As you can see in #16, I was specifically asked to review your conduct allotment. Had I not been asked, I never would have looked, so it isn't some inch I cannot scratch regarding you.
As you stated inside your vote that you understood perfectly well that they outright dropped the points, implies that it did not render the debate incoherent to you.
Your vote assigns conduct for: "Conduct: Con's last round argument that Pro dropped the 50-50 split lost conduct for failure to recognize Pro's rebuttal. point to Pro"
This is outside the time window for point adjustments now, but in future please do a little better on conduct. What it sounds like is you awarded conduct for someone dropping points, which is already handled just fine with the argumentation points. Still, thank you for putting the effort in to cast a vote; but please try to do a little better in future.
From the voting policy: "Misconduct is excessive when it is extremely frequent and/or when it causes the debate to become incoherent or extremely toxic"
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: skittlez09 & seldiora // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: temporarily disabled
>Reason for Decision:
"con dropped pros arguments during the debate" & "con dropped all the arguments."
>Reason for Mod Action:
I hate to do this when the votes are indeed correct, even more so on a debate so meaningless and one sided without any potential of impacting the outcome...
For this quality offering, a vote along the lines of "pro showed con makes WEAK and MUDDLED INSTIGATIONS, con dropped this and everything else" would be fine. As is, they just fall a little short when someone decided to issue a report.
And the boilerplate for this kind of thing:
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.
**************************************************
> On the issue of the double standard, since it wasn't brought up by Pro, would that be held against me?
Good question! For this type of thing, to me it would generally decrease but not wholly mitigate your impacts as related to this problem. There are times when something is such a large problem that it self renders its own case as not having a leg to stand on... An example of a time when a case doesn't need it pointed out, is extreme Gish Gallops or Word Salad (often followed by complaints of not every single bit being responded to).
Of course, voting is subjective. Other voters, will treat it differently. I know some even favor a Tabula Rasa standard, which I see benefits to, but something like pointing out that something is a Gish Gallop, shouldn't necessitate a Gish Gallop about the entire Gistory of Gish Gallops (pun intended) for why they are a problem.
***
Regarding #24 being reported...
No action beyond this reminder to whomever filed said report, to report CoC violations instead of posts from people you dislike.
From the CoC: "However, criticising statements within an ongoing discussion, is fair game."
There is further no rule that specifies everyone must be perfectly polite at all times.
Continued frivolous reports, will result in revoking of quick report privileges.
-Ragnar, DM
***
Con, very nice job catching the "its citizens." The one problem here, is with the immigration point you've risked extending the umbrella of said citizens to non-citizens. It creates an inconsistent double standard within your points, in which people don't depend on their government to protect them since they can sit back and depend on someone else's; but at the same time those other governments have failed to provide basic functions to their citizens if not swiftly settling disputes for non-citizens and/or mistreating them...
This is outside the window in which votes may be taken down, but your vote was highly questionable due to the level of bias you immediately indicated. A first line like: "Con spread disinformation and commited libel regarding BLM, Pro put the right-wing bigot in his/her place and schooled him/her." is never a good sign when a real debate occurred.
At a glance, everyone agrees pro lost. However, in the spreadsheet I use to help handle debate reports, one of the common ways a vote gets removed has this ready line available for insert: "The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content."
In future, please try to fairly weight a side even if you fundamentally disagree with it.
Regarding #12...
It was reported, but your conduct toward the 3 other votes suggests you're not trying to engage in voter manipulation or in any way alter the outcome.
If it were to have been at everyone who voted against you, I would need to caution you, as is, I am unclear why your comment was reported (the CoC stopped having the insult rule awhile ago now).
I haven't a clue why this was reported. It self clarifies itself as not being literally what Mall said, explaining itself to be the impression an argument gave due to the user's choice of how to argue... Further, while inflicting no harm, it was quite entertaining and to the spirit of the debate to which the target initiate a debate.
