RationalMadman
11 hours ago
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Reason:
EricThanos tried to slap Bearman but he didn't know that Bearman is not from Marvel universe. Bearman has that girzzly grip that gone gripe ya.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:1; 1 point 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.
This vote received a few reports, so going to give added commentary...
It addresses the main argument both side offered, which is the core thing any vote should do.
It does go against the presumptive winner, which is fine, that just means that it is eligible for moderation.
**************************************************
I suggest adding any vital terms to the description, otherwise the debate can turn into a dance around ambiguity... Such as what would abolished completely look like? And are sanctuaries considered zoos?
And now that it's in the description, your waive rule is fine if not ideal.
Oh something you may find useful: https://tiny.cc/DebateArt
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:6; 6 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.
**************************************************
fauxlaw
2 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:
Argument: Pro's argument carried on for 3 rounds by comparison to live, verbal debate durations. Con's argument demonstrated [by actual proof] that the DebateArt format, and even Con's sourcing of Debate.com, is a written format. Being different formats, the attempted comparison fails. Also, by pro's round 1 challenge to Con to argue even a 25,000-character round, Con met the challenge, exceeding 25K, and reaching a full 29,790-character-with-spaces argument, for which, pro challenged, would prove Con's point. Additionally, Con's argument that a 30,000-character limit does not imply that a debater must uses all 30,000 characters in any given argument was unsuccessfully rebutted by Pro, as capably demonstrated by Con's round 1, an argument of < 3,300 characters. Strictly by the numbers Pro challenged, Con successfully met the challenge, and exceeded it in one round, and limited it in another. Clearly, on this point alone, Con wins the points, but the prior voting observation is also won by Con.
Sourcing: pro used sources unrelated to DebateArt format. I consider these sources to be irrelevant to this debate. Con used credible sources within the construct of DebateArt's format. Points to Con.
S&G: Tie
Conduct: Pro exhibited bad form by challenging Con in round 1, offering that Con would make is point by meeting the challenge, and then refused to acknowledge Con met the challenge, and instead complained that Con used copy/paste rather than summarize points to redfuce argument character count. No such reduction in argument/rebuttal is required to minimize the argument, and the challenge did previously prohibit copy/paste. Point to Con.
Two things:
1. The only category to which grading is required, is arguments. I don't quite want to say the others are for outliers, but they on average are tied and them being tied never needs to be spelled out (if arguments were tied, some justification would be needed, but to a lower standard than if awarding it to either side).
2. You are not required to obey the special rules from the description, but for future reference you have the option (and they're a good thing to mention when going against for the sake of seeming fair).
You could pretty easily do some beta testing on such a system with a debate or two using random topics, and then try this debate again with evidence from that.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 1:6; 1 point to Pro, and 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.
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
**************************************************
fauxlaw
3 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 failed to overcome Con's argument of cost of mounting and maintenance of the proposal, as well as the fact that only one debate site enabled the proposal, and that site is done. Points to Con
Sourcing: Con offered the only sources.Pro's references to debates does not support the proposal. Points to Con
S&G: Pro failed to capitalized first word in R1. Point to Con
Conduct. Co forfeited R1. Point to Pro
I can't promise anything. I would be curious to see a debate just on if sovereign immunity should be absolute; my curiosity of this, will probably cause me to go down the rabbit hole reading that contention from both you and oromagi.
The correlation was shown by arguments presented in the debate. I would also say ELO shows persistence, which could be part of where the error value would stem from if doing a statistical model of it. In almost any system, there will be outliers such as Virt who is great, but lacks the persistence.
You are of course encouraged to share any thoughts on refining the voting standards to have less votes struck down. There is currently a thread for it, which might generate some referendum questions: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4310-what-would-your-ideal-voting-policy-look-like
That said, your proposed judgement system can easily be done with special rules and Judicial Decision (the judges being selected via agreement to just vote however pro and con indicate in the final round; to which I would be happy to assist via being such a judge).
FYI, this debate may look familiar as you previously commented on it, but the debate received a reset to fix an error; thus losing the comment section.
I suggest not listing your sources as "link." The point of a list at the end is for review at a glance, which this method obscures the quality of your selections.
You can set the character limit much lower. For what you're offering right now, a concise 1000 would be about right. It would give enough room for expansion as discussion grows, without fear of being overwhelmed.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: oromagi // Mod action: Not Removed (borderline)
>Points Awarded: 7:0; All points to Pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was borderline. By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient.
**************************************************
With this being a full forfeit, no one is going to care. But I still suggest in future avoiding that level of piggy back voting. A literal copy/paste would be better, and take less time to type.
In one of the extended documents there's some specification added to full forfeitures still allowing some points in favor, but only moderated if the weight of the points does not favor the non-forfeited side. ... Which is an extra reason I want to refine the voting policies, as I believe things should be in one place.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: User_2006 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:4; 4 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.
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 conduct points, the voter must:
(1) identify specific instances of misconduct,
(2) explain how this misconduct was excessive, unfair, or in breach of the debate's rules, and
(3) compare each debater's conduct.
