I obviously don't think the rhetoric tactic of suggestions to the voters inside the debate is cheating (as much as it can cross over into that if directly lying about debate content). To me it's just another way or wording a conclusion which references back to important points.
On a fairly ridiculous biblical debate, I did something like 8 extensions on dropped points (https://www.debateart.com/debates/950/the-bible-teaches-that-jesus-christ-is-god). Ideally maybe the voters would keep track of all that for me, but I want to make it easier for them.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Intelligence_06 // Mod action: Not Removed (non-moderated debate)
>Points Awarded: 0:0; Tied.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
There are three types of tied votes:
(1) Ones which allot zero points. They have no meaningful impact on the debate outcome, and are thus only moderated if warranted for other reasons.
(2) Ones which cancel themselves out. While the category assignments may serve as feedback to the debaters, there is no still meaningful impact for moderation consider. These are in essence the same as the previous type.
(3) Votes which leave arguments tied, but assign other categories. While these need not meet the sufficiency standards for an argument vote, they must still evaluate arguments enough to justify no clear winner. There is however an exception for >=50% forfeitures allowing conduct only with no further explanation.
Further reading: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1718/moderation-and-tied-votes
This debate has been deemed non-moderated. Therefore, no moderation action is appropriate for this vote.
Full Forfeitures, explicit concessions, subjective competitions, truisms, and comedy (even if facetious) are not eligible for moderation (barring certain exceptions).
**************************************************
The best option for this kind of thing is usually to start another debate with copy/pasted arguments, then delete the original.
In opting for that, you may have conduct pre-conceded for allowing it (otherwise all areas will be graded normally as if it were a new debate).
Another option is to do nothing, and let the voters decide on it as is. You could even opt for leaving this in place, but also doing a copy of this debate to see if a final round would change any vote outcomes.
"1. You included voter suggestions within the text of your r4. You then, after the argument phase concluded, cited references to two documents, Ragnar's tiny.cc document, and Lincoln-Douglas Debate format."
Any vote mentioning that google doc or the Lincoln-Douglas Debate format to justify sources, will of course be removed. This is as per the voting policies, the comment section not being the debate.
Also I don't see what their relevance toward this theology debate would be, so were they used in the debate (pretty sure they were not?), they would be some pretty weak sourcing.
"2. You made reference to outside material in the debate argument phase in your r4 re: my accusation of vote rigging in another debate."
Citations are usually from outside the debate, so yes other debates may be cited, but I still advise against it in general. Bringing up someone's previous debates, is the start to a downward spiral, which principally asks the voters to read way too much to understand the context of what isn't even a main point for or against the resolution in question.
"3. You claimed in your r4 that I did not source material, referenced from the OED."
OED is a valid source, as is just about anything else if cited as a source. Granted, I strongly advise putting definitions within the description or first round. ... I really hope this debate did not degrade into a fight over semantics.
Regarding #10
For a debate categorized as religion with Jesus in the title, it usually goes without saying that the Bible will be acceptable evidence. Someone could try to run a Kritik that the bible is false, but it would be extremely bastardly to the point where I as a voter would probably dismiss it from any serious consideration.
Imagine debating if silver is the best way to kill werewolves, and your opponent demanded you prove the moon exists... Some kritiks are just too bastardy to be of merit.
At a glance, this looks like a really good theology debate.
I must apologize for the various help documents not being updated. I am in a job hunt (switching from military to the business world is taking forever), which while incredibly draining (just got rejected for a dream job seeming due to having been injured in the war) remains my top priority. That said, any proposed changes to those documents could probably be quickly handled via the forums.
Having written that Google doc, I should say a little bit about it... I wrote it before I became a moderator here, and have made no attempts to move it into the official documentation. The whole voter suggestion part of it is mostly to encourage people to think about those categories as they debate. I don't believe it advocates any CoC violations, but if it's suggesting anything outright bastardy I'd be happy to change it.
Regarding vote rigging: IMO asserting victory inside the debate rounds, is just a rhetoric tactic. I do consider it poor conduct if it directly lies (inventing quotes the other person is supposed to have said but did not), but I am not noticing that level of it here (haven't read it yet).
IMO sources should always be inside the debate rounds.
I'll read over the rest of the comments later, I've got some things to do today...
User_2006 avatar
#1
User_2006
8 days ago
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✗ ✔ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Reason:
full forfeiture. GG to PRO, the only one who did something.
