I literally used myself as evidence to clearly refute the resolution, when I previously took part in an iteration of this debate:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2377-atheists-and-agnostics-can-never-convert-to-theism-ever
Without knowing explicitly what prompted the report, I can guess it was either for hate speech or spam.
Hate speech:
Differing ideas are generally welcome here, even ones to which I highly disagree. There are of course limits, but this debate does not approach them.
A debate which might be insufferable enough to warrant intervention could be something like "Ethnicity X should all be hunted down and killed with machetes in Nation B."
Whereas while still bad, one which would be unlikely to warrant moderation intervention could be "Ethnicity X should be deported from Nation B."
The first example is specifically calling for extreme violence, the second while probably terrible, is not assured to outright cross that line.
Spam:
There is some small issue with repetitiveness, but this debate (or series thereof) are not comparable to the type of overtly repetitive nonsensical posts we delete. The author is engaging with his opponents based on their replies, making each one of these unique.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: CalebEr // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 6 to pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
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.
To award conduct points, the voter must:
(1) identify specific instances of misconduct,
(2) explain how this misconduct was excessive, unfair, or in breach of the debate's rules, and
(3) compare each debater's conduct.
**************************************************
CalebEr
Added: 21 hours ago
#1
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
PRO consistently presented cogent, scientifically-grounded arguments. I found him to be much more persuasive than his opponent, who all but ignored the points PRO was making for half of the debate.
Could be a fun one. A little weird that biblical commentaries aren't allowed as evidence, but someone could paraphrase them so long as not giving source credit.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Seld // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 to con
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
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.
To award S/G points, the voter must:
(1) give specific examples of S/G errors,
(2) explain how these errors were excessive, and
(3) compare each debaters' S/G.
To award conduct points, the voter must:
(1) identify specific instances of misconduct,
(2) explain how this misconduct was excessive, unfair, or in breach of the debate's rules, and
(3) compare each debater's conduct.
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
**************************************************
seldiora
Added: 8 days ago
#1
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Sources to Con, because Pro's Cambridge source defeats his own idea that murder is equal to killing.
SG to Con, because Pro mis-defined murder.
Conduct to Con, because Pro blatantly admitted he believed his topic as is cannot be won by any opponent, and did not give effort to link together the idea that God's murder may be unjust.
Argument to con, because Pro just dropped all of con's arguments and admitted he could not prove that God's killing were equivalent to murder.
Feedback: Con's assertion may look impossible to beat, but there are many ways to go around it, especially the famous idea defeating morality from God: "does God dictate what is Good because it is good, or is it good, because God dictates it?" In addition, Con's argument comes from appeal to authority (despite God being the highest authority possible). Whether pain and suffering is deserved is definitely up to question.
Congratulations! You ended the longest win streak we are likely to ever see. 95 confirmed, or even 98 if you count the forgone conclusions in the voting period.
That I think this debate is deserving of attention, should only speak highly of both you and your opponent. That I deleted votes in obvious disregard for the voting standards, is nothing against you. If in the next hour or two vote bombs come in against you (I doubt it will happen, Oro isn’t the type to try to rig things) those will be deleted as well.
The current short description reads: “ Required rating=1000 Anybody is welcome to accept this debate”
Would you both like it changed to any statement about this debate or something? Such changes can be easily made so long as this is still in the voting period.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Athias // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: Arguments, sources, and conduct to con.
>Reason for Decision:
I will be copying my previous RFD in the comments
>Reason for Mod Action:
To award conduct points, the voter must:
(1) identify specific instances of misconduct,
(2) explain how this misconduct was excessive, unfair, or in breach of the debate's rules, and
(3) compare each debater's conduct.
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
**************************************************
Continued bogus voting will result in revocation of voting privileges until such time as you are willing to abide by the voting policy.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Athias // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: Arguments, sources, and conduct to con.
>Reason for Decision:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2564/comment-links/32673
>Reason for Mod Action:
To award conduct points, the voter must:
(1) identify specific instances of misconduct,
(2) explain how this misconduct was excessive, unfair, or in breach of the debate's rules, and
(3) compare each debater's conduct.
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
**************************************************
Thank you for your work explaining the flawed conduct award.
Quote from your vote to follow:
CONDUCT:
Athias argues that “PRO's attempt to pigeonhole the Contender's capacity in the debate, especially with a prerogative he does not have, is a demonstration of poor conduct.”
However, Debate Art section for conduct says:
In order to award conduct points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
*Provide specific references to instances of poor conduct which occurred in the debate
*Demonstrate how this poor conduct was either excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate
*Compare each debater's conduct from the debate
Misconduct is excessive when it is extremely frequent and/or when it causes the debate to become incoherent or extremely toxic. In the case of awarding conduct points solely on the basis of forfeits, there is an exception to these steps: a debater may award conduct points solely for forfeited rounds, but only if one debater forfeited half or more of their rounds or if the voter also awards argument points (or explains their decision not to award argument points in a manner which meets the argument points voting standards).