**************************************************
User_2006
5 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:
Con has dropped all Pro's arguments and Pro hadn't. Pro also concedes before the formal procedure of the debate began as he clearly put 30,000 as the limit then doesn't use it. Seldiora, You have become the very thing you swore to destroy.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Crocodile // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 7:0; All points to Pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
I'm very lax on certain things just being implied (such as the non-forfeiting side not forfeiting... hence why I want to change the voting rules), but it needs to be said: Advertising your debate is fine, but it in itself cannot be the reason for your allotment, even on an FF.
**************************************************
The restrictions imposed were against joining new debates, judging debates, casting votes, and finally reporting votes.
You were still able to complete debates to which you were already participating (and by showing improvement have the restrictions eased), comment, do forum stuff, etc.
At first glance this looks like a callout debate, but the instigator is the pro side complimenting the skill. If it was issued as a direct challenge (I have no way to view that), then there was no chance for anyone other than EricT to engage on the anti-EricT side.
As a voter, I can imagine pro making a 30,000 character word salad argument to showcase their point. On the other hand, con could counter with a mere 1,000 characters of that to show the character limit isn't what causes that problem.
One potential refinement would be picking one form of Communism in question, or opening up the Nazism to general Fascism as a form of government. Either of those, would make it more of an apples to apples comparison.
Good luck on this one. While I'm happy to give advice, I have too much else going on in my life right now (lame as this may be, I now pretty much only debate if something pisses me off).
Did you know prior to accepting this debate that Truthbomb would be banned?
That's also an apple to oranges comparison. Just look at the dates involved.
EricT, EricTbiggestfan, EricT2, Eric were all rather obviously the same person, with the alts deleted the same day they were created.
Nothing is preventing you from recreating any debates for topics you wish to argue.
Often these things go something like this:
https://www.minnpost.com/community-voices/2012/10/marriage-equality-not-slippery-slope/
Favorite vote I've seen in awhile!
RationalMadman
11 hours ago
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Reason:
EricThanos tried to slap Bearman but he didn't know that Bearman is not from Marvel universe. Bearman has that girzzly grip that gone gripe ya.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:1; 1 point 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.
This vote received a few reports, so going to give added commentary...
It addresses the main argument both side offered, which is the core thing any vote should do.
It does go against the presumptive winner, which is fine, that just means that it is eligible for moderation.
**************************************************
I suggest adding any vital terms to the description, otherwise the debate can turn into a dance around ambiguity... Such as what would abolished completely look like? And are sanctuaries considered zoos?
And now that it's in the description, your waive rule is fine if not ideal.
Oh something you may find useful: https://tiny.cc/DebateArt
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:6; 6 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.
**************************************************
fauxlaw
2 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:
Argument: Pro's argument carried on for 3 rounds by comparison to live, verbal debate durations. Con's argument demonstrated [by actual proof] that the DebateArt format, and even Con's sourcing of Debate.com, is a written format. Being different formats, the attempted comparison fails. Also, by pro's round 1 challenge to Con to argue even a 25,000-character round, Con met the challenge, exceeding 25K, and reaching a full 29,790-character-with-spaces argument, for which, pro challenged, would prove Con's point. Additionally, Con's argument that a 30,000-character limit does not imply that a debater must uses all 30,000 characters in any given argument was unsuccessfully rebutted by Pro, as capably demonstrated by Con's round 1, an argument of < 3,300 characters. Strictly by the numbers Pro challenged, Con successfully met the challenge, and exceeded it in one round, and limited it in another. Clearly, on this point alone, Con wins the points, but the prior voting observation is also won by Con.
Sourcing: pro used sources unrelated to DebateArt format. I consider these sources to be irrelevant to this debate. Con used credible sources within the construct of DebateArt's format. Points to Con.
S&G: Tie
Conduct: Pro exhibited bad form by challenging Con in round 1, offering that Con would make is point by meeting the challenge, and then refused to acknowledge Con met the challenge, and instead complained that Con used copy/paste rather than summarize points to redfuce argument character count. No such reduction in argument/rebuttal is required to minimize the argument, and the challenge did previously prohibit copy/paste. Point to Con.
FYI, attempting to impose rules in R1 is not binding.
Two things:
1. The only category to which grading is required, is arguments. I don't quite want to say the others are for outliers, but they on average are tied and them being tied never needs to be spelled out (if arguments were tied, some justification would be needed, but to a lower standard than if awarding it to either side).
2. You are not required to obey the special rules from the description, but for future reference you have the option (and they're a good thing to mention when going against for the sake of seeming fair).
You could pretty easily do some beta testing on such a system with a debate or two using random topics, and then try this debate again with evidence from that.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 1:6; 1 point to Pro, and 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.
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
**************************************************
fauxlaw
3 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 failed to overcome Con's argument of cost of mounting and maintenance of the proposal, as well as the fact that only one debate site enabled the proposal, and that site is done. Points to Con
Sourcing: Con offered the only sources.Pro's references to debates does not support the proposal. Points to Con
S&G: Pro failed to capitalized first word in R1. Point to Con
Conduct. Co forfeited R1. Point to Pro
I can't promise anything. I would be curious to see a debate just on if sovereign immunity should be absolute; my curiosity of this, will probably cause me to go down the rabbit hole reading that contention from both you and oromagi.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NC7SkdRm5s
Looks like a good in depth debate, however I am too busy to be likely to vote on it.
