**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Benjamin // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: https://tiny.cc/votingpolicy
>Points Awarded: 5 to con.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Pretty much cite how "CON showed that socialism and liberalism are independent and sometimes contradictory" and likewise how at least one of those many sources supported this.
In essence, this vote was just too vague... This can be avoided in future by just commenting on the core contention (and the main counterpoint or the lack thereof), listing a single source you found important (if voting sources), saying what conduct violation distracted you (if voting conduct)... You need not write a thesis but some minimal level of detail is required to verify knowledge of what you're grading.
To award argument points, the voter must:
(1) survey the main argument and counterargument in the debate,
(2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and
(3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.
To award sources points, the voter must:
(1) explain how the debaters' sources impacted the debate,
(2) directly assess the strength/utility of at least one source in particular cited in the debate, and
(3) explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall were notably superior to the other's.
**************************************************
Benjamin
Added: 2 days ago
Reason:
Sources:
No sources from PRO. He referenced some literature but it does not even compare to CON.
Arguments:
PRO did not fulfill his BoP with sources. Nevertheless, CON showed that socialism and liberalism are independent and sometimes contradictory, fulfilling BoP.
It's not a big deal, especially as it did not seek to change the outcome... But please don't do it again. The same vote would be tolerable if it did not assign points.
FYI, here is the drafted tied policy for the upcoming referendum:
Tied Arguments
While arguments may be determined as a tie, without that analysis or an exception, they must be weighted.
Whereas wholly tied votes are generally considered borderline and not removed, due to their lack of any meaningful impact on the outcome. Still, if they fail to be better than spam, they will be removed.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: BearMan // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: None
>Reason for Decision: "Bears are best"
>Reason for Mod Action:
Presently, even wholly tied votes must evaluate arguments enough to conclude that.
In essence, this vote was just too vague... This can be avoided in future by just commenting on the core contention (and the main counterpoint or the lack thereof), listing a single source you found important (if voting sources), saying what conduct violation distracted you (if voting conduct)... You need not write a thesis but some minimal level of detail is required to verify knowledge of what you're grading.
**************************************************
That you think we're having a pissing contest is a strange analogy to pop into your mind...
You chose to add questionable extra points to your vote, causing it likely be deleted if reported.
Someone reported it (actually multiple someones), and someone gave feedback to the main vote moderator explicitly questioning the validity of the source allotment.
Unsurprisingly, it was then deleted.
Lots of votes get deleted. Even I've had some of my votes get deleted. Deletions are not based on who cast them.
I don't normally put that much time into a vote during my work week, but something about this one held my attention... And for too long, I have to run!
"They have tiptoed around the issue but has never been explicit on the issue."
My mind immediately went to Beauty and the Beast, but they did cast Belle as a woman due to censorship, so you've still got a good point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNHgfVzj7Tc
If you hope to win this debate, toss a definition of inferior into the description. Otherwise someone will argue they are on average inferior in height, or even inferior in rank as proven by them not being allowed on Reddit, Facebook, and even this website.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: seldiora // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded:
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
I read the debate to see if this vote was glossing over major areas of contention, but no, thus was the core of the debate with a fair conclusion. That it gave feedback to suggest how pro could have done better, does not invalidate it.
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Jasmine // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 to con.
>Reason for Decision: "I don't play minecraft."
>Reason for Mod Action:
The reason offered only touches on conduct. While I'm hesitant to remove it on what was little more than a troll debate, discouraging pure vote bombs trumps that. Please review the voting policy, and revote if you wish.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Not Removed (borderline)
>Points Awarded: 4 to pro, 2 to con (a balance of 2 to pro)
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
This vote is very in depth in a debate which was not. While there is the risk of outside content, this one gives better feedback to help the debaters improve than all the others... Plus, even while giving points away so lightly, there's both the intuitive issue of what a large percentage of the debate was taken up by those things, combined with the reporter being ok with other votes giving away points so very lightly.
The vote was borderline. By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient.