"You may not threaten or promote violence against any person or persons, barring hyperbole against public figures (e.g., “all politicians should be shot”). Advocacy in favor of terrorism and/or violent extremism, especially as related to hate groups as generally defined by the SPLC, is likewise prohibited."
&
"Any violation of the Violence and Criminal Behavior policy will result in an immediate indefinite ban."
And the RM who wrote R4 insists "this was entirely debatable." Which seemingly casts doubt on the "pure lies" claim made by RM.
...
Interestingly Seld has challenged me to something of a follow up to this debate: "Court Trial: Was RM's Ban Justified?" Which given your recently renewed complaints of me mercilessly bullying you, would probably be best that I decline rather than take part in what could be considered a callout debate targeting you.
Nice debate so far. This is an example where I wish more rounds could be added.
Not nearly enough characters in the debate to discuss it, but the cost angle is a weird one since it shows how bloated our systems are. If the cost of an execution is too high, is an argument for reform, but nothing about it specifically calls for that reform being away from the death penalty as opposed to streamlining it.
Criticizing the setup a little: The topic "Death Penalty in the USA" would serve better, as that implies a balanced pro and con comparison. With the added word "Abolished" there is a high BoP to change something away from the status quo.
I have an account on edeb8 (as much as I am inactive). If I remember correctly, they allow for full win but not a quick point assignment as per this proposal.
...
I just double checked: Their setting is for an instant victory to the other side once a single forfeiture occurs (such as http://www.edeb8.com/debate/secret-topic-1164). I don't think this is bad as an option, however it's not one I would embrace.
Mall has had sufficient time to make objections, and been notified multiple times to do so if he wished. Further, he has very recently started multiple debates on /basically/ this topic, and stated the intent to do more... At this point I am marking reports as handled and moving on to other admin business... this is not an endorsement of call out debates without prior permission, even toward someone who would most likely give his permission.
The problems of this debate can in future be avoided by just asking consent. Most people will be cool with it.
It was a troll (AKA comedy) debate, to which I used some clips from South Park to prove value:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/866-fetuses-as-a-replacement-for-the-usd
I advise waiting a bit before posting an argument, in case Mall decides he would like this debate deleted. I would estimate another 12 hours (when this round reaches 1.5 days remaining to post), based on his login routine.
You have the option to have this debate shut down. Please make a keep or delete decision as soon as possible to minimize inconvenience to the user who has opted to defend you.
I would say abortion, since it has proven harms from either perspective on it; whereas the impacts of global warming (not to say climate change itself) depends much of speculation.
While this type of debate being unmoderated means CVB aren't disallowed. With the plagiarism accusation, I do not know if it should be countered... It gets more confusing since this is an unrap, to which doing worse means doing better...
Removed by request (no points scored):
Whiteflame's RFD...
I'll keep this one short.
While I do think both sides put up a decent effort, each side has their problems in this debate. Pro starts off with three advantages, the last of which is basically just pre-rebuttal without any offensive substance. While that does hinder his case a bit, the bigger problem is that there is no specificity regarding how this artificial memories would work, and that allows Con to drag Pro down a rabbit hole. Pro, really all you had to do here was say that they make memories with all the various sensations associated, and that we should assume this is a science fiction version of our world with the tools to generate memories with all the associated facets (like all 5 senses). I got from the outset that that was where you should have been going, but since you didn't define it that way in your opening round and your responses were focused on single senses, you got lost on this one, and it made your second contention virtually disappear. So your only offense going into the final round was your first contention.
Con, I get how your strategy works, but I don't see you doing the requisite weighing analyses that could have made this an easy win for you. You include substantial discussion of how important it is to learn from our past pains, but it's pretty vague. It's unclear how I should weigh this against the possibility that people can manage past pains and move past them, and while you do mitigate that argument, it's hard to tell how well this weighs against that. Pro also had the opportunity to argue that this capability to craft artificial memories could further your cause, since not all memories have to paper over past events. He could even argue that introducing past trauma through memories can similarly help us to improve without the added risks of actually experiencing those traumas, a point that would have turned what I consider to be the main argument against his case.
