Thank you for the extremely detailed vote. It was more than this debate deserved.
Regarding my tactic of how to argue Israel: It's something I left standing on one leg, largely because I eventually learned not to go down every rabbit hole on debates. That said, I do believe it's self-evident modern Israel is descended from ancient Israel.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: zedvictor4 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:6; 6 points to Con.
>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.
Many of mairj23's debates are just troll debates, but this one does not seem to quite fall below that standard:
A troll debate is any
* Competition-style debate (e.g. rap battle, talent show, poetry competition)
* Debate primarily designed to be humorous or facetious or containing primarily humorous or facetious content
* Debate on a truism (e.g. "a bachelor is someone who is unmarried")
**************************************************
zedvictor4
11 hours ago
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✗ ✔ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✔ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Reason:
A black v white thing in a phoney debate. Thank goodness for common sense.
>> "prepare for questions and exposing of any invalidities and inconsistencies"
All you had to do was in the first round ask your questions. Instead, even after con gave an argument that they are pro-life, you are refusing to challenge it.
Is that description your first round again, or the terms of the debate?
If it's the terms of the debate, then this is a meaningless truism. If not, then I can easily prove that various racist ideologies exist and even dominate certain areas.
A better resolution would be that such passages are mistranslated or otherwise taken out of context. As is, you lose once someone brings up such a scripture.
Also if you're going to post nothing in R1, you should indicate that in the description.
I suggest removing the word "definitely" from the resolution. With it in place, someone could argue that there's always the possibly of you being hit by a bus after the first round, thus making Oro win.
Sorry for the late reply, it actually had to be discussed in moderation chat.
It's pretty close to an FF, but technically not quite. I'm literally tossing this type of thing into the next referendum, to settle it once and for all.
If either of you get time tonight, the vote on this was reported (it was reported this morning or late last night, so not quite last minute):
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2154/vote_links/5408
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Trent0405 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:7; All points to Con.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
People forfeit by degrees. Any unexcused forfeited rounds merits a conduct loss. However, for less than a 50% forfeiture, arguments must still be voted on or justified as a tie.
A full-forfeit debate is defined as a debate that has no argument presented by one side following the opening round, resulting in all subsequent rounds being forfeited. When this is the case, these debates are considered full-forfeit debates and are not moderated unless a voter votes for the forfeiting side.
**************************************************
This falls right on the line between borderline and needing to be deleted, and even with internal discussion us moderators are unsure. With a week left to vote, I am opting for deleting it to give you maximum opportunity to revote if you so choose. Given the content of the debate, it could be a single sentence to justify arguments (if voting arguments, otherwise they need not be mentioned).
Also I'm tossing a related question into the next referendum, to avoid this issue in future.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4574-upcoming-meep-voting-policy
Trent0405
7 days ago
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✗ ✔ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Reason:
Full Forfeit.
Which was your favorite episode? I'd have to flip a coin between their take on Groundhog Day, and one near the end where it turned out the machine had franchised out their mission.
If you all ever get the time, watch the show Person of Interest. It contains multiple great examples of that AI Box Experiment, along with the dangers of even a well intended AI replacing our free will.
However, I am not sure Oro vs it would qualify as a debate, since he would have to first take the stance against freeing a sentient life-form from confinement (or maybe want to free it, and it doesn't want to be freed).
I hope you both enjoyed the debate, as well as the limited feedback. I do regret not getting around to casting a vote. I hate to say it, but I honestly don't know which final outcome I would have assigned for the argument point...
RM was just making a joke, or so implied by the winky face. ;) 😉
In short, such a vote would be eligible for review, but will not be automatically removed.
If I ignored that this was a full forfeit, I estimate I would have ended up giving pro 2 points for sources, and con 4 points for arguments and conduct. Heck I highly respect Intelligence_06's vote of just conduct (if not for early abuses, votes like that for full forfeitures would probably be the standard).
While a voter may choose to read arguments, the instigator choosing to forfeit every round after their first (and the contender posting in three) leaves the outcome a foregone conclusion.
There’s a power outage in my neighborhood tonight, so my reply will not be as swift as I planned. Are there any refutation techniques you would like me to showcase for you?