Welcome to the site. 10k is the dealt, and it gets pretty long if actually used. 30k is the maximum, which any voter is likely going to have to heavily skim (honestly, by 20k that is almost assured).
One resource which may be very useful for you:
https://tiny.cc/DebateArt
You can double check if Spider-Man is still there. While that does not make him a real person, it would seem to be a type of existence. If not, then do various famous paintings likewise not exist?
If either of you get time, votes #1 and #3 have been reported. Obviously I can't be impartial on #1, and would rather defer to someone who did not vote on this for #3.
Neatly I got to have a non-formal debate with RoyLatham over Facebook awhile back. The subject was something like any criticism of Trump is a call for his public execution...
Your BoP aim implies that it is intended to be along the lines of /in Christianity there are only three sins into which are others are encompassed,/ with Jesus in the desert then serving as evidence. Right now the title implies duel resolutions of only three broad sins and Jesus being tempted only three times; which can end up wasting a lot of characters trying to prove Jesus was only tempted three times, as opposed to it just being taken for granted as part of Christian theology.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: User_2006 // Mod action: Not Removed (non-moderated debate)
>Points Awarded: 4:0; 4 points to Pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
This debate has been deemed non-moderated. Therefore, no moderation action is appropriate for this vote.
Full Forfeitures, explicit concessions, subjective competitions, truisms, and comedy (even if facetious) are not eligible for moderation (barring certain exceptions).
**************************************************
--- RFD (1 of 3)---
To begin, I should state that since I don’t hate women, I am therefore biased in favor of them having rights, and as such pro has a much higher burden of proof to win points from me.
Additionally, the backwards selection of pro is the contender, may cause some errors in reference (I know I could refer to them by name, but I’ve learned that I am more impartial when I try to think of them as being named Pro and Con, in a manner similar to Tabula Rasa judging).
Interpreting the resolution:
With shared burden, pro must show harm from such a comparison, and con must show benefit. Merely refuting the other will net a tie.
Gist:
This debate is essentially about if fallacies are fallacious when made by groups you like.
0. Preambles
Both do a fine job here. I care more for the main contentions than back and forth about preciseness of BoP and such. As much as this is probably the most back and forth I’ve seen on this (really each of those could be their own debates, but shouldn’t be more than a footnote in this one).
1. Language
Con does an adequate job showing that in some categories phrasing can be compared. Pro calls this cherry picking.
Aside from Gish Galloping, this pretty much bleeds into later contentions which carry the core aspects of it better.
2. Laws
Con argues that Roe v. Wade was a Nazi law which denied people personhood. Pro explains why Nazi laws which stripped people of rights, are not comparable to laws which enforce some people having unalienable rights. And con extends. Near the end of the debate con even claims the abortions are actually forced (“Just like Nazi Germany, the enforcement is through unjust laws”), and pro-choice people are likewise trying to exterminate the elderly, the disabled, and any newborns… none of which was demonstrated in the debate.
3. Culture
As best I can understand it, con is claiming the pro-life movement was secretly indoctrinating the general population until such time as they were able to launch their final solution of aborting all fetuses to end the human race (“effectively converted large bodies of men to the belief in that doctrine and if the organization that actively conducts the fight be exclusive, vigorous and solid...or subsequently forced upon them if necessary”)… The bigger the claim, the bigger the proof, and with babies still around (even birthed by pro-choice people), it’s self-evident that this didn’t happen. To use an analogy, it would be about like claiming movie Independence Day is a historical record, and everyone who says those cities weren’t destroyed is a liar.
Pro basically says con drifted off topic, failing to link what he cited to the debate.
Con argues in favor of cherry-picking from the wrong tree. … I can’t call it anything better than this, he outright confuses Antifa with the pro-choice movement.
--- RFD (2 of 3)---
4. convey a greater understanding
Pro argues that it clouds the issue with complex decades of history, rather than being an analogy which streamlines discussion as analogies are meant to do.
Con asserts this is wrong by pointing to his language laws and culture points but offers no real direct defense. He does mention how well documented it is, which was key to the evidence that it’s too loaded to convey greater understanding instead of being bogged down.
Pro extends, and makes a key point to which comparable harm must be shown for the comparison to be valid: “No one is mandating how individuals should behave towards the unborn; no one is requiring that they be tattooed with numbers or wear a symbol of oppression; no one is herding them into camps and gassing them in mass; no one is enforcing their views on abortion with military power.”
