
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 6 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.
My only hesitation is the legibility award. While I personally find the legibility award to nitpicky, the voter does not seem to be attempting an unfair allotment but rather trying to guide pro in an important way to do better next time. To be clear, that I would personally not award something, does not mean someone else is wrong to do so.
That said, the vote left me understanding the debate pretty well (and my skimming using a word search for key phrases backed this up). The resolution failed due to a key bit of word confusion, calling on theoretically instead of hypothetically.
**************************************************
Someone could still report it. I was just curious so skimmed it.