---RFD (1 of 2)---
1. problem of evil
Pro opens with a syllogism, and expands it with:
1.1 natural evils: Cancer and natural disasters, pretty much speak for themselves.
1.2 evil done to others: Going to just summarize pro’s case here with the powerful quote he offered: “If there is Auschwitz, there is no God.”
1.3 evil we do to ourselves: With pro conceding that it’s most easy to justify, I’m giving the other two my attention instead.
Disorganized, but con makes a decent defense against the omnipotence problem: “having such power does not compel Him to express that power”
Much later he insists that the problem of evil does not matter because evil will lose. The big one to me is natural evils, which do not have any obvious connection to free will. Con seems to state this was refuted someone didn’t do the work of digging deeper for an answer to next major contention. I’m also drawn back to the Halam Cohen quote.
2. argument from Biblical defects
Pro’s case apparently got harmed by the limited types of lists and bullet points.
So almost a half million variations of the gospels, and disagreement as to where stories are supposed to be organized.
Internal disagreement on such things as genealogy, place of birth, residences… Jesus is not going to get a security clearance.
Ethical defects are noted (throwing up in my mouth at the rapist part, as I usually do). Con defends the Dawkins quite since God is fictional (I think I get where he meant to go with that, it’s a good question to ask Dawkins, but it’s giving up a lot of ground in a debate when you’re trying to disprove the notion that God is fictional).
Con does pretty good against the Bible must be the only authoritative evidence of God point (FYI, calling him Teddy Drange initially caused him to not show up when I cross referenced). And offers the Book of Mormon. Pro commits a major pet peeve of mine, by claiming “yet the only positive evidence con cites for the existence of God is this Bible,” which with the book of Mormon is untrue (at least until such time as that is challenged as not being for the Christian God but rather the Mormon God … pro questions this validity at the very end of that round, the next round while con cites the book of Mormon, he never calls it out by name, and seemingly does not defend the overall relevance beyond using a renewed stream analogy complete with people intentionally pissing in it (his words, not mine)). Pro extends “This is about Christianity, not Mormonism.” Con says there’s some golden plates which say Mormonism is Christianity. … I think if Mormonism counts as Christianity is a debate worthy topic, but by default it does not (it is indeed an Abrahamic faith, much like Islam and Catholicism).
Con concedes: “there are plenty of biblical contradictions,” but disagrees with the conclusion. This is a risky bit, as the Bible is normally key evidence as the one making the claims.
Con argues that science evolving proves contradiction does not disprove anything… Ok, I am not understanding this whataboutism.
Pro defends that science uses learning, making it more reliable in the long term. Con says the bible uses virtually the same standard including experimentation, and argues that much like a builder the disbeliever must first fully invest in trying to believe in God before they can dismiss.
Con insists on the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence: “I see no link in the if/then statement of 1 simply by the evidence that God, if He exists, [playing devil’s advocate] did and does not reveal truth to man”
Pro counters with a Christopher Hitchens quote: "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” Con basically counters that on the basis that Christopher Hitchens is not a prophet of the lord, his opinion on God existing or not is worthless.
3. Counter Case
Con opens his counter with the rhetorical comparison to Scientific American. It took me a minute to get the connection to the bible he was going for, but I get it.
I believe con argues there are some humans with additional senses, to which proves God must exist.
Con cites how long it has been since God appeared to anyone. Pro seemingly leverages this with a deadbeat dad comparison.
---RFD (2 of 2)---
Arguments:
See above review of key points.
This is stated in the description to have shared BoP. This becomes a major weighting point for me, as it is not about if pro outright proves the unprovable, but rather who does a better job supporting their ends of it. Pro leveraged cancer and natural disasters. Con basically threw out the Christian holy book, suggesting we should use a different one, and even double checking the comment section I am not seeing any pre-agreement to that extension of Christianity against the status quo.
I’m going to call this a weak victory for pro.
