> "Where did I do this? In my closing arguments I didn't really quote anyone."
You chose to present things as quotations by putting them inside double quotation marks. Double checking that you did this, only took about 15 seconds to find an easy example from the end of the debate: My opponent misconstrued my argument as taking a "single act of sin"
You can double check for yourself if pro wrote "single act of sin" inside the debate or not. This is again something I pointed out to caution against in future, without actually assigning a point penalty.
Seeing so much talk of No True Scotsman, I had to look back to one of my debates which was basically on that point...
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1560-physicians-are-scientists
Sorry to hear about your posting difficulties. In future I strongly advise writing your arguments in an outside text editor which saves them as you work (such as Google docs), then copy/paste them in when you're ready.
Come up with a standard, and it would be pretty easy to plot the data points. From there just screenshot to show the trendline, and share the spreadsheet file (or show screenshots) for review.
And yes, I do think inside the debate that would be a good habit. Plus it's something you might reflect back to for a good example of how you did it before.
Forfeiting could be argued as not a mistake if the debate itself was a waste of time, but that would give validity to the previous mistake of accepting the debate.
You could argue that, but intuitively the logic doesn't follow. Kinda like how two wrongs do not make a right, compounding it with more single instances of a mistake does not negate that a mistake occurred.
That you did not automatically win for making an late debate appeal to authority, is not the same thing as a conspiracy against you. If I was invested in you losing, without even reading the debate all I would have had to do was not get around to deleting the bad vote that was against you. Instead I read what you offered, and it did not quite work out in your favor. Heck, had you not messed up on conduct, my vote would have been a tie.
Additionally, I bumped the debate multiple times, to encourage votes. I finally put the work in at your request: https://www.debateart.com/debates/2221/comment-links/29124
And yeah, I do vote against my beliefs, as exemplified: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1198/comment-links/17328
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: TNBinc // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: temporarily disabled
>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.
**************************************************
TNBinc
Added: 2 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:
RFD in the comments
A key weakness to your case was the phrasing of the resolution. This debate is decided on real world data. However, you seemed to want to argue that a butterknife could hypothetically do equal harm so long as the intent is the same. Which is not quite the same thing.
A little feedback for the debaters:
I tried to get through this, but con's R1 conclusion about opposing same sex marriage via Kantian ethics, seemed to drift off topic. Then pro's R2, looked like it has been copy/pasted from another debate on the same subject, rather than replying to con's actual points.
Obviously I am not going to address every single line, but out of respect to the debaters I am trying to find at least one highlight from each side per round under each primary contention.
---
Pro's contentions:
I. "Introduction"
Pro says the voting policy says they are nessicary.
Con counters: “Pro has not quoted anything within the source to directly support this claim.” And later expands: “Voters don't have to vote on sourcing. Points can and are awarded without referenced sources. That happens all the time.”
Pro seems to defend on the basis that if they award source points then sources are necessary, but jumps to concluding that therefore it is always necessary.
Con clearly points out: “the text from the policy clearly indicates that these tasks are only necessary if a voter awards source points,” and the absence of any statement that sources must be awarded (side note: as a moderator, occasionally the absence of source points when they unquestionably go against someone's favored side, clues me into a vote being cast out of bias instead of reason). And repeats words to this effect a bunch (suggestion: practice some debates with a low character limit, for conciseness. Yes some repetition is good, but this is getting to be too much).
Pro challenges the claims of personal experience, by citing his own, to show that it’s a fallacious appeal.
Con baits pro with talk of defeating him before (I know this isn’t as bad, but this has similarities to when some debaters ask the audience to go Google something for their case. Sources should ideally be linked for quick verification by the audience).
And ugliness continues with pro insulting the math ability of con.
II. "Cited sources are necessary to provide impact to each participant’s argument."
Pro argues that words carry no impact unless there's a listed source connected, and further that it avoids plagiarism.