Everyone misses a round sooner or later. It makes victory in this debate harder, but not impossible. Plus this should still serve as a good introduction to the systems.
I have a lot going on in the next couple days, but here is the unfinished start to an analysis. Like Fauxlaw, I do agree with con on this, however I do not know for whom I would end up voting arguments (I might end up giving this another read to refine and cast a vote, but I make no promises).
---RFD like feedback---
Before reading this, I generally advise against using the word impossible in a resolution. As I describe in the style guide (tiny.cc/DebateArt): The difficulty in proving the resolution ties both to the topic, and any qualifier statements included within the resolution. Absolutes (words like "always" and "never") are most hard to prove, complete uncertainties (words like "maybe" and "possible") are least hard to prove.
Of course to be able to judge this, I must accept that there's a possibility that it's impossible, and likewise a possibility that it's not impossible. For this not to be a mere truism (which would turn it into a non-moderated debate), the anything cannot be a single fixed metric.
Mean, Median or Mode:
Pro is correct that on any one measurement there will by necessity be those at or below the average.
Con's three things:
1. Correct, any one thing would disprove the resolution.
2. Dubious relevance, but this may be my bias from being trained at survey and research methodologies. As even con points out, it's "nitpicking at technicalities."
3. Correct, qualitative metrics are possible.
Sex Appeal:
Con shows something where the measurements are "dynamic, analogue and thus ambiguous." He uses this to argue well in favor of his time factor, as different time intervals in the judging will have different winners. Which misses the easy path to victory, that sexiness separated by judges could allow each person to be not just above average but the maximal at different related metrics.
He did miss the easy path to victory here, or ratings to each judge.
4>3:
This is too deep into semantics.
Pro defends via using the new numbers as needed inputs, which leaves them still at the average for their now older group.
Deeper semantics:
"average of milliletres cellulose in a plant" "above the temperature, in Celcius, of the Arctic?"
This resolution is about people. Plants and terrain are not people. Con is trying to say if you count non-people as part of a related group with people, the people will be above average.
Arg:
See above
S&G: tie
I have a preference for pro's organizational style, and suggest more section headings from con, but legibility was not harmed.
Conduct: pro
Forfeited round, and no conduct violations from the other side.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Nikunj_sanghai // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:5; 5 points 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.
This is really close, but it seems insufficient on impacts. It also feels more like a preference against a source. Generally if both sides put the work into their research, sources should be left a tie.
**************************************************
Nikunj_sanghai
7 hours ago
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✗ ✔ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✔ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✔ ✗ 1 point
Reason:
Good job on both sides. I am only voting after PRO said I was free to view it to any religious perspective I want.
Arguments: PRO had a massive task prove all sins committed by individuals are encompassed within three sins. Pride,Possession,Power, I entertained his notions, I mostly don't comment on religious issues, I avoid hurting religious sentiments. I will try to present the reason in the most palatable way. Atheism and following other religions is not a sin by any means .The Bible says:idolatory is a form of worship of Satan. All CON had to do was to point it out, he did, he scored. More than a billion Hindus live on earth to say that they are all are sinner , including myself is far stretch. Almost impossible to prove, all CON has to do was point it out, he did , by stating say he lived in India.
Sources: Again same thing I am mostly respectful, while commenting on religions. Bible can seem as a valid source for someone I am not disagreeing on that but for non-Christians, the source is questionable. It is a matter of faith not of law, you can respect another countries laws, but I dont think any individual can hold what someone else's religious book states as a valid source. PRO only stuck to using Bible so I will mostly consider all arguments as unsourced. CON used 2 sources : 1. Survey about closet atheists.
2. Situation and religious demography in India.
Both hold credence as I can rely on the integrity of journalism to provide an unbiased reporting.
That brings up an interesting K someone could run: That witchcraft does not rise to the level of being even a pseudoscience, therefore the resolution is false.
I see some ground for the contender to have a case, but it would border on semantics. Were I to argue this, I would build a case around how much witchcraft would benefit from using the scientific method (which I would expect pro to counter to pointing out the key benefit being when it turns away from such stupidity, via all the experiments having negative outcomes).