Sources:
Both put in good effort on their research.
S&G:
Even under revised systems I would not penalize this, but it is worth noting that organization was a boon to pro and a bane to con.
Made it thought the first round of this. I'll try to get back to it, but I have a lot going on tomorrow. So here's my preliminaries from R1.
1. problem of evil
Pro opens with a syllogism, and expands it with:
1.1 natural evils: Cancer and natural disasters, pretty much speak for themselves.
1.2 evil done to others: Going to just summarize pro’s case here with the powerful quote he offered: “If there is Auschwitz, there is no God.”
1.3 evil we do to ourselves: With pro conceding that it’s most easy to justify, I’m giving the other two my attention inuste
Disorganized, but con makes a decent defense against the omnipotence problem: “having such power does not compel Him to express that power”
2. argument from Biblical defects
Pro’s case apparently got harmed by the limited types of lists and bullet points.
So almost a half million variations of the gospels, and disagreement as to where stories are supposed to be organized.
Internal disagreement on such things as genealogy, place of birth, residences… Jesus is not going to get a security clearance.
Ethical defects are noted (throwing up in my mouth at the rapist part, as I usually do). Con defends the Dawkins quite since God is fictional (I think I get where he meant to go with that, it’s a good question to ask Dawkins, but it’s giving up a lot of ground in a debate when you’re trying to disprove the notion that God is fictional).
Con does pretty good against the Bible must be the only authoritative evidence of God point (FYI, calling him Teddy Drange initially caused him to not show up when I cross referenced). And offers the Book of Mormon.
Con concedes: “there are plenty of biblical contradictions,” but disagrees with the conclusion. This is a risky bit, as the Bible is normally key evidence as the one making the claims (I later see the Book of Mormon offered as better evidence for the Christian God; I'm curious where that's going to go in this debate).
Con argues that science evolving proves contradiction does not disprove anything… Ok, I am not understanding this whataboutism.
3. Counter Case
Con opens his counter with the rhetorical comparison to Scientific American. It took me a minute to get the connection to the bible he was going for, but I get it.
I believe con argues there are some humans with additional senses, to which proves God must exist.
Con cites how long it’s been since God appeared to anyone.
Also I'm completely cool with the Prisoner of the Judoon episode. Weird stuff with the Doctor having a hidden regeneration, or bumping into a potential future regeneration, I'm intrigued (plus Captain Jack!).
I did not see the Christmas episode with a Dalek. I only found out I had missed anything, after finishing a binge of the latest season; at which point, I had simply given up on the show until they get a new show-runner.
You only say that because you're living in denial of yourself being a secret past incarnation of The Doctor! This is a distinct possibly about every human being, as implied by Chibnall's /brilliance./
I admit I really liked his Dinosaurs in Space episode (stand alone, unseen companions to imply there's plenty of unseen adventures, the Doctor choosing to kill the villain), but when looking for a new show-runner for the first female Doctor, maybe they should have steered clear of the mind behind Cyber Bikini.
https://tardis.fandom.com/wiki/Cyberwoman_(TV_story)
While I disagree, that I might be over hyping it is a non-falsifiable statement.
Part of my appreciation for this episode, is that it was stand alone, being set a quarter of a million years in the future, so not trying to overwrite everything else.
The evolution of the episode is of note, as during pre-production they realized Matt Smith was capable of playing both roles (the doctor and the cyber-planner). Which resulted in a very fun game of chess: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbB3MKRpn_s&feature=emb_logo
Sadly ideas therein were recently poorly recycled in a true disaster of an episode: https://tardis.fandom.com/wiki/The_Timeless_Children_(TV_story)
If doing this again, I suggest including a couple links, such as to:
https://tardis.fandom.com/wiki/Third_Doctor
https://tardis.fandom.com/wiki/Twelfth_Doctor
Voters shouldn't have to Google pictures of the actors to think of this.