I’m not 100% convinced by Athias’s justification. It’s entirely accepted behavior, and within good conduct, to be slightly underhanded and suggest what may be a strawman for the opponent to attempt to counter. For example, let’s say in a debate about Gun Control in the US, where I am pro. We have shared burden of proof. I claim, with no previous explanation in the description: “Con must show that getting rid of gun control policy will benefit legislation.”
Now of course, I could be fooling the opponent. It could be about morals. It could be about economics. Framing the debate one way or another, despite many different methods of attack, is not bad conduct. It could be that I consider the idea of legalization/implementation gun control policy more important than the idea of morality of gun control, or economic benefits of reducing gun control. So here I believe that Pro is trying to state that his framing considers the “random person gaining information” idea rather than “scholarly research” as con attempts. It just so happens that Con’s is actually more important, as it establishes a baseline for standard.
As such, I will be rewarding PRO conduct to negate Athias’s vote for Conduct point, and awarding CON the Argument point.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: seldiora // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: Arguments to con, conduct to pro.
>Reason for Decision:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Coitgg76Y_Tl_V3KE76WdpxscdiqJuaWXMJUbs-D4JY/edit?usp=sharing
>Reason for Mod Action:
To award conduct points, the voter must:
(1) identify specific instances of misconduct,
(2) explain how this misconduct was excessive, unfair, or in breach of the debate's rules, and
(3) compare each debater's conduct.
Votes based on other votes are not allowed. In future please just report the offending vote.
**************************************************
In future, unless you have specific permission from users you were privately chatting with, please do not publically share their private messages.
This is clearly a case where no malice was intended , so it is a fairly minor CoC violation, but just a good habit to avoid doing that in future... You may of course always share your own, as you are the author of those.
Before I read this, do either of you object to me casting a vote? If there is an objection, please also state if you would still like any feedback regardless.
I won't deny having done similar with bridging the intuitive gaps someone seemed to be pointing toward, but did not quite bridge themselves. Voting it would seem is an art as much as a science.
*facepalm* Largely due to Seld's change of heart, to which you should probably read #50.
> It is an accusation. A tacit one. There really is no reason to bring it up. If either fauxlaw and seldiora mirrored my reasons, then that'd be understandable. But they don't.
I have not yet read the votes (I know of Seld's ahead of time due to moderation stuff about a vote being changed). But again, someone inside said group stated: "It kinda does seem bandwagon" so by your logic he declared it to be a full bandwagon... Which when something known as context is applied, is clearly not what he accused himself of doing.
Further, as your vote is the lead, it would be impossible for you to have jumped on said bandwagon if one has occured, so quit being so dramatic.
I've long been opposed to pure Tabula Rosa voting. We all speak English, and this simplifies things... As opposed to the debaters having to teach us basic literacy every debate. If someone tries to define a cow as an automobile or airplane for a debate, my knowledge of English goes against that, but under pure Tabula Rosa, I would have to accept that insane definition.
Knowing the quality whiteflame gives voting, I don't believe I will be putting in the time and effort to read this one. I started into it, and both seemed to do well. I assume based on pro letting the focus be on humanity, that con would inevitably win.
In future, I do suggest having a tiny bit more detail, such as just naming a contention: Like "Mall defends 'Mr. Hitler', with sources showing that 'Mr. Hitler' was a bad person, this was a valid problem to have against him."
Regarding cross examination: with a high amount of time for arguments, cross examination could be done within the comments and then copy/pasted into the arguments.
Some case vs none, makes pro the correct winner no matter the real world outcome.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmnrXMb5s9Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqbjZmz0cFA
It's a concession... So long as the majority award goes against the side which conceded, the votes are not eligible for moderation.
I literally used myself as evidence to clearly refute the resolution, when I previously took part in an iteration of this debate:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2377-atheists-and-agnostics-can-never-convert-to-theism-ever
This debate should not have been a tie due to the FF. However, it seems no voter spotted it within the voting window.
I once wrote a sociology paper on The Little Mermaid. It was pretty fun, I wonder how it would turn out if I re-wrote it today.
Damn good R1. I’ll look at this more later.
This one could be so much fun!
I expect to see double K's.
Every action can be weighed within various moral frameworks. Of course, it could be argued that morals do not truly exist.
Bolding every line... That is an example of why I expanded the S&G category.
With my work schedule, I don't think I'll be getting around to voting on this one. Still, looks like a very good theology debate.
I once had a debate on whether my dog was gay or not... too late as an argument in this debate, but I was quite accepting of my gay dog!
***
Regarding this debate being reported...
Without knowing explicitly what prompted the report, I can guess it was either for hate speech or spam.