I’m mildly curious if this rises above a slippery slope fallacy.
Now that pro has posted their final round (I did not want to feed them evidence to support their case)...
Pretty easy to do here by asking for moderator assistance. We can modify titles and descriptions any time before voting ends.
This debate however seems to be on the idea of automating such a system for regular use.
The correlation was shown by arguments presented in the debate. I would also say ELO shows persistence, which could be part of where the error value would stem from if doing a statistical model of it. In almost any system, there will be outliers such as Virt who is great, but lacks the persistence.
You are of course encouraged to share any thoughts on refining the voting standards to have less votes struck down. There is currently a thread for it, which might generate some referendum questions: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4310-what-would-your-ideal-voting-policy-look-like
That said, your proposed judgement system can easily be done with special rules and Judicial Decision (the judges being selected via agreement to just vote however pro and con indicate in the final round; to which I would be happy to assist via being such a judge).
Good luck. Expect challenges from a cost to benefit ratio.
FYI, this debate may look familiar as you previously commented on it, but the debate received a reset to fix an error; thus losing the comment section.
I suggest not listing your sources as "link." The point of a list at the end is for review at a glance, which this method obscures the quality of your selections.
You can set the character limit much lower. For what you're offering right now, a concise 1000 would be about right. It would give enough room for expansion as discussion grows, without fear of being overwhelmed.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: oromagi // Mod action: Not Removed (borderline)
>Points Awarded: 7:0; All points to Pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was borderline. By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient.
**************************************************
Sorry you missed R2. Still, not much to catch up on.
Welcome to the site.
Fear of people doing that, is part of why debating stressed me out so much. ... Oh, just had a good idea!
With this being a full forfeit, no one is going to care. But I still suggest in future avoiding that level of piggy back voting. A literal copy/paste would be better, and take less time to type.
In one of the extended documents there's some specification added to full forfeitures still allowing some points in favor, but only moderated if the weight of the points does not favor the non-forfeited side. ... Which is an extra reason I want to refine the voting policies, as I believe things should be in one place.
I meant it largely as a joke without potential for harm while still giving you the majority of points... but fixed.
Got to say, even at a glance the formatting of this debate shines.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: User_2006 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:4; 4 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.
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 conduct points, the voter must:
(1) identify specific instances of misconduct,
(2) explain how this misconduct was excessive, unfair, or in breach of the debate's rules, and
(3) compare each debater's conduct.
**************************************************
User_2006
5 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:
Con has dropped all Pro's arguments and Pro hadn't. Pro also concedes before the formal procedure of the debate began as he clearly put 30,000 as the limit then doesn't use it. Seldiora, You have become the very thing you swore to destroy.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Crocodile // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 7:0; All points to Pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
I'm very lax on certain things just being implied (such as the non-forfeiting side not forfeiting... hence why I want to change the voting rules), but it needs to be said: Advertising your debate is fine, but it in itself cannot be the reason for your allotment, even on an FF.
**************************************************
Crocodile
13 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:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2093/is-erict-a-sh-tbag
He is now fully banned from the site, so will not be participating further.
I wrote a couple ethics papers on Mario, so this debate should be fun to read.
The restrictions imposed were against joining new debates, judging debates, casting votes, and finally reporting votes.
You were still able to complete debates to which you were already participating (and by showing improvement have the restrictions eased), comment, do forum stuff, etc.
At first glance this looks like a callout debate, but the instigator is the pro side complimenting the skill. If it was issued as a direct challenge (I have no way to view that), then there was no chance for anyone other than EricT to engage on the anti-EricT side.
Current events really bring this one to mind. Were this debate to happen today, I am quite certain I would lose; and justly so.
Would one of you mind reviewing the votes? They've both been reported.
That is an apple to oranges comparison. This is a single debate, accepted presumably without knowledge that it would end in full forfeiture.
I did however delete all Truthbomb debates which were in the challenge period, to prevent free win farming.
Fair enough. I genuinely wish you would get into games of Mafia.
As a voter, I can imagine pro making a 30,000 character word salad argument to showcase their point. On the other hand, con could counter with a mere 1,000 characters of that to show the character limit isn't what causes that problem.
One potential refinement would be picking one form of Communism in question, or opening up the Nazism to general Fascism as a form of government. Either of those, would make it more of an apples to apples comparison.
Good luck on this one. While I'm happy to give advice, I have too much else going on in my life right now (lame as this may be, I now pretty much only debate if something pisses me off).
If anyone is confused by the K rule, here's a guide: https://tiny.cc/Kritik
That said, as a voter I'm fine with states without lockdown being used as evidence for or against the benefits of said lockdown.
Bump to encourage voting.
Bump to encourage voting.
***
This is a comedy debate, so generally not moderated.
-Ragnar, DM
***