Con does a BoP claim to say that the resolution is not that sources should be required, but that they already are. Which is a good point, but missed the mark on pro’s point about impacts here.
Pro makes a point that any vote on a debate without sources, will be deleted by the moderators if reported (pretty sure this is to force con to pull evidence of the contrary? … I was curious as to con’s response to this but it seems to have been missed in the repetition of the same basic phrases). He also highlights the voting policy where source points depend on how the sources impacted the arguments.
Con accuses pro of bad source spamming in ignorance to source content.
Pro does a cool illustration “Sufficiency is expressed in logic by” which ideally should have been an early thing in this debate (I understand hoping your opponent is tired, but your opponent is guaranteed breaks, meaning any voter will probably be more tired by that point). And points to the requirement that votes be sufficient in justification, and that sufficiency points down to the four categories of consideration.
Con reminds us that source points are not always awarded, and disagrees with how pro is using the word sufficient (con lost a little ground here).
Stays ugly with talk of comparative amounts of profiles filled out, while dropping the topic (final round, follow through here could have sealed a lot).
Con also stays ugly with insisting pro is cherry-picking facts to avoid harming his own case (yeah, that’s to be expected. It’s not pro’s side to offer the counter evidence … Were this criminal court, suppressing counter evidence would be another matter).
III. "Cited sources are necessary to bolster one’s own argument, or weaken the opponent’s argument"
Pro implicitly ushers back to Russell's teapot, and BoP being on the one making a claim which is unmet without exterior proof.
Con counters that there are “generalized knowledge that are so universally well known that they cannot reasonably be the subject of dispute.” (side note: as a debater, I often give sources for well known things, in case an audience member is not familiar. This actually started in business school, when a teacher did not know some of the basic concepts I referenced, so I began having footnotes which added depth)
This turns into a discussion of cake, and more cake being better, but any cake being cake.
In gist, con asserts that it’s a non-sequitur strawcake.
Apparently pro possesses the magical powers of the Old Spice Guy, having turned that strawcake into a dragon egg, which then hatched into a Game of Thrones point with text only circle diagrams (seriously impressed!). The new argument page calls sourcing “necessary.” As a note, all voters must have completed a couple debates, so have seen said text.
Ok this gets complex with consideration of whether ambushing someone with interview data is fair in a debate, and worse he’s the person that gives us a screenshot of the phrase hidden on the new argument screen to verify it’s there… Aside from his questionable offered evidence, he does logically make a good point in questioning the factual weight of the claim, in light of [redacted] and people winning without using sources in spite of what that one line says is necessary.
FAUXLAW SURVEYED 100 DEBATES! … Ok, first off, 30 would have been enough for statistical validity. Second, damn! Third, I am morbidly curious to see the data. … Ok, so pro calls anywhere it’s left a tie as an allotment rather than withholding the point; which doesn’t seem kosher.
Con challenges that pro has violated the agreed upon setup with the new argument of the survey, and questions if pro is telling the truth. He eventually gets around to questioning what the data looked, particularly with regards to what percent had an awarded source point being a determinant factor to victory.
IV "Cited sources are necessary to demonstrate a superior argument"
Pro demonstrates how some sources trump others.
Con counters that pro hasn’t given sources to prove this…
This ties back to the cake, but pro points out that even entertainment media can provide good sourcing depending on the debate.
Con calls those only weak evidence (combined with the cake argument, they do stand as evidence).
Con suggests pro is mistaken, and suggests pro’s own experience with debating should have already lead to that conclusion that sources aren’t strictly necessary (sources would have really improved the impact here).
Pro calls con less educated than a 12 year old.
Con says pro’s testimony should be discounted, and questions the credibility of what people claim about themselves (side note: I advise always assuming each other member is a conjoined twin consisting of a 12 year old boy, and a 80 year old woman … yes, that is not supposed to make sense, but if anyone ever wants to meet up in person, it will be helpful to remember).