5. improved discussion
Pro argues it lowers things to a reductio ad Hitlerium fallacy, which distracts from the issues of importance, leading to such things as this very debate. He layers this nicely by pointing out Jewish people who are pro-life, who should definitely never be accused of being the varelse who tried to exterminate them. This of course leading directly to discussion being shut down and even turned into terrorism (really surprised this being cherry-picking was not addressed), rather than improved.
Con insists those very flaws are an improvement on the discussion.
Pro extends and flaunts this very debate as more proof.
6. The Importance of Context
Pro points out a physical toll on the mother, which con seems to argue the toll of merely having Jewish people around is just as bad as carrying a baby to term… What the fuck did I just read?
Pro points out that the aim of the pro-life movement is not genocide against any group, whereas the Nazis forced genocide on groups they disliked. Pro doubles down on his claim that pro-lifers exterminated (or at least are plotting to exterminate) the entire human race, and intentionally highlights while not countering the directly contradicting point that pro-life people continue to have children.
Con extends.
Pro extends and reminds everyone that the unborn have full capacity to gain rights, unlike victims of Nazis and similar groups.
Arguments:
See above review of key points. Were the resolution that it is not possible to make such a comparison, con would win by a landslide, instead the debate repeatedly highlights why it is a harmful comparison and thus should not be used. It would be kinda like arguing that you technically can compare using solar power to nuclear bombings of cities, so that is the comparison that should be made. 🤯
Even in the end after three months, pro insists against all reason “Pro-choice do precisely what the Nazis did.”
Sources: tie
Both did really well on their research.
I will note that I really dislike both URL shorteners for hiding the quality. I likewise also dislike posting them in the comments. I do appreciate the numbered references holding the links (it takes no extra characters to do this).
Conduct:
Leaving this tied, but any insinuation that one side should potentially be killed, is never a good thing.
Anyone interested in this debate, may benefit from an old blog post on mine on the subject of pro-abortion politicians: https://consistentmind.wordpress.com/2017/11/23/abortion-politics/
I'm about half way through an in depth reading of the debate right now, and was strongly reminded of that.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: User_2006 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 2:3; 2 points to Pro, and 3 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.
**************************************************
User_2006
4 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:
Argument: PRO has failed to prove his BoP, because he did not expect argument regarding the Cambrian explosion and something like that. CON has not made any purposeful argument, but he has proved that PRO did not expect his argument.
Sources: PRO's sources help him and the case, CON's sources are of another debate topic and is irrelevant here.
Not the best trap. I could easily take this just copy/pasting from my own previous debates on this subject, to show that the word God and the concept for God indeed exists.
A small note within this debate on the subject of if blacks can be anti-black... While it needs to be backed up with evidence inside a debate; yes, anyone can be racist against anyone, including themselves.
This is not to say blacks in general are racist against any group, merely that as human beings they are each individually capable of it.
Erik is someone who made it their mission to troll every debate in the challenge period, then started creating obvious alt accounts to continue this when restricted from accepting debates. I trust your intelligence to know he was active at the time. That you were harmed by the few minutes to recreate your debate rather than given a free win, sucks, but it still doesn't relate well to this debate.
If low effort wins are your concern, you have three from the original Erik account. You even got called out for farming him, but those debates remain in place.
As for if I'm corrupt... When I debated someone who was a likely alt, even while I liked the quality I put in, I deleted it when they failed to rise above suspicion.
The guy punches down trees!
Winner Selection debates... I always fail to notice that!
I obviously don't think the rhetoric tactic of suggestions to the voters inside the debate is cheating (as much as it can cross over into that if directly lying about debate content). To me it's just another way or wording a conclusion which references back to important points.
On a fairly ridiculous biblical debate, I did something like 8 extensions on dropped points (https://www.debateart.com/debates/950/the-bible-teaches-that-jesus-christ-is-god). Ideally maybe the voters would keep track of all that for me, but I want to make it easier for them.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Intelligence_06 // Mod action: Not Removed (non-moderated debate)
>Points Awarded: 0:0; Tied.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
There are three types of tied votes:
(1) Ones which allot zero points. They have no meaningful impact on the debate outcome, and are thus only moderated if warranted for other reasons.
(2) Ones which cancel themselves out. While the category assignments may serve as feedback to the debaters, there is no still meaningful impact for moderation consider. These are in essence the same as the previous type.