Nonetheless, I do think the debate swings towards Con. Pro largely allows his argument to be directed by Con, and efforts to paper over past events with poor facsimiles are going to make it difficult for Pro to achieve any of his advantages. The ability to gain skills is effectively mitigated into oblivion by uncertainty, and the morality side is challenged pretty harshly with the reality that, unlike just forgetting a memory, someone is imposing this loss on you. I'm not clear that doctors/scientists have an absolute adherence to truth as part of their doctrine, but Pro doesn't provide adequate responses to show that this isn't the case, so Con is winning on this point as well. Much as it is unclear just how much Con is garnering from his side of the debate, Pro's benefits are obfuscated enough that I have more trouble nailing down what he actually gets. That nets Con the win.
Morty: I-I'm just trying to figure out why you would do this. Why anyone would do this.
Pickle Rick: The reason anyone would do this is, if they could, which they can't, would be because they could, which they can't.
Personally, I would be in favor of being killed in such a world; as I could then be brought back in better health than I am now. Granted, that would be an assisted suicide, not a real murder.
While this debate ended prematurely and I hope to see a rematch one day... The idea of Imabench losing a debate about any aspect of Frozen, got a certain song stuck in my head:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQ2LXP1eeLI
I'm curious to see a debate about this happiness monster...
I think your resolution would be better suited as "By combining Utilitarianism and Virtue Ethics, you achieve better outcomes than either alone" otherwise you risk someone pointing out any other moral system, and merely having a more frequent "moral" action within it to defeat the current resolution.
> take everything he says as completely serious and taken with the worst context possible
The horror of taking him at his word, rather than assuming he means the opposite of what he says... And no, not taken to be the worst context possible. I haven't even accused him of being nazi-lite, even while according to you he would say anything at all to get such racists to vote for him.
> especially at a rally, where he is trying to gain votes.
Thank you for clarifying that he's intentionally endorsing racist beliefs to try to get racists to vote for him.
Please explain how your standard on Trump, if applied to Hitler, would allow the Literal Hitler to be racist?
> He never said they were better than any other's
They are apparently racehorses compared to others. If you don't think that's better, please bet all your money on a mule instead of a thoroughbred at the tracks. If Trump is not spouting off racist rhetoric (which at this point you've admitted he is, you just keep flip flopping on it), you have no reason to hesitate against doing this.
By that absurd standard, Adolf Hitler himself couldn't be proven to be a racist, since he might have just been doing silly pandering to racists...
> doesn't say much about your moral character
A racist can be an upstanding citizen. That does not change the qualifier that they are a racist. Depending on the degree of their racism, I wouldn't want them in certain jobs, but again, they may still be an upstanding citizen. ... Bare in mind the accusation is just "racist" not either "Neo Nazi" or "Literally Hitler."
> Californians got lazy genes
Thank you for outing yourself as a racist, via your belief that genes (as opposed to culture) make Californians different and worse than Minnesotans.
At a courtesy glance, it looks like a rock solid vote.
As you can see in #16, I was specifically asked to review your conduct allotment. Had I not been asked, I never would have looked, so it isn't some inch I cannot scratch regarding you.
As you stated inside your vote that you understood perfectly well that they outright dropped the points, implies that it did not render the debate incoherent to you.
Your vote assigns conduct for: "Conduct: Con's last round argument that Pro dropped the 50-50 split lost conduct for failure to recognize Pro's rebuttal. point to Pro"
This is outside the time window for point adjustments now, but in future please do a little better on conduct. What it sounds like is you awarded conduct for someone dropping points, which is already handled just fine with the argumentation points. Still, thank you for putting the effort in to cast a vote; but please try to do a little better in future.
From the voting policy: "Misconduct is excessive when it is extremely frequent and/or when it causes the debate to become incoherent or extremely toxic"
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: skittlez09 & seldiora // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: temporarily disabled
>Reason for Decision:
"con dropped pros arguments during the debate" & "con dropped all the arguments."