V. “A binding Voting Policy”
Pro cites that users are bound by the voting policy, and cites this very debate as evidence for what’s in said policy (this initially looked like a declaration that the title of this debate was inside that policy… Anyway, a link to the policy and an applicable quote would have served better).
Con calls this a lie (I assume he read it as I initially did, mistaking the title of this debate being used as evidence for the title of the debate being words within the voting policy).
“VII Rebuttal: A finger on the scale”
This is an example of why to be consistent in organization throughout any one debate. I had already wondered at some of the statements not seeming to match the prior statements, but this highlights what is going on. As a voter, my job of following any single contention through the debate should be very easy. For this one I could have done my own debate with less effort.
Ok, enough of my rant…
This is a continuation of III.
Chiefly a complaint about the tactic used of an interview.
Con defends that all evidence pointed to inside the debate rounds is techniquiely outside content, so the meaning of the rule does not apply to evidence within. The defense goes on for awhile…
"Interpretation of resolution"
Con inquires of the ambiguity, to ask "Necessary for what?" And argues that pro's case is that they are necessary to win the debate. He drills down to add words like usually, and on this website (which was pretty clear already from the debate description...).
"My case"
First foot in mouth moment of this debate, given that this debate is about the requirement of evidence: "Pro must present evidence to show that the resolution is true."
I'm outright cringing at the next paragraph "The type of evidence required ... If that percentage is greater than 50%, I would say that Pro would have won." I do agree if pro does that he has definitely won, there are of course other ways he may win. I cringe because Fauxlaw and myself are the two main data analytics people on this site, so asking him for that, there's a good chance it will actually happen.
Con goes on implicitly to say people should just vote their biases (I am guessing this is a rhetorical tactic to avoid using any sources. I am personally biased against encouraging this type of voting, as I've seen too many people outright ignore any evidence that goes against their convictions to fluff vote).
Con offers a strong piece of antototal evidence: “I can say that it seemed like the high quality debates referenced sources appeared necessary, but most debates on this site are not that.”
In R2 Pro drops, and Con extends.
Arguments: con
See above… At the end of the day, no matter how much things get twisted around, it seems to only be necessary to win the source point (side note: yes, I know non-moderated debates have it without that), as opposed to general necessity or even to win debates necessity. This leaves it on balance as untrue.
Yes votes should be sufficient, but that sufficiency does not state that source points are required, merely that if allotted they must be sufficiently explained or risk deletion.
I am basically discounting the interview, but not the connected points (challenging that the site owner can be wrong, which implicitly connected to the personal experience point… I did not even like that point, but it lines up well).
The survey is not dropped, as much as it proved to not be the silver bullet it was intended to be. On this, a link to a spreadsheet containing the data mining on it would have been very useful.
Overall pro did a good job arguing up hill against the status quo, but con cast more than enough doubt on the resolution to pull it back down said hill.
Sources: pro
It would make my job so much easier to be passive aggressive and side with con that all sources should be dismissed.
So on this one, pro wins by a landslide. Con had very few, and pro had a ton. Con did a good job challenging how pro was using some of them, but without more evidence from him this doesn’t even fall back into the default tied range. A particular highlight was pro’s use of a circle diagram (more argument then sources, but normally that would be expected in linked picture, so this cannot be praised too much), and the mathbook site as a reference in case his notations were not understood (thereby strengthening his arguments which used math notation).
Advice for con: Sources may not be your style, but you could have made this debate an easy decision by linking a handful of debates (preferably moderated ones) without sources (or at least where only one side has sources).
I will outright say on this that not all impact to arguments stems from sources they’re connected to. Certainly some does, but it’s a variable amount. A well reasoned point has impact by itself, even if it could be improved with a source.
S&G: tie
The organization helped through most of the debate, but got confusing later. Granted, I am not a fan of responding to absolutely every paragraph individually.
Conduct: tie
In future, please strive to be fair.