**************************************************
I am starting my work week today... 1 month seems a lot safer, as potential votes are less of an everyday thing, but more of what days voters have free that they want to spent time critiquing. For me, at least for complex debates, that is during my weekends if I am not busy with other things, so a two-week voting window only gives a couple potential chances.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Athias // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 to con.
>Reason for Decision: "RFD will be provided in the comments section."
>Reason for Mod Action:
When I first glanced at this, I thought the source application seemed weak... Reading the related contentions, the claim of pro's being off topic, would seem to proclaim con's argument about creation and the bible as off topic (due to pro's being direct topical replies). That the argument is viewed to have failed, is not a valid reason to penalize sources.
To award sources points, the voter must:
(1) explain how the debaters' sources impacted the debate,
(2) directly assess the strength/utility of at least one source in particular cited in the debate, and
(3) explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall were notably superior to the other's.
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: FLRW // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 to pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Basically you wrote your own arguments instead of giving analysis of this debate...
In essence, this vote was just too vague... This can be avoided in future by just commenting on the core contention (and the main counterpoint or the lack thereof), listing a single source you found important (if voting sources), saying what conduct violation distracted you (if voting conduct)... You need not write a thesis but some minimal level of detail is required to verify knowledge of what you're grading.
To award argument points, the voter must:
(1) survey the main argument and counterargument in the debate,
(2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and
(3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.
To award sources points, the voter must:
(1) explain how the debaters' sources impacted the debate,
(2) directly assess the strength/utility of at least one source in particular cited in the debate, and
(3) explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall were notably superior to the other's.
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
**************************************************
FLRW
Added: 11 hours ago
Reason:
Earth is estimated to be 4.54 billion years old, plus or minus about 50 million years. Scientists have scoured the Earth searching for the oldest rocks to radiometrically date. In northwestern Canada, they discovered rocks about 4.03 billion years old.
A small note:
Pro's case for the age of the Earth not determining the rest of the age of the universe, could be used in a young earth debate to dismiss that old light so long as the earth itself is the focus rather than the greater universe.
I had to look up what vore is, but yes, and gross... Granted, the main character had a similar response to a car trying to talk him into eating it, as he's good with eating meat, just not when it's enjoying the idea of it so much.
Just looked it up, yeah, we don't swallow spiders. Worse, it originates from a 1993 article about how people will believe anything they read online, only for the example of the type of BS people might believe to be spread as fact.
It's the sequel to The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. In it, at one point there's a race of sentient talking cows bred to enjoy being turned into steaks.
Don't get me wrong, I've argued against things when the instigator suggested an infinite amount of time (which is meaningless), or likewise insisted on way too little (harms practicality). But the open ended transition time frame as you've described it should be safe.
Of course, people will never be 100% vegan, as we accidently swallow spiders, plus sex stuff.
BTW, have you ever read The Restaurant at the End of the Universe?
I would not buy a Kritik on better interests, as they are not mutually exclusive.
However, I do suggest adding a definition of vegan into the description (some people insist they are vegetarian even while eating chicken... idjits). I also second the suggestion of removing "attempt to," and possibly replacing toward with just to (as in veganism is ultimately benifican, as opposed to some minor decrease in meat consumption being the goal).
I am of course pretty much guaranteed to vote against anyone who complains that it would take too long to become vegan.
> I'm quite flattered that u think that I'm David Badash.
Your functional illiteracy is showing, as I have not once said anything to indicate believing your obvious lies. Instead, I warned you to cease impersonating him (the sole author of a paper you claim to have co-written).
> I've never met, heard of or worked with that dude.
That dude in question is not just the author of the piece you are claiming to have partly written, but also the editor in chief of the publication for which you claim to work. But you've apparently never even so much as heard of him...
Your earlier claim was to have never even heard of the guy... A guy who you also claim to work with so much that it's his name attached in the place of yours.
Hilarious, given your previous statement: "Sir, I just so happen to be one of the writers/editors who wrote the report...I'm a professional writer at multiple publications."
Of which, the authors are as follow: David Badash.