(3) Votes which leave arguments tied, but assign other categories. While these need not meet the sufficiency standards for an argument vote, they must still evaluate arguments enough to justify no clear winner. There is however an exception for >=50% forfeitures allowing conduct only with no further explanation.
Further reading: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1718/moderation-and-tied-votes
This debate has been deemed non-moderated. Therefore, no moderation action is appropriate for this vote.
Full Forfeitures, explicit concessions, subjective competitions, truisms, and comedy (even if facetious) are not eligible for moderation (barring certain exceptions).
**************************************************
Dispute anything you want. But please try to aim it toward debate theory rather than exclusively this debate.
The best option for this kind of thing is usually to start another debate with copy/pasted arguments, then delete the original.
In opting for that, you may have conduct pre-conceded for allowing it (otherwise all areas will be graded normally as if it were a new debate).
Another option is to do nothing, and let the voters decide on it as is. You could even opt for leaving this in place, but also doing a copy of this debate to see if a final round would change any vote outcomes.
Regarding #24
"1. You included voter suggestions within the text of your r4. You then, after the argument phase concluded, cited references to two documents, Ragnar's tiny.cc document, and Lincoln-Douglas Debate format."
Any vote mentioning that google doc or the Lincoln-Douglas Debate format to justify sources, will of course be removed. This is as per the voting policies, the comment section not being the debate.
Also I don't see what their relevance toward this theology debate would be, so were they used in the debate (pretty sure they were not?), they would be some pretty weak sourcing.
"2. You made reference to outside material in the debate argument phase in your r4 re: my accusation of vote rigging in another debate."
Citations are usually from outside the debate, so yes other debates may be cited, but I still advise against it in general. Bringing up someone's previous debates, is the start to a downward spiral, which principally asks the voters to read way too much to understand the context of what isn't even a main point for or against the resolution in question.
"3. You claimed in your r4 that I did not source material, referenced from the OED."
OED is a valid source, as is just about anything else if cited as a source. Granted, I strongly advise putting definitions within the description or first round. ... I really hope this debate did not degrade into a fight over semantics.
Regarding #10
For a debate categorized as religion with Jesus in the title, it usually goes without saying that the Bible will be acceptable evidence. Someone could try to run a Kritik that the bible is false, but it would be extremely bastardly to the point where I as a voter would probably dismiss it from any serious consideration.
Imagine debating if silver is the best way to kill werewolves, and your opponent demanded you prove the moon exists... Some kritiks are just too bastardy to be of merit.
At a glance, this looks like a really good theology debate.
I must apologize for the various help documents not being updated. I am in a job hunt (switching from military to the business world is taking forever), which while incredibly draining (just got rejected for a dream job seeming due to having been injured in the war) remains my top priority. That said, any proposed changes to those documents could probably be quickly handled via the forums.
Having written that Google doc, I should say a little bit about it... I wrote it before I became a moderator here, and have made no attempts to move it into the official documentation. The whole voter suggestion part of it is mostly to encourage people to think about those categories as they debate. I don't believe it advocates any CoC violations, but if it's suggesting anything outright bastardy I'd be happy to change it.
Regarding vote rigging: IMO asserting victory inside the debate rounds, is just a rhetoric tactic. I do consider it poor conduct if it directly lies (inventing quotes the other person is supposed to have said but did not), but I am not noticing that level of it here (haven't read it yet).
IMO sources should always be inside the debate rounds.
I'll read over the rest of the comments later, I've got some things to do today...
You may have missed said dehumanizing angle:
“People who don’t wear a mask will be soon painted as the enemy — just as they did the Jews in Nazi Germany.” -Republican State Rep. Danny McCormick
Removed by request:
User_2006 avatar
#1
User_2006
8 days ago
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✗ ✔ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Reason:
full forfeiture. GG to PRO, the only one who did something.
A related news piece came up:
https://nypost.com/2020/07/08/louisiana-lawmaker-equates-mask-mandates-with-nazi-germany/
Which one would you like removed?
Out of curiosity, why do you consider not pressing an advantage to be a conduct violation of similar magnitude to forfeiting a round?
No problem.
Congrats on getting this much community interest in your first debate.
Welcome to the site. 10k is the dealt, and it gets pretty long if actually used. 30k is the maximum, which any voter is likely going to have to heavily skim (honestly, by 20k that is almost assured).