This debate got heated. Insults to both sides. One clear rule violation and one questionable major hit to sportsmanship (some policy will have to be decided on in future for ones like that).
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: seldiora // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4:0; 4 points 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.
**************************************************
seldiora
Added: 45 minutes 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:
I don't understand pro's argument, yes, he proved that sources are very important with helping a debate, and required when something needs evidence for backing, however, he strays from his main idea and I feel con better proves that they aren't always necessary in every debate.
Pro has not provided any clear proof, but there is a certain irony in con asking for evidence when his side is implicitly that evidence is not required (or at least not always).
Just read Pro's R1. Kinda strange having interacted with the comment section so much, that while it feels like something big is missing, that it will be presented later.
And yeah, low character counts become an exercise in learning to be concise. I would not always want to restrictions in place, but sometimes I look back on an old argument and realize some of my points drifted off topic and probably should have been pruned.
You might enjoy the book Off to Be the Wizard.
> "Where did I do this? In my closing arguments I didn't really quote anyone."
You chose to present things as quotations by putting them inside double quotation marks. Double checking that you did this, only took about 15 seconds to find an easy example from the end of the debate: My opponent misconstrued my argument as taking a "single act of sin"
You can double check for yourself if pro wrote "single act of sin" inside the debate or not. This is again something I pointed out to caution against in future, without actually assigning a point penalty.
If you guessed it's heading in a homoerotic direction, you would be correct.
Would you have preferred a simple two line vote that you lost the debate from the start on definitions?
You would both benefit from at least labeling sections of your cases.
https://tiny.cc/DebateArt
Wow... just wow!
I've read most of this. In a few days if no one has cast an argument vote, please remind me and I will.
Seeing so much talk of No True Scotsman, I had to look back to one of my debates which was basically on that point...
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1560-physicians-are-scientists
1 day remains for voting.
1.5 days remain for voting. I am feeling too tired to be likely to get around to it.
Skimmed a little.
32 broken arrows does not seem to imply they were all detonated (as per the source). Con however missed this.
Sorry to hear about your posting difficulties. In future I strongly advise writing your arguments in an outside text editor which saves them as you work (such as Google docs), then copy/paste them in when you're ready.
Come up with a standard, and it would be pretty easy to plot the data points. From there just screenshot to show the trendline, and share the spreadsheet file (or show screenshots) for review.
NOTICE: Only 2 days remain for voting!
At what price?
This debate series (as opposed to this specific debate) has been nominated for the HoF in the Misc. category.
Agreed.
And yes, I do think inside the debate that would be a good habit. Plus it's something you might reflect back to for a good example of how you did it before.
On a tougher debate I would be more inclined to delete it, but this one is too straight forward.
Again, in future just put that stuff inside the debate (possibly in the penultimate round, so that the person has a chance to respond).
Forfeiting could be argued as not a mistake if the debate itself was a waste of time, but that would give validity to the previous mistake of accepting the debate.
I suggest not doing that type of summary in the comments. Inside a debate it is fine, but in the comments it risks trying to bias voters.
I'm too tired from personal life drama right now. Please remind me to vote in a few days if this remains unvoted.
You could argue that, but intuitively the logic doesn't follow. Kinda like how two wrongs do not make a right, compounding it with more single instances of a mistake does not negate that a mistake occurred.
Good topic!
Kinda like Moira MacTaggert from X-Men?
We'd have a bunch of geniuses on our hands!
That you did not automatically win for making an late debate appeal to authority, is not the same thing as a conspiracy against you. If I was invested in you losing, without even reading the debate all I would have had to do was not get around to deleting the bad vote that was against you. Instead I read what you offered, and it did not quite work out in your favor. Heck, had you not messed up on conduct, my vote would have been a tie.