I find a good way to approach biblical comedy, is to start with the bible. Joseph had two fathers and no mother, God committed millions of abortions with the flood (and arguably continues to this day with every failed pregnancy... heck some nutjob conservatives insist any time a woman is not actively pregnant it's exactly the same crime as abortion, so you could have a field day with how many abortions God commits by that insane standard).
There was a grain of something good with the whole God impregnated Mary with himself thing. Which brings to mind something from comic books... In Marvel comics Captain Marvel once got raped and impregnated by the rapist, gave birth to said rapist in a weird paradox; then got kidnapped by said rapist, and Captain America, Iron Man, and all her other friends on the Avengers were just like: "isn't it so romantic?"
Glanced at your vote. I have to agree with you that con would have done much better had he not delayed the FLO argument until so late.
Two days remain for voting.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Benjamin // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: https://tiny.cc/votingpolicy
>Points Awarded: 5 to con.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Pretty much cite how "CON showed that socialism and liberalism are independent and sometimes contradictory" and likewise how at least one of those many sources supported this.
In essence, this vote was just too vague... This can be avoided in future by just commenting on the core contention (and the main counterpoint or the lack thereof), listing a single source you found important (if voting sources), saying what conduct violation distracted you (if voting conduct)... You need not write a thesis but some minimal level of detail is required to verify knowledge of what you're grading.
To award argument points, the voter must:
(1) survey the main argument and counterargument in the debate,
(2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and
(3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.
To award sources points, the voter must:
(1) explain how the debaters' sources impacted the debate,
(2) directly assess the strength/utility of at least one source in particular cited in the debate, and
(3) explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall were notably superior to the other's.
**************************************************
Benjamin
Added: 2 days ago
Reason:
Sources:
No sources from PRO. He referenced some literature but it does not even compare to CON.
Arguments:
PRO did not fulfill his BoP with sources. Nevertheless, CON showed that socialism and liberalism are independent and sometimes contradictory, fulfilling BoP.
For shared BoP I suggest also writing out the competing resolutions... This would also preemptively counter the boring K that better is subjective.
If not already done, this is a debate to be careful to define “a lot.”
Every presidential election is assured to have plenty of voter manipulation and even cases of fraud, but how much constitutes “a lot”?
Also the difference between fraud and manipulation should be clearly defined... or if they are treated as the same, that should be defined.
Probably too late for this one.
I also hope he's alright.
That would have been a smart K for pro to fall back on.
It's not a big deal, especially as it did not seek to change the outcome... But please don't do it again. The same vote would be tolerable if it did not assign points.
Not even going to open the template for this... What's going on to make you cast such an intentionally abysmal vote?
The now deleted vote was as follows, for 7 points to pro...
This vote will most certainly be reported. But that's fine. Here is the RDF:
https://www.google.com/search?q=budgies&newwindow=1&rlz=1C1GCEB_enNO937NO937&sxsrf=ALeKk03PmRmbMEQQKMsi4s-j8Aj62Ppp_Q:1613030678043&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwik8c3Er-HuAhXwkosKHeZUA9oQ_AUoAXoECBAQAw&biw=1280&bih=610
As a voter, I will not look favorably on the Kritik that they might accidently give her a plant causing her to retreat.
I still think the resolution would be better if focusing on some degree of likelihood, instead of mere possibility.
The short description currently reads: "yfy fYtiGvygiP*Y9uin*Y&87)*&[}?>":<bUbt^B6)*)&7*()_"
Would you both like it updated to something intelligible?
So could John McClane.
Could is a very open ended word, with no regard for likelihood.
Got to say this is a much better topic than some similar ones which try to proclaim it as the only standard for ethics.
"Baby Jesus"
This debate now has my attention.
FYI, here is the drafted tied policy for the upcoming referendum:
Tied Arguments
While arguments may be determined as a tie, without that analysis or an exception, they must be weighted.
Whereas wholly tied votes are generally considered borderline and not removed, due to their lack of any meaningful impact on the outcome. Still, if they fail to be better than spam, they will be removed.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5578
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: BearMan // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: None
>Reason for Decision: "Bears are best"
>Reason for Mod Action:
Presently, even wholly tied votes must evaluate arguments enough to conclude that.