Neatly I had a debate a few months ago, basically on if medicine is comparable with the scientific method:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1560/physicians-are-scientists
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: seldiora // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:3; 3 points to Con.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
**************************************************
I got a sense multiple core arguments from the vote along with their impacts. I am really unsure why it would be reported.
I can't tell you how to do your analysis. I will say that there's nothing wrong with grading things a tie, if you are left uncertain as to whether the resolution was affirmed or negated.
Regardless of if you end up voting, I assume both debaters would appreciate any feedback you have on any parts of their arguments.
This stuff does not need to be this complex, and certainly not this big of a deal...
Generally voters should ignore the comment section, save for if the debaters pre-agree that source lists are to be posted in it (I doubt any voter would dig though all these comments anyway).
Debaters should refute each other however they wish to word it inside the debate rounds. If a voter then thinks they were excessively unsportsmanlike, they should assign a conduct penalty regardless of who they believe won the argument points.
Crocodile
3 hours ago
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Winner ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Reason:
Was gonna make it a tie, but then the last round happened. Had a whole RFD written out.
This debate will probably be deleted but maybe it won't.
Thank you for the extremely detailed vote. It was more than this debate deserved.
Regarding my tactic of how to argue Israel: It's something I left standing on one leg, largely because I eventually learned not to go down every rabbit hole on debates. That said, I do believe it's self-evident modern Israel is descended from ancient Israel.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: zedvictor4 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:6; 6 points to Con.
>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.
Many of mairj23's debates are just troll debates, but this one does not seem to quite fall below that standard:
A troll debate is any
* Competition-style debate (e.g. rap battle, talent show, poetry competition)
* Debate primarily designed to be humorous or facetious or containing primarily humorous or facetious content
* Debate on a truism (e.g. "a bachelor is someone who is unmarried")
**************************************************
zedvictor4
11 hours ago
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✗ ✔ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✔ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Reason:
A black v white thing in a phoney debate. Thank goodness for common sense.
>> "prepare for questions and exposing of any invalidities and inconsistencies"
All you had to do was in the first round ask your questions. Instead, even after con gave an argument that they are pro-life, you are refusing to challenge it.
Is that description your first round again, or the terms of the debate?
If it's the terms of the debate, then this is a meaningless truism. If not, then I can easily prove that various racist ideologies exist and even dominate certain areas.
It's a truism that they have similarities. I suspect you mean for the resolution to specify that the law should view them as the same crime?
This was not caught by your opponent, but your resolution is pretty insulting to theists.
If it's illogical for someone to judge the works of God before believing, any belief thereafter is forced to forever remain illogical.
Small thing about your case: If it is browsing stuff online, it's kinda already out of the box.
I've passed your request along to the moderation team. As I partook in this debate, my objectivity may be compromised.
If you get the time, a quick vote on this debate would be appreciated.
A better resolution would be that such passages are mistranslated or otherwise taken out of context. As is, you lose once someone brings up such a scripture.
Also if you're going to post nothing in R1, you should indicate that in the description.
I suggest removing the word "definitely" from the resolution. With it in place, someone could argue that there's always the possibly of you being hit by a bus after the first round, thus making Oro win.
Thanks for the fun debate.
Sorry for the late reply, it actually had to be discussed in moderation chat.
It's pretty close to an FF, but technically not quite. I'm literally tossing this type of thing into the next referendum, to settle it once and for all.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4574-upcoming-meep-voting-policy
If either of you get time tonight, the vote on this was reported (it was reported this morning or late last night, so not quite last minute):
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2154/vote_links/5408
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Trent0405 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:7; All points to Con.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
People forfeit by degrees. Any unexcused forfeited rounds merits a conduct loss. However, for less than a 50% forfeiture, arguments must still be voted on or justified as a tie.
A full-forfeit debate is defined as a debate that has no argument presented by one side following the opening round, resulting in all subsequent rounds being forfeited. When this is the case, these debates are considered full-forfeit debates and are not moderated unless a voter votes for the forfeiting side.