One resource which may be very useful for you:
https://tiny.cc/DebateArt
I would ask why, but you've set a massive character limit to show that why. Good luck.
In what sense?
You can double check if Spider-Man is still there. While that does not make him a real person, it would seem to be a type of existence. If not, then do various famous paintings likewise not exist?
If either of you get time, votes #1 and #3 have been reported. Obviously I can't be impartial on #1, and would rather defer to someone who did not vote on this for #3.
Neatly I got to have a non-formal debate with RoyLatham over Facebook awhile back. The subject was something like any criticism of Trump is a call for his public execution...
Two days remain for any voting.
Welcome to the site, and good luck with your first debate.
Thank you for the bolding, as it allowed quick skimming to see what you believe the three root sins are: Pride, Power, and Possession.
I think this debate may have been mislabeled.
Your BoP aim implies that it is intended to be along the lines of /in Christianity there are only three sins into which are others are encompassed,/ with Jesus in the desert then serving as evidence. Right now the title implies duel resolutions of only three broad sins and Jesus being tempted only three times; which can end up wasting a lot of characters trying to prove Jesus was only tempted three times, as opposed to it just being taken for granted as part of Christian theology.
One round remains. You each only took part in a single round so far.
Good luck on this logic puzzle debate.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: User_2006 // Mod action: Not Removed (non-moderated debate)
>Points Awarded: 4:0; 4 points to Pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
This debate has been deemed non-moderated. Therefore, no moderation action is appropriate for this vote.
Full Forfeitures, explicit concessions, subjective competitions, truisms, and comedy (even if facetious) are not eligible for moderation (barring certain exceptions).
**************************************************
I am guessing con is going to pull stillborn babies as proof against it happening in all cases...
--- RFD (1 of 3)---
To begin, I should state that since I don’t hate women, I am therefore biased in favor of them having rights, and as such pro has a much higher burden of proof to win points from me.
Additionally, the backwards selection of pro is the contender, may cause some errors in reference (I know I could refer to them by name, but I’ve learned that I am more impartial when I try to think of them as being named Pro and Con, in a manner similar to Tabula Rasa judging).
Interpreting the resolution:
With shared burden, pro must show harm from such a comparison, and con must show benefit. Merely refuting the other will net a tie.
Gist:
This debate is essentially about if fallacies are fallacious when made by groups you like.
0. Preambles
Both do a fine job here. I care more for the main contentions than back and forth about preciseness of BoP and such. As much as this is probably the most back and forth I’ve seen on this (really each of those could be their own debates, but shouldn’t be more than a footnote in this one).
1. Language
Con does an adequate job showing that in some categories phrasing can be compared. Pro calls this cherry picking.
Aside from Gish Galloping, this pretty much bleeds into later contentions which carry the core aspects of it better.
2. Laws
Con argues that Roe v. Wade was a Nazi law which denied people personhood. Pro explains why Nazi laws which stripped people of rights, are not comparable to laws which enforce some people having unalienable rights. And con extends. Near the end of the debate con even claims the abortions are actually forced (“Just like Nazi Germany, the enforcement is through unjust laws”), and pro-choice people are likewise trying to exterminate the elderly, the disabled, and any newborns… none of which was demonstrated in the debate.
3. Culture
As best I can understand it, con is claiming the pro-life movement was secretly indoctrinating the general population until such time as they were able to launch their final solution of aborting all fetuses to end the human race (“effectively converted large bodies of men to the belief in that doctrine and if the organization that actively conducts the fight be exclusive, vigorous and solid...or subsequently forced upon them if necessary”)… The bigger the claim, the bigger the proof, and with babies still around (even birthed by pro-choice people), it’s self-evident that this didn’t happen. To use an analogy, it would be about like claiming movie Independence Day is a historical record, and everyone who says those cities weren’t destroyed is a liar.
Pro basically says con drifted off topic, failing to link what he cited to the debate.
Con argues in favor of cherry-picking from the wrong tree. … I can’t call it anything better than this, he outright confuses Antifa with the pro-choice movement.
--- RFD (2 of 3)---
4. convey a greater understanding
Pro argues that it clouds the issue with complex decades of history, rather than being an analogy which streamlines discussion as analogies are meant to do.
Con asserts this is wrong by pointing to his language laws and culture points but offers no real direct defense. He does mention how well documented it is, which was key to the evidence that it’s too loaded to convey greater understanding instead of being bogged down.