In essence, this vote was just too vague... This can be avoided in future by just commenting on the core contention (and the main counterpoint or the lack thereof), listing a single source you found important (if voting sources), saying what conduct violation distracted you (if voting conduct)... You need not write a thesis but some minimal level of detail is required to verify knowledge of what you're grading.
**************************************************
[three day bump]
For some reason I always read pro's name as "Blamo-Monkey" as opposed to "Blah-Monkey," yet I suspect the second is closer to proper.
Also, listening to some of this, I realize how badly I'd get my ass kicked in a live debate!
That you think we're having a pissing contest is a strange analogy to pop into your mind...
You chose to add questionable extra points to your vote, causing it likely be deleted if reported.
Someone reported it (actually multiple someones), and someone gave feedback to the main vote moderator explicitly questioning the validity of the source allotment.
Unsurprisingly, it was then deleted.
Lots of votes get deleted. Even I've had some of my votes get deleted. Deletions are not based on who cast them.
Possibly they're waiting for you to refine your proposal, to avoid any risk of bullying you (as it honestly sounds like you used to suffer on Reddit).
Also, please check your PMs.
I don't normally put that much time into a vote during my work week, but something about this one held my attention... And for too long, I have to run!
"They have tiptoed around the issue but has never been explicit on the issue."
My mind immediately went to Beauty and the Beast, but they did cast Belle as a woman due to censorship, so you've still got a good point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNHgfVzj7Tc
If you hope to win this debate, toss a definition of inferior into the description. Otherwise someone will argue they are on average inferior in height, or even inferior in rank as proven by them not being allowed on Reddit, Facebook, and even this website.
Good setup.
I'm instantly torn, since I believe both sides are probably correct (some gun laws should be tightened, others should be loosened).
Neato!
Neat topic!
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: seldiora // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded:
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
I read the debate to see if this vote was glossing over major areas of contention, but no, thus was the core of the debate with a fair conclusion. That it gave feedback to suggest how pro could have done better, does not invalidate it.
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Jasmine // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 to con.
>Reason for Decision: "I don't play minecraft."
>Reason for Mod Action:
The reason offered only touches on conduct. While I'm hesitant to remove it on what was little more than a troll debate, discouraging pure vote bombs trumps that. Please review the voting policy, and revote if you wish.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Not Removed (borderline)
>Points Awarded: 4 to pro, 2 to con (a balance of 2 to pro)
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
This vote is very in depth in a debate which was not. While there is the risk of outside content, this one gives better feedback to help the debaters improve than all the others... Plus, even while giving points away so lightly, there's both the intuitive issue of what a large percentage of the debate was taken up by those things, combined with the reporter being ok with other votes giving away points so very lightly.
The vote was borderline. By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient.
**************************************************
I really wish I could edit debate voting windows after they start.
I am starting my work week today... 1 month seems a lot safer, as potential votes are less of an everyday thing, but more of what days voters have free that they want to spent time critiquing. For me, at least for complex debates, that is during my weekends if I am not busy with other things, so a two-week voting window only gives a couple potential chances.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Athias // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 to con.
>Reason for Decision: "RFD will be provided in the comments section."
>Reason for Mod Action:
When I first glanced at this, I thought the source application seemed weak... Reading the related contentions, the claim of pro's being off topic, would seem to proclaim con's argument about creation and the bible as off topic (due to pro's being direct topical replies). That the argument is viewed to have failed, is not a valid reason to penalize sources.
To award sources points, the voter must:
(1) explain how the debaters' sources impacted the debate,
(2) directly assess the strength/utility of at least one source in particular cited in the debate, and
(3) explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall were notably superior to the other's.
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
**************************************************
My mind leaped to a fun kritik of this topic...
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: FLRW // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 to pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Basically you wrote your own arguments instead of giving analysis of this debate...