>Reason for Mod Action:
I hate to do this when the votes are indeed correct, even more so on a debate so meaningless and one sided without any potential of impacting the outcome...
For this quality offering, a vote along the lines of "pro showed con makes WEAK and MUDDLED INSTIGATIONS, con dropped this and everything else" would be fine. As is, they just fall a little short when someone decided to issue a report.
And the boilerplate for this kind of thing:
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.
**************************************************
> On the issue of the double standard, since it wasn't brought up by Pro, would that be held against me?
Good question! For this type of thing, to me it would generally decrease but not wholly mitigate your impacts as related to this problem. There are times when something is such a large problem that it self renders its own case as not having a leg to stand on... An example of a time when a case doesn't need it pointed out, is extreme Gish Gallops or Word Salad (often followed by complaints of not every single bit being responded to).
Of course, voting is subjective. Other voters, will treat it differently. I know some even favor a Tabula Rasa standard, which I see benefits to, but something like pointing out that something is a Gish Gallop, shouldn't necessitate a Gish Gallop about the entire Gistory of Gish Gallops (pun intended) for why they are a problem.
***
Regarding #24 being reported...
No action beyond this reminder to whomever filed said report, to report CoC violations instead of posts from people you dislike.
From the CoC: "However, criticising statements within an ongoing discussion, is fair game."
There is further no rule that specifies everyone must be perfectly polite at all times.
Continued frivolous reports, will result in revoking of quick report privileges.
-Ragnar, DM
***
Skimmed this a little...
Con, very nice job catching the "its citizens." The one problem here, is with the immigration point you've risked extending the umbrella of said citizens to non-citizens. It creates an inconsistent double standard within your points, in which people don't depend on their government to protect them since they can sit back and depend on someone else's; but at the same time those other governments have failed to provide basic functions to their citizens if not swiftly settling disputes for non-citizens and/or mistreating them...
3.5 days remain for voting.
The earliest I expect to have time to read such a good in depth debate is Monday, so I'm hoping someone else gets around to it first.
Regarding: https://www.debateart.com/debates/2294-black-lives-matter-movement?open_tab=votes&votes_page=1&vote_number=3
This is outside the window in which votes may be taken down, but your vote was highly questionable due to the level of bias you immediately indicated. A first line like: "Con spread disinformation and commited libel regarding BLM, Pro put the right-wing bigot in his/her place and schooled him/her." is never a good sign when a real debate occurred.
At a glance, everyone agrees pro lost. However, in the spreadsheet I use to help handle debate reports, one of the common ways a vote gets removed has this ready line available for insert: "The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content."
In future, please try to fairly weight a side even if you fundamentally disagree with it.
Regarding #12...
It was reported, but your conduct toward the 3 other votes suggests you're not trying to engage in voter manipulation or in any way alter the outcome.
If it were to have been at everyone who voted against you, I would need to caution you, as is, I am unclear why your comment was reported (the CoC stopped having the insult rule awhile ago now).
Regarding #3...
I haven't a clue why this was reported. It self clarifies itself as not being literally what Mall said, explaining itself to be the impression an argument gave due to the user's choice of how to argue... Further, while inflicting no harm, it was quite entertaining and to the spirit of the debate to which the target initiate a debate.
FYI, you are stepping close to a hard line:
"You may not threaten or promote violence against any person or persons, barring hyperbole against public figures (e.g., “all politicians should be shot”). Advocacy in favor of terrorism and/or violent extremism, especially as related to hate groups as generally defined by the SPLC, is likewise prohibited."
&
"Any violation of the Violence and Criminal Behavior policy will result in an immediate indefinite ban."
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/rules#violence-and-criminal-behavior
> Aha, that was a fun read. It probably put you on some sort of watch list - but comedy gold, nonetheless. :)
Glad you enjoyed it!
> I also could be lying and playing devil's advocate
Excellent point(s).
Minor typo: I wrote pro instead of con when referring to my opponent. Contextually this shouldn't be an issue.
> Lol, my opponent...