Additionally, I bumped the debate multiple times, to encourage votes. I finally put the work in at your request: https://www.debateart.com/debates/2221/comment-links/29124
And yeah, I do vote against my beliefs, as exemplified: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1198/comment-links/17328
Good luck on the editing. If any get audio editions (I mostly get books in while driving), I'll be sure to check them out.
Damn that R2 came fast!
Much better!
You may revote. Sorry, I got distracted and did not take the old one down.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: TNBinc // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: temporarily disabled
>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.
**************************************************
TNBinc
Added: 2 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:
RFD in the comments
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2239-seldiora-is-a-bad-debater?open_tab=comments&comments_page=1&comment_number=12
A key weakness to your case was the phrasing of the resolution. This debate is decided on real world data. However, you seemed to want to argue that a butterknife could hypothetically do equal harm so long as the intent is the same. Which is not quite the same thing.
Less than a day remains for voting.
A little feedback for the debaters:
I tried to get through this, but con's R1 conclusion about opposing same sex marriage via Kantian ethics, seemed to drift off topic. Then pro's R2, looked like it has been copy/pasted from another debate on the same subject, rather than replying to con's actual points.
12 hours remain for voting.
That is stellar improvement.
---RFD (1 of 4)---
Obviously I am not going to address every single line, but out of respect to the debaters I am trying to find at least one highlight from each side per round under each primary contention.
---
Pro's contentions:
I. "Introduction"
Pro says the voting policy says they are nessicary.
Con counters: “Pro has not quoted anything within the source to directly support this claim.” And later expands: “Voters don't have to vote on sourcing. Points can and are awarded without referenced sources. That happens all the time.”
Pro seems to defend on the basis that if they award source points then sources are necessary, but jumps to concluding that therefore it is always necessary.
Con clearly points out: “the text from the policy clearly indicates that these tasks are only necessary if a voter awards source points,” and the absence of any statement that sources must be awarded (side note: as a moderator, occasionally the absence of source points when they unquestionably go against someone's favored side, clues me into a vote being cast out of bias instead of reason). And repeats words to this effect a bunch (suggestion: practice some debates with a low character limit, for conciseness. Yes some repetition is good, but this is getting to be too much).
Pro challenges the claims of personal experience, by citing his own, to show that it’s a fallacious appeal.
Con baits pro with talk of defeating him before (I know this isn’t as bad, but this has similarities to when some debaters ask the audience to go Google something for their case. Sources should ideally be linked for quick verification by the audience).
And ugliness continues with pro insulting the math ability of con.
II. "Cited sources are necessary to provide impact to each participant’s argument."
Pro argues that words carry no impact unless there's a listed source connected, and further that it avoids plagiarism.
Con does a BoP claim to say that the resolution is not that sources should be required, but that they already are. Which is a good point, but missed the mark on pro’s point about impacts here.
Pro makes a point that any vote on a debate without sources, will be deleted by the moderators if reported (pretty sure this is to force con to pull evidence of the contrary? … I was curious as to con’s response to this but it seems to have been missed in the repetition of the same basic phrases). He also highlights the voting policy where source points depend on how the sources impacted the arguments.
Con accuses pro of bad source spamming in ignorance to source content.
Pro does a cool illustration “Sufficiency is expressed in logic by” which ideally should have been an early thing in this debate (I understand hoping your opponent is tired, but your opponent is guaranteed breaks, meaning any voter will probably be more tired by that point). And points to the requirement that votes be sufficient in justification, and that sufficiency points down to the four categories of consideration.
Con reminds us that source points are not always awarded, and disagrees with how pro is using the word sufficient (con lost a little ground here).
Stays ugly with talk of comparative amounts of profiles filled out, while dropping the topic (final round, follow through here could have sealed a lot).
Con also stays ugly with insisting pro is cherry-picking facts to avoid harming his own case (yeah, that’s to be expected. It’s not pro’s side to offer the counter evidence … Were this criminal court, suppressing counter evidence would be another matter).