Hate speech:
Differing ideas are generally welcome here, even ones to which I highly disagree. There are of course limits, but this debate does not approach them.
A debate which might be insufferable enough to warrant intervention could be something like "Ethnicity X should all be hunted down and killed with machetes in Nation B."
Whereas while still bad, one which would be unlikely to warrant moderation intervention could be "Ethnicity X should be deported from Nation B."
The first example is specifically calling for extreme violence, the second while probably terrible, is not assured to outright cross that line.
Spam:
There is some small issue with repetitiveness, but this debate (or series thereof) are not comparable to the type of overtly repetitive nonsensical posts we delete. The author is engaging with his opponents based on their replies, making each one of these unique.
-Ragnar, DM
***
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: CalebEr // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 6 to pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
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.
To award conduct points, the voter must:
(1) identify specific instances of misconduct,
(2) explain how this misconduct was excessive, unfair, or in breach of the debate's rules, and
(3) compare each debater's conduct.
**************************************************
CalebEr
Added: 21 hours ago
#1
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
PRO consistently presented cogent, scientifically-grounded arguments. I found him to be much more persuasive than his opponent, who all but ignored the points PRO was making for half of the debate.
*bump*
FYI, I much prefer summer to winter... I just didn't see enough support for summer compared to winter.
Before attempting to vote, I need to correct something: "If you don't wear enough the chilly wind might give you a cold/fever"
As a former medical professional, this is patently untrue. The type of illness referred stem from viruses, not cold air.
Could be a fun one. A little weird that biblical commentaries aren't allowed as evidence, but someone could paraphrase them so long as not giving source credit.
Entertaining use of sources...
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Seld // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 to con
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
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.
To award S/G points, the voter must:
(1) give specific examples of S/G errors,
(2) explain how these errors were excessive, and
(3) compare each debaters' S/G.
To award conduct points, the voter must:
(1) identify specific instances of misconduct,
(2) explain how this misconduct was excessive, unfair, or in breach of the debate's rules, and
(3) compare each debater's conduct.
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
**************************************************
seldiora
Added: 8 days ago
#1
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Sources to Con, because Pro's Cambridge source defeats his own idea that murder is equal to killing.
SG to Con, because Pro mis-defined murder.
Conduct to Con, because Pro blatantly admitted he believed his topic as is cannot be won by any opponent, and did not give effort to link together the idea that God's murder may be unjust.
Argument to con, because Pro just dropped all of con's arguments and admitted he could not prove that God's killing were equivalent to murder.
Feedback: Con's assertion may look impossible to beat, but there are many ways to go around it, especially the famous idea defeating morality from God: "does God dictate what is Good because it is good, or is it good, because God dictates it?" In addition, Con's argument comes from appeal to authority (despite God being the highest authority possible). Whether pain and suffering is deserved is definitely up to question.
Out of curiosity, in general what do you dislike about the vote in your favor?
Congratulations! You ended the longest win streak we are likely to ever see. 95 confirmed, or even 98 if you count the forgone conclusions in the voting period.
That I think this debate is deserving of attention, should only speak highly of both you and your opponent. That I deleted votes in obvious disregard for the voting standards, is nothing against you. If in the next hour or two vote bombs come in against you (I doubt it will happen, Oro isn’t the type to try to rig things) those will be deleted as well.
This is a historic debate, and that description is kinda bland.
The current short description reads: “ Required rating=1000 Anybody is welcome to accept this debate”
Would you both like it changed to any statement about this debate or something? Such changes can be easily made so long as this is still in the voting period.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Athias // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: Arguments, sources, and conduct to con.
>Reason for Decision:
I will be copying my previous RFD in the comments
>Reason for Mod Action:
To award conduct points, the voter must:
(1) identify specific instances of misconduct,
(2) explain how this misconduct was excessive, unfair, or in breach of the debate's rules, and
(3) compare each debater's conduct.
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
**************************************************
Continued bogus voting will result in revocation of voting privileges until such time as you are willing to abide by the voting policy.
Good luck with that.
And please abide by the voting policy on any future votes you cast:
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Athias // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: Arguments, sources, and conduct to con.
>Reason for Decision:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2564/comment-links/32673
>Reason for Mod Action:
To award conduct points, the voter must:
(1) identify specific instances of misconduct,
(2) explain how this misconduct was excessive, unfair, or in breach of the debate's rules, and
(3) compare each debater's conduct.
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
**************************************************
Thank you for your work explaining the flawed conduct award.
Quote from your vote to follow:
CONDUCT:
Athias argues that “PRO's attempt to pigeonhole the Contender's capacity in the debate, especially with a prerogative he does not have, is a demonstration of poor conduct.”