And the RM who wrote R4 insists "this was entirely debatable." Which seemingly casts doubt on the "pure lies" claim made by RM.
...
Interestingly Seld has challenged me to something of a follow up to this debate: "Court Trial: Was RM's Ban Justified?" Which given your recently renewed complaints of me mercilessly bullying you, would probably be best that I decline rather than take part in what could be considered a callout debate targeting you.
Nice debate so far. This is an example where I wish more rounds could be added.
Not nearly enough characters in the debate to discuss it, but the cost angle is a weird one since it shows how bloated our systems are. If the cost of an execution is too high, is an argument for reform, but nothing about it specifically calls for that reform being away from the death penalty as opposed to streamlining it.
Criticizing the setup a little: The topic "Death Penalty in the USA" would serve better, as that implies a balanced pro and con comparison. With the added word "Abolished" there is a high BoP to change something away from the status quo.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xP-Wd453wq4
I have an account on edeb8 (as much as I am inactive). If I remember correctly, they allow for full win but not a quick point assignment as per this proposal.
...
I just double checked: Their setting is for an instant victory to the other side once a single forfeiture occurs (such as http://www.edeb8.com/debate/secret-topic-1164). I don't think this is bad as an option, however it's not one I would embrace.
Mall has had sufficient time to make objections, and been notified multiple times to do so if he wished. Further, he has very recently started multiple debates on /basically/ this topic, and stated the intent to do more... At this point I am marking reports as handled and moving on to other admin business... this is not an endorsement of call out debates without prior permission, even toward someone who would most likely give his permission.
The problems of this debate can in future be avoided by just asking consent. Most people will be cool with it.
That pro is named that?
It was a troll (AKA comedy) debate, to which I used some clips from South Park to prove value:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/866-fetuses-as-a-replacement-for-the-usd
I think my hall of fame debate on abortion included their value as a shrimp substitute...
Always a classic...
> I can I BB debate topic, as the Chinese entertainment style
So what does BB stand for? Also please tell me more about it being a Chinese entertainment style?
I advise waiting a bit before posting an argument, in case Mall decides he would like this debate deleted. I would estimate another 12 hours (when this round reaches 1.5 days remaining to post), based on his login routine.
You have the option to have this debate shut down. Please make a keep or delete decision as soon as possible to minimize inconvenience to the user who has opted to defend you.
Regarding #14:
The debate voting period has ended, but you are always welcome to expand your RFD within the comment section.
Please don't do this type of callout debate again, at least not without prior consent from the subject.
NOTICE: Only one day remains for voting.
Very very subjective.
1.5 days remain for voting.
I would say greater evidence of Unintelligent Design, but hard to say there's no evidence, even if said evidence falls well short of being proof.
Kinda wish I had seen this one. The Egyptians and Job's family are examples I enjoy seeing what defenses people raise.
Good topic.
I would say abortion, since it has proven harms from either perspective on it; whereas the impacts of global warming (not to say climate change itself) depends much of speculation.
> it's not a votebomb, i voted 100% fairly.
See previous comment on this: "With the plagiarism accusation, I do not know if it should be countered..."
While this type of debate being unmoderated means CVB aren't disallowed. With the plagiarism accusation, I do not know if it should be countered... It gets more confusing since this is an unrap, to which doing worse means doing better...
Was worried this debate would be about belief in the existence of those competing world views.
Note: I left this debate alone for five days before accepting.
Removed by request (no points scored):
Whiteflame's RFD...
I'll keep this one short.
While I do think both sides put up a decent effort, each side has their problems in this debate. Pro starts off with three advantages, the last of which is basically just pre-rebuttal without any offensive substance. While that does hinder his case a bit, the bigger problem is that there is no specificity regarding how this artificial memories would work, and that allows Con to drag Pro down a rabbit hole. Pro, really all you had to do here was say that they make memories with all the various sensations associated, and that we should assume this is a science fiction version of our world with the tools to generate memories with all the associated facets (like all 5 senses). I got from the outset that that was where you should have been going, but since you didn't define it that way in your opening round and your responses were focused on single senses, you got lost on this one, and it made your second contention virtually disappear. So your only offense going into the final round was your first contention.