In essence, this vote was just too vague... This can be avoided in future by just commenting on the core contention (and the main counterpoint or the lack thereof), listing a single source you found important (if voting sources), saying what conduct violation distracted you (if voting conduct)... You need not write a thesis but some minimal level of detail is required to verify knowledge of what you're grading.
To award argument points, the voter must:
(1) survey the main argument and counterargument in the debate,
(2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and
(3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.
To award sources points, the voter must:
(1) explain how the debaters' sources impacted the debate,
(2) directly assess the strength/utility of at least one source in particular cited in the debate, and
(3) explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall were notably superior to the other's.
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
**************************************************
FLRW
Added: 11 hours ago
Reason:
Earth is estimated to be 4.54 billion years old, plus or minus about 50 million years. Scientists have scoured the Earth searching for the oldest rocks to radiometrically date. In northwestern Canada, they discovered rocks about 4.03 billion years old.
You listed what felt like 50 different cultures. That is what I was pointing to, and concluded while similar in appearance, it was not a true Gish.
A small note:
Pro's case for the age of the Earth not determining the rest of the age of the universe, could be used in a young earth debate to dismiss that old light so long as the earth itself is the focus rather than the greater universe.
Pro’s R2 and R3 are a huge step up in terms of quality.
I had to look up what vore is, but yes, and gross... Granted, the main character had a similar response to a car trying to talk him into eating it, as he's good with eating meat, just not when it's enjoying the idea of it so much.
Just looked it up, yeah, we don't swallow spiders. Worse, it originates from a 1993 article about how people will believe anything they read online, only for the example of the type of BS people might believe to be spread as fact.
It's the sequel to The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. In it, at one point there's a race of sentient talking cows bred to enjoy being turned into steaks.
Don't get me wrong, I've argued against things when the instigator suggested an infinite amount of time (which is meaningless), or likewise insisted on way too little (harms practicality). But the open ended transition time frame as you've described it should be safe.
Of course, people will never be 100% vegan, as we accidently swallow spiders, plus sex stuff.
BTW, have you ever read The Restaurant at the End of the Universe?
I would not buy a Kritik on better interests, as they are not mutually exclusive.
However, I do suggest adding a definition of vegan into the description (some people insist they are vegetarian even while eating chicken... idjits). I also second the suggestion of removing "attempt to," and possibly replacing toward with just to (as in veganism is ultimately benifican, as opposed to some minor decrease in meat consumption being the goal).
I am of course pretty much guaranteed to vote against anyone who complains that it would take too long to become vegan.
> I'm quite flattered that u think that I'm David Badash.
Your functional illiteracy is showing, as I have not once said anything to indicate believing your obvious lies. Instead, I warned you to cease impersonating him (the sole author of a paper you claim to have co-written).
> I've never met, heard of or worked with that dude.
That dude in question is not just the author of the piece you are claiming to have partly written, but also the editor in chief of the publication for which you claim to work. But you've apparently never even so much as heard of him...
Thanks for the comedy!
Your earlier claim was to have never even heard of the guy... A guy who you also claim to work with so much that it's his name attached in the place of yours.
> Nahhh, I never heard of this dude.
Hilarious, given your previous statement: "Sir, I just so happen to be one of the writers/editors who wrote the report...I'm a professional writer at multiple publications."
Of which, the authors are as follow: David Badash.
Please cease impersonating David Badash.
https://muckrack.com/davidbadash/bio
I find a good way to approach biblical comedy, is to start with the bible. Joseph had two fathers and no mother, God committed millions of abortions with the flood (and arguably continues to this day with every failed pregnancy... heck some nutjob conservatives insist any time a woman is not actively pregnant it's exactly the same crime as abortion, so you could have a field day with how many abortions God commits by that insane standard).
There was a grain of something good with the whole God impregnated Mary with himself thing. Which brings to mind something from comic books... In Marvel comics Captain Marvel once got raped and impregnated by the rapist, gave birth to said rapist in a weird paradox; then got kidnapped by said rapist, and Captain America, Iron Man, and all her other friends on the Avengers were just like: "isn't it so romantic?"