III. "Cited sources are necessary to bolster one’s own argument, or weaken the opponent’s argument"
Pro implicitly ushers back to Russell's teapot, and BoP being on the one making a claim which is unmet without exterior proof.
Con counters that there are “generalized knowledge that are so universally well known that they cannot reasonably be the subject of dispute.” (side note: as a debater, I often give sources for well known things, in case an audience member is not familiar. This actually started in business school, when a teacher did not know some of the basic concepts I referenced, so I began having footnotes which added depth)
This turns into a discussion of cake, and more cake being better, but any cake being cake.
In gist, con asserts that it’s a non-sequitur strawcake.
Apparently pro possesses the magical powers of the Old Spice Guy, having turned that strawcake into a dragon egg, which then hatched into a Game of Thrones point with text only circle diagrams (seriously impressed!). The new argument page calls sourcing “necessary.” As a note, all voters must have completed a couple debates, so have seen said text.
Ok this gets complex with consideration of whether ambushing someone with interview data is fair in a debate, and worse he’s the person that gives us a screenshot of the phrase hidden on the new argument screen to verify it’s there… Aside from his questionable offered evidence, he does logically make a good point in questioning the factual weight of the claim, in light of [redacted] and people winning without using sources in spite of what that one line says is necessary.
FAUXLAW SURVEYED 100 DEBATES! … Ok, first off, 30 would have been enough for statistical validity. Second, damn! Third, I am morbidly curious to see the data. … Ok, so pro calls anywhere it’s left a tie as an allotment rather than withholding the point; which doesn’t seem kosher.
Con challenges that pro has violated the agreed upon setup with the new argument of the survey, and questions if pro is telling the truth. He eventually gets around to questioning what the data looked, particularly with regards to what percent had an awarded source point being a determinant factor to victory.
IV "Cited sources are necessary to demonstrate a superior argument"
Pro demonstrates how some sources trump others.
Con counters that pro hasn’t given sources to prove this…
This ties back to the cake, but pro points out that even entertainment media can provide good sourcing depending on the debate.
Con calls those only weak evidence (combined with the cake argument, they do stand as evidence).
Con suggests pro is mistaken, and suggests pro’s own experience with debating should have already lead to that conclusion that sources aren’t strictly necessary (sources would have really improved the impact here).
Pro calls con less educated than a 12 year old.
Con says pro’s testimony should be discounted, and questions the credibility of what people claim about themselves (side note: I advise always assuming each other member is a conjoined twin consisting of a 12 year old boy, and a 80 year old woman … yes, that is not supposed to make sense, but if anyone ever wants to meet up in person, it will be helpful to remember).
V. “A binding Voting Policy”
Pro cites that users are bound by the voting policy, and cites this very debate as evidence for what’s in said policy (this initially looked like a declaration that the title of this debate was inside that policy… Anyway, a link to the policy and an applicable quote would have served better).
Con calls this a lie (I assume he read it as I initially did, mistaking the title of this debate being used as evidence for the title of the debate being words within the voting policy).
“VII Rebuttal: A finger on the scale”
This is an example of why to be consistent in organization throughout any one debate. I had already wondered at some of the statements not seeming to match the prior statements, but this highlights what is going on. As a voter, my job of following any single contention through the debate should be very easy. For this one I could have done my own debate with less effort.
Ok, enough of my rant…
This is a continuation of III.
Chiefly a complaint about the tactic used of an interview.
Con defends that all evidence pointed to inside the debate rounds is techniquiely outside content, so the meaning of the rule does not apply to evidence within. The defense goes on for awhile…
---
Con's contentions:
"Interpretation of resolution"
Con inquires of the ambiguity, to ask "Necessary for what?" And argues that pro's case is that they are necessary to win the debate. He drills down to add words like usually, and on this website (which was pretty clear already from the debate description...).
"My case"
First foot in mouth moment of this debate, given that this debate is about the requirement of evidence: "Pro must present evidence to show that the resolution is true."