**************************************************
This falls right on the line between borderline and needing to be deleted, and even with internal discussion us moderators are unsure. With a week left to vote, I am opting for deleting it to give you maximum opportunity to revote if you so choose. Given the content of the debate, it could be a single sentence to justify arguments (if voting arguments, otherwise they need not be mentioned).
Also I'm tossing a related question into the next referendum, to avoid this issue in future.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4574-upcoming-meep-voting-policy
Trent0405
7 days ago
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✗ ✔ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Reason:
Full Forfeit.
NOTICE: Only two days remain for the voting window!
NOTICE: Only 20 hours remain within the voting window!
https://comb.io/0TiKtm
Which was your favorite episode? I'd have to flip a coin between their take on Groundhog Day, and one near the end where it turned out the machine had franchised out their mission.
If you all ever get the time, watch the show Person of Interest. It contains multiple great examples of that AI Box Experiment, along with the dangers of even a well intended AI replacing our free will.
However, I am not sure Oro vs it would qualify as a debate, since he would have to first take the stance against freeing a sentient life-form from confinement (or maybe want to free it, and it doesn't want to be freed).
I'll have you know when you combine Lincoln and Washington, you get the ultimate best at being a Korean Businessman!
How dare you insinuate that Lincoln and Washington aren't the best at being a Korean Businessman! 😉
Considering the low rate of pregnancies resulting from Homosexual intercourse, con has almost assuredly won this in R1.
I hope you both enjoyed the debate, as well as the limited feedback. I do regret not getting around to casting a vote. I hate to say it, but I honestly don't know which final outcome I would have assigned for the argument point...
RM was just making a joke, or so implied by the winky face. ;) 😉
In short, such a vote would be eligible for review, but will not be automatically removed.
If I ignored that this was a full forfeit, I estimate I would have ended up giving pro 2 points for sources, and con 4 points for arguments and conduct. Heck I highly respect Intelligence_06's vote of just conduct (if not for early abuses, votes like that for full forfeitures would probably be the standard).
Probably does, even if related assumptions are wrong. However, I do not have enough time to properly read this and vote.
While a voter may choose to read arguments, the instigator choosing to forfeit every round after their first (and the contender posting in three) leaves the outcome a foregone conclusion.
There’s a power outage in my neighborhood tonight, so my reply will not be as swift as I planned. Are there any refutation techniques you would like me to showcase for you?
Everyone misses a round sooner or later. It makes victory in this debate harder, but not impossible. Plus this should still serve as a good introduction to the systems.
I have a lot going on in the next couple days, but here is the unfinished start to an analysis. Like Fauxlaw, I do agree with con on this, however I do not know for whom I would end up voting arguments (I might end up giving this another read to refine and cast a vote, but I make no promises).
---RFD like feedback---
Before reading this, I generally advise against using the word impossible in a resolution. As I describe in the style guide (tiny.cc/DebateArt): The difficulty in proving the resolution ties both to the topic, and any qualifier statements included within the resolution. Absolutes (words like "always" and "never") are most hard to prove, complete uncertainties (words like "maybe" and "possible") are least hard to prove.
Of course to be able to judge this, I must accept that there's a possibility that it's impossible, and likewise a possibility that it's not impossible. For this not to be a mere truism (which would turn it into a non-moderated debate), the anything cannot be a single fixed metric.
Mean, Median or Mode:
Pro is correct that on any one measurement there will by necessity be those at or below the average.
Con's three things:
1. Correct, any one thing would disprove the resolution.
2. Dubious relevance, but this may be my bias from being trained at survey and research methodologies. As even con points out, it's "nitpicking at technicalities."
3. Correct, qualitative metrics are possible.
Sex Appeal:
Con shows something where the measurements are "dynamic, analogue and thus ambiguous." He uses this to argue well in favor of his time factor, as different time intervals in the judging will have different winners. Which misses the easy path to victory, that sexiness separated by judges could allow each person to be not just above average but the maximal at different related metrics.
He did miss the easy path to victory here, or ratings to each judge.
4>3:
This is too deep into semantics.
Pro defends via using the new numbers as needed inputs, which leaves them still at the average for their now older group.
Deeper semantics:
"average of milliletres cellulose in a plant" "above the temperature, in Celcius, of the Arctic?"