Pro extends, and makes a key point to which comparable harm must be shown for the comparison to be valid: “No one is mandating how individuals should behave towards the unborn; no one is requiring that they be tattooed with numbers or wear a symbol of oppression; no one is herding them into camps and gassing them in mass; no one is enforcing their views on abortion with military power.”
5. improved discussion
Pro argues it lowers things to a reductio ad Hitlerium fallacy, which distracts from the issues of importance, leading to such things as this very debate. He layers this nicely by pointing out Jewish people who are pro-life, who should definitely never be accused of being the varelse who tried to exterminate them. This of course leading directly to discussion being shut down and even turned into terrorism (really surprised this being cherry-picking was not addressed), rather than improved.
Con insists those very flaws are an improvement on the discussion.
Pro extends and flaunts this very debate as more proof.
6. The Importance of Context
Pro points out a physical toll on the mother, which con seems to argue the toll of merely having Jewish people around is just as bad as carrying a baby to term… What the fuck did I just read?
Pro points out that the aim of the pro-life movement is not genocide against any group, whereas the Nazis forced genocide on groups they disliked. Pro doubles down on his claim that pro-lifers exterminated (or at least are plotting to exterminate) the entire human race, and intentionally highlights while not countering the directly contradicting point that pro-life people continue to have children.
Con extends.
Pro extends and reminds everyone that the unborn have full capacity to gain rights, unlike victims of Nazis and similar groups.
--- RFD (3 of 3)---
Arguments:
See above review of key points. Were the resolution that it is not possible to make such a comparison, con would win by a landslide, instead the debate repeatedly highlights why it is a harmful comparison and thus should not be used. It would be kinda like arguing that you technically can compare using solar power to nuclear bombings of cities, so that is the comparison that should be made. 🤯
Even in the end after three months, pro insists against all reason “Pro-choice do precisely what the Nazis did.”
Sources: tie
Both did really well on their research.
I will note that I really dislike both URL shorteners for hiding the quality. I likewise also dislike posting them in the comments. I do appreciate the numbered references holding the links (it takes no extra characters to do this).
Conduct:
Leaving this tied, but any insinuation that one side should potentially be killed, is never a good thing.
Anyone interested in this debate, may benefit from an old blog post on mine on the subject of pro-abortion politicians: https://consistentmind.wordpress.com/2017/11/23/abortion-politics/
I'm about half way through an in depth reading of the debate right now, and was strongly reminded of that.
Neat, I /kinda/ got quoted in the preamble.
It was indeed a foul frankfurter.
As much as I appreciate the humor, as the vote is fine, we can't remove it unless he requests that.
You may always request your own vote be removed. However, no amount of other people reporting it on something like this will net that result.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: User_2006 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 2:3; 2 points to Pro, and 3 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.
**************************************************
User_2006
4 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:
Argument: PRO has failed to prove his BoP, because he did not expect argument regarding the Cambrian explosion and something like that. CON has not made any purposeful argument, but he has proved that PRO did not expect his argument.
Sources: PRO's sources help him and the case, CON's sources are of another debate topic and is irrelevant here.
I stand corrected that there are indeed other ways pro can be considered to have won.
You are treating this debate as a truism, and I am not. Both are valid.
It doesn't hold my interest.
Not the best trap. I could easily take this just copy/pasting from my own previous debates on this subject, to show that the word God and the concept for God indeed exists.
As per the description, all pro needs to do is demonstrate that believing in Santa Claus is likened to the belief in God.
Glad there's a whole month in the voting period, as I would not want to rush through the reading.
A small note within this debate on the subject of if blacks can be anti-black... While it needs to be backed up with evidence inside a debate; yes, anyone can be racist against anyone, including themselves.
This is not to say blacks in general are racist against any group, merely that as human beings they are each individually capable of it.
Erik is someone who made it their mission to troll every debate in the challenge period, then started creating obvious alt accounts to continue this when restricted from accepting debates. I trust your intelligence to know he was active at the time. That you were harmed by the few minutes to recreate your debate rather than given a free win, sucks, but it still doesn't relate well to this debate.
If low effort wins are your concern, you have three from the original Erik account. You even got called out for farming him, but those debates remain in place.
As for if I'm corrupt... When I debated someone who was a likely alt, even while I liked the quality I put in, I deleted it when they failed to rise above suspicion.
That was a very fun R2.
What does everyone think would be the ideal default character limit?
Neato!