I'm outright cringing at the next paragraph "The type of evidence required ... If that percentage is greater than 50%, I would say that Pro would have won." I do agree if pro does that he has definitely won, there are of course other ways he may win. I cringe because Fauxlaw and myself are the two main data analytics people on this site, so asking him for that, there's a good chance it will actually happen.
Con goes on implicitly to say people should just vote their biases (I am guessing this is a rhetorical tactic to avoid using any sources. I am personally biased against encouraging this type of voting, as I've seen too many people outright ignore any evidence that goes against their convictions to fluff vote).
Con offers a strong piece of antototal evidence: “I can say that it seemed like the high quality debates referenced sources appeared necessary, but most debates on this site are not that.”
In R2 Pro drops, and Con extends.
---
Arguments: con
See above… At the end of the day, no matter how much things get twisted around, it seems to only be necessary to win the source point (side note: yes, I know non-moderated debates have it without that), as opposed to general necessity or even to win debates necessity. This leaves it on balance as untrue.
Yes votes should be sufficient, but that sufficiency does not state that source points are required, merely that if allotted they must be sufficiently explained or risk deletion.
I am basically discounting the interview, but not the connected points (challenging that the site owner can be wrong, which implicitly connected to the personal experience point… I did not even like that point, but it lines up well).
The survey is not dropped, as much as it proved to not be the silver bullet it was intended to be. On this, a link to a spreadsheet containing the data mining on it would have been very useful.
Overall pro did a good job arguing up hill against the status quo, but con cast more than enough doubt on the resolution to pull it back down said hill.
Sources: pro
It would make my job so much easier to be passive aggressive and side with con that all sources should be dismissed.
So on this one, pro wins by a landslide. Con had very few, and pro had a ton. Con did a good job challenging how pro was using some of them, but without more evidence from him this doesn’t even fall back into the default tied range. A particular highlight was pro’s use of a circle diagram (more argument then sources, but normally that would be expected in linked picture, so this cannot be praised too much), and the mathbook site as a reference in case his notations were not understood (thereby strengthening his arguments which used math notation).
Advice for con: Sources may not be your style, but you could have made this debate an easy decision by linking a handful of debates (preferably moderated ones) without sources (or at least where only one side has sources).
I will outright say on this that not all impact to arguments stems from sources they’re connected to. Certainly some does, but it’s a variable amount. A well reasoned point has impact by itself, even if it could be improved with a source.
S&G: tie
The organization helped through most of the debate, but got confusing later. Granted, I am not a fan of responding to absolutely every paragraph individually.
Conduct: tie
In future, please strive to be fair.
This debate got heated. Insults to both sides. One clear rule violation and one questionable major hit to sportsmanship (some policy will have to be decided on in future for ones like that).
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: seldiora // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4:0; 4 points 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.
**************************************************
seldiora
Added: 45 minutes 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:
I don't understand pro's argument, yes, he proved that sources are very important with helping a debate, and required when something needs evidence for backing, however, he strays from his main idea and I feel con better proves that they aren't always necessary in every debate.
Thank you for the talk of cake. It was a touch of livity this debate needed.
After I break I've read con's R1.
Neither has a clear lead yet.
Pro has not provided any clear proof, but there is a certain irony in con asking for evidence when his side is implicitly that evidence is not required (or at least not always).
Final round.
Just read Pro's R1. Kinda strange having interacted with the comment section so much, that while it feels like something big is missing, that it will be presented later.
Glanced at your first couple rounds, and I'll outright say nice improvement!
Only 2 days remain for voting.
13 hours remain for voting.
Welcome to the site.
And yeah, low character counts become an exercise in learning to be concise. I would not always want to restrictions in place, but sometimes I look back on an old argument and realize some of my points drifted off topic and probably should have been pruned.
Double thanks for the feedback.
I think I have before, but next time I'll be sure to expand and source how the mind uniquely defines people.
Thank you both for voting!