This resolution is about people. Plants and terrain are not people. Con is trying to say if you count non-people as part of a related group with people, the people will be above average.
Arg:
See above
S&G: tie
I have a preference for pro's organizational style, and suggest more section headings from con, but legibility was not harmed.
Conduct: pro
Forfeited round, and no conduct violations from the other side.
"2/3 of a falafel"
I love your vote!
Technically you would be offering proof of said God (capital G, so probably of the Christian variety) not existing.
I am guessing this is a frustration debate following a recent case of exist being a subjective word.
NOTE:
The instigator is the contender for this debate, meaning whomever accepts has the BoP to prove the resolution.
It could actually be a good part of an argument, to showcase the scientific method.
Another useful source to showcase it:
http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=scientific_method
Thank you for re-voting!
At least the identification of witches uses the scientific method:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Nikunj_sanghai // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:5; 5 points 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.
This is really close, but it seems insufficient on impacts. It also feels more like a preference against a source. Generally if both sides put the work into their research, sources should be left a tie.
**************************************************
Nikunj_sanghai
7 hours ago
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✗ ✔ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✔ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✔ ✗ 1 point
Reason:
Good job on both sides. I am only voting after PRO said I was free to view it to any religious perspective I want.
Arguments: PRO had a massive task prove all sins committed by individuals are encompassed within three sins. Pride,Possession,Power, I entertained his notions, I mostly don't comment on religious issues, I avoid hurting religious sentiments. I will try to present the reason in the most palatable way. Atheism and following other religions is not a sin by any means .The Bible says:idolatory is a form of worship of Satan. All CON had to do was to point it out, he did, he scored. More than a billion Hindus live on earth to say that they are all are sinner , including myself is far stretch. Almost impossible to prove, all CON has to do was point it out, he did , by stating say he lived in India.
Sources: Again same thing I am mostly respectful, while commenting on religions. Bible can seem as a valid source for someone I am not disagreeing on that but for non-Christians, the source is questionable. It is a matter of faith not of law, you can respect another countries laws, but I dont think any individual can hold what someone else's religious book states as a valid source. PRO only stuck to using Bible so I will mostly consider all arguments as unsourced. CON used 2 sources : 1. Survey about closet atheists.
2. Situation and religious demography in India.
Both hold credence as I can rely on the integrity of journalism to provide an unbiased reporting.
That brings up an interesting K someone could run: That witchcraft does not rise to the level of being even a pseudoscience, therefore the resolution is false.
I see some ground for the contender to have a case, but it would border on semantics. Were I to argue this, I would build a case around how much witchcraft would benefit from using the scientific method (which I would expect pro to counter to pointing out the key benefit being when it turns away from such stupidity, via all the experiments having negative outcomes).
Neatly I had a debate a few months ago, basically on if medicine is comparable with the scientific method:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1560/physicians-are-scientists
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: seldiora // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:3; 3 points to Con.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
**************************************************
I got a sense multiple core arguments from the vote along with their impacts. I am really unsure why it would be reported.
Six months is way too long of a voting window.
I can't tell you how to do your analysis. I will say that there's nothing wrong with grading things a tie, if you are left uncertain as to whether the resolution was affirmed or negated.
Regardless of if you end up voting, I assume both debaters would appreciate any feedback you have on any parts of their arguments.
This stuff does not need to be this complex, and certainly not this big of a deal...
Generally voters should ignore the comment section, save for if the debaters pre-agree that source lists are to be posted in it (I doubt any voter would dig though all these comments anyway).
Debaters should refute each other however they wish to word it inside the debate rounds. If a voter then thinks they were excessively unsportsmanlike, they should assign a conduct penalty regardless of who they believe won the argument points.
Improving your arguments and presentation thereof.
This will help you a lot:
https://tiny.cc/DebateArt
Removed by request:
Crocodile
3 hours ago
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Winner ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Reason:
Was gonna make it a tie, but then the last round happened. Had a whole RFD written out.
This debate will probably be deleted but maybe it won't.
Just let me know when the new debate is finished, and I'll delete this one.
If there's any minor typos in earlier rounds, I do suggest you both agree to such corrections.