Con, I get how your strategy works, but I don't see you doing the requisite weighing analyses that could have made this an easy win for you. You include substantial discussion of how important it is to learn from our past pains, but it's pretty vague. It's unclear how I should weigh this against the possibility that people can manage past pains and move past them, and while you do mitigate that argument, it's hard to tell how well this weighs against that. Pro also had the opportunity to argue that this capability to craft artificial memories could further your cause, since not all memories have to paper over past events. He could even argue that introducing past trauma through memories can similarly help us to improve without the added risks of actually experiencing those traumas, a point that would have turned what I consider to be the main argument against his case.
Nonetheless, I do think the debate swings towards Con. Pro largely allows his argument to be directed by Con, and efforts to paper over past events with poor facsimiles are going to make it difficult for Pro to achieve any of his advantages. The ability to gain skills is effectively mitigated into oblivion by uncertainty, and the morality side is challenged pretty harshly with the reality that, unlike just forgetting a memory, someone is imposing this loss on you. I'm not clear that doctors/scientists have an absolute adherence to truth as part of their doctrine, but Pro doesn't provide adequate responses to show that this isn't the case, so Con is winning on this point as well. Much as it is unclear just how much Con is garnering from his side of the debate, Pro's benefits are obfuscated enough that I have more trouble nailing down what he actually gets. That nets Con the win.
Morty: I-I'm just trying to figure out why you would do this. Why anyone would do this.
Pickle Rick: The reason anyone would do this is, if they could, which they can't, would be because they could, which they can't.
Nice catch on the topic.
Personally, I would be in favor of being killed in such a world; as I could then be brought back in better health than I am now. Granted, that would be an assisted suicide, not a real murder.
Murder itself could be a non-crime. However, various other crimes committing related to the method of killing would still be in effect.
While this debate ended prematurely and I hope to see a rematch one day... The idea of Imabench losing a debate about any aspect of Frozen, got a certain song stuck in my head:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQ2LXP1eeLI
That you are either denying the holocaust, or denying that it is evidence to suggest racism, is very informative about you.
God need not be proven real to the voter, so long as converts such as myself were proven real to them; thereby proving the resolution false.
Good luck.
I'm curious to see a debate about this happiness monster...
I think your resolution would be better suited as "By combining Utilitarianism and Virtue Ethics, you achieve better outcomes than either alone" otherwise you risk someone pointing out any other moral system, and merely having a more frequent "moral" action within it to defeat the current resolution.
> take everything he says as completely serious and taken with the worst context possible
The horror of taking him at his word, rather than assuming he means the opposite of what he says... And no, not taken to be the worst context possible. I haven't even accused him of being nazi-lite, even while according to you he would say anything at all to get such racists to vote for him.
> especially at a rally, where he is trying to gain votes.
Thank you for clarifying that he's intentionally endorsing racist beliefs to try to get racists to vote for him.
Please explain how your standard on Trump, if applied to Hitler, would allow the Literal Hitler to be racist?
> He never said they were better than any other's
They are apparently racehorses compared to others. If you don't think that's better, please bet all your money on a mule instead of a thoroughbred at the tracks. If Trump is not spouting off racist rhetoric (which at this point you've admitted he is, you just keep flip flopping on it), you have no reason to hesitate against doing this.
> just silly pandering
By that absurd standard, Adolf Hitler himself couldn't be proven to be a racist, since he might have just been doing silly pandering to racists...
> doesn't say much about your moral character
A racist can be an upstanding citizen. That does not change the qualifier that they are a racist. Depending on the degree of their racism, I wouldn't want them in certain jobs, but again, they may still be an upstanding citizen. ... Bare in mind the accusation is just "racist" not either "Neo Nazi" or "Literally Hitler."
> Californians got lazy genes
Thank you for outing yourself as a racist, via your belief that genes (as opposed to culture) make Californians different and worse than Minnesotans.