However, Debate Art section for conduct says:
In order to award conduct points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
*Provide specific references to instances of poor conduct which occurred in the debate
*Demonstrate how this poor conduct was either excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate
*Compare each debater's conduct from the debate
Misconduct is excessive when it is extremely frequent and/or when it causes the debate to become incoherent or extremely toxic. In the case of awarding conduct points solely on the basis of forfeits, there is an exception to these steps: a debater may award conduct points solely for forfeited rounds, but only if one debater forfeited half or more of their rounds or if the voter also awards argument points (or explains their decision not to award argument points in a manner which meets the argument points voting standards).
I’m not 100% convinced by Athias’s justification. It’s entirely accepted behavior, and within good conduct, to be slightly underhanded and suggest what may be a strawman for the opponent to attempt to counter. For example, let’s say in a debate about Gun Control in the US, where I am pro. We have shared burden of proof. I claim, with no previous explanation in the description: “Con must show that getting rid of gun control policy will benefit legislation.”
Now of course, I could be fooling the opponent. It could be about morals. It could be about economics. Framing the debate one way or another, despite many different methods of attack, is not bad conduct. It could be that I consider the idea of legalization/implementation gun control policy more important than the idea of morality of gun control, or economic benefits of reducing gun control. So here I believe that Pro is trying to state that his framing considers the “random person gaining information” idea rather than “scholarly research” as con attempts. It just so happens that Con’s is actually more important, as it establishes a baseline for standard.
As such, I will be rewarding PRO conduct to negate Athias’s vote for Conduct point, and awarding CON the Argument point.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: seldiora // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: Arguments to con, conduct to pro.
>Reason for Decision:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Coitgg76Y_Tl_V3KE76WdpxscdiqJuaWXMJUbs-D4JY/edit?usp=sharing
>Reason for Mod Action:
To award conduct points, the voter must:
(1) identify specific instances of misconduct,
(2) explain how this misconduct was excessive, unfair, or in breach of the debate's rules, and
(3) compare each debater's conduct.
Votes based on other votes are not allowed. In future please just report the offending vote.
**************************************************
Are there any changes you would suggest to the categories and/or their point applotments?
In future, unless you have specific permission from users you were privately chatting with, please do not publically share their private messages.
This is clearly a case where no malice was intended , so it is a fairly minor CoC violation, but just a good habit to avoid doing that in future... You may of course always share your own, as you are the author of those.
https://youtu.be/JWb_svTrcOg
Before I read this, do either of you object to me casting a vote? If there is an objection, please also state if you would still like any feedback regardless.
I won't deny having done similar with bridging the intuitive gaps someone seemed to be pointing toward, but did not quite bridge themselves. Voting it would seem is an art as much as a science.
> Why are "you" cautious about it?
*facepalm* Largely due to Seld's change of heart, to which you should probably read #50.
> It is an accusation. A tacit one. There really is no reason to bring it up. If either fauxlaw and seldiora mirrored my reasons, then that'd be understandable. But they don't.
I have not yet read the votes (I know of Seld's ahead of time due to moderation stuff about a vote being changed). But again, someone inside said group stated: "It kinda does seem bandwagon" so by your logic he declared it to be a full bandwagon... Which when something known as context is applied, is clearly not what he accused himself of doing.
Further, as your vote is the lead, it would be impossible for you to have jumped on said bandwagon if one has occured, so quit being so dramatic.
"I didn't really go completely tabula rosa"
I've long been opposed to pure Tabula Rosa voting. We all speak English, and this simplifies things... As opposed to the debaters having to teach us basic literacy every debate. If someone tries to define a cow as an automobile or airplane for a debate, my knowledge of English goes against that, but under pure Tabula Rosa, I would have to accept that insane definition.
There's a momentum which I am cautious about. Not an accusation, I would just declare it to be a bandwagon were that the case.
Ultimately, my main intent upon seeing this, to bump, but also make some small note of the voting score (one really rare for oro).
Don't know if it's just a bandwagon or not, but still, wow!
Knowing the quality whiteflame gives voting, I don't believe I will be putting in the time and effort to read this one. I started into it, and both seemed to do well. I assume based on pro letting the focus be on humanity, that con would inevitably win.
I’ve been insanely busy over the Halloween season. I did a couple easy votes, but this one looks like one that will take real effort.
Remind me in a couple weeks and I’ll vote.
It’s always cool to see someone argue uphill like con did here (not a clue as to the outcome from the skimming I just did).
So long as neither is human... we can’t even do that with ourselves.
But they are failing to replace the greenhouse effect! 🤣
This debate may interest you.
If anyone accepts this, they will probably argue that it should be because of their precious feelings.
In future, I do suggest having a tiny bit more detail, such as just naming a contention: Like "Mall defends 'Mr. Hitler', with sources showing that 'Mr. Hitler' was a bad person, this was a valid problem to have against him."
Thank you all for the quality votes!
Regarding cross examination: with a high amount of time for arguments, cross examination could be done within the comments and then copy/pasted into the arguments.