Personally, Matt Smith will probably remain my favorite. Mainly due to the superb writing throughout... Okay probably only the first half of his run... Still, multiple Neil Gaiman episodes!
https://tardis.fandom.com/wiki/Neil_Gaiman
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: nmvarco // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 2:0; 2 points to Con.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments 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
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 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.
**************************************************
nmvarco
1 day 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:
Sources: I thought con has more reliable sources from more reliable websites (a lot of govs) while pro used more opinion pieces or pieces by news outlets. Everything else was pretty much a tie though.
The vote stated "Con wins by protocol, but all points to Pro" but assigned all the points to con, which strikes me as a clear accident. ... If I'm mistaken, please recast it as is (or refined in any way you want), and a different moderator will handle the requested review of it.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:7; All points to Con.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Full Forfeitures, explicit concessions, subjective competitions, truisms, and comedy (even if facetious) are not eligible for moderation (barring certain exceptions).
This is one of those exceptions... Generally this is enacted for simple mistakes when the outcome is a foregone conclusion (such as for concessions and Full Forfeitures, but the voter mistakenly voted for the wrong side)
**************************************************
fauxlaw
4 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: Con's single round of argument [round 2] offered more reasoning than Con's three rounds, combined, which amounted to taunting Con rather than offering positive argument on the subject. Point to Con.
Sources: Pro's sourcing was primarily citing Con's citations, with the exception of citing a definition, which Con also did. However, only Con had a exterior source relative to her argument. Point to Con.
S&G: Pro: "Been it for 2 rounds already" not only bad grammar, but wrong as, to that point, Con had offered but one round. Point to Con
Conduct: Con taunted Pro during all three rounds, without really offering any argument as a proponent. Point to Con.
But for the fact that Con forfeited two rounds, when all that would have been necessary to save her one good argument would have been to extend her argument in round three based on an excellent 2nd round argument. Con wins by protocol, but all points to Pro.
I suggest making it two rounds, as single rounds deny you any chance to make dumb replies, in turn automatically dropping every point con raises. Which yes is stupid, but perhaps too stupid to give you the win you seek.
Insulting what voters you attract, is about the worst way to try to get them to refine their votes. Next time I suggest just asking for further feedback on debate content.
Back when this debate took place, I was not yet a moderator (it's actually a pretty recent development). As a moderator, I may not block people on a whim.
You certainly don't need to explain that humans depend on oxygen, or that there is such a thing as an electromagnetic spectrum. That said, when trying to show harm coming from one of those, some details to that harm will be important. On a debate about immediately converting the rain forests into TP, I might cite how much of the oxygen production on the planet comes from it (not the method trees use to do such); whereas my opponent would likely counter with how little oxygen we actually need (perhaps even using CPR to illustrate his or her point).
Clearly labeling parts of your argument can be very helpful. If you start explaining how the earth formed, I can skip ahead to something I don't need the background on, where my energy will be better spent.
Team debates are something I wish I saw more of. Good luck!
It's a weird one. If not for the deception, and not bothering to appeal the previous ban, I wouldn't mind so much.
Heck, I can think of a few non-exploitative reasons someone might want to be both sides in a debate.
Pretty sure. Either way, the accounts have chosen to present themselves as indistinguishable from alt accounts of Human.
Last bump from me.
Best quote nomination:
"Roasting a pet dog(the act is discouraged whatsoever) does not make the product a sandwich" -User_2006
***
I'm opting to not delete this debate, as I do appreciate the hard work you put into it.
-Ragnar, DM
***
Final day for votes. Bumping to encourage that to happen.
Happy birthday, and welcome back!
I was going to vote on this, but got pulled into handling reports (not even caught up on that, but done for today).
User: If skipping your first round, I suggest making things three rounds. As is, you offer no defense to the rebuttals against your case.
Your opponent has requested this debate be deleted. I've tried to PM you, but no response. Do you want this debate deleted as well?
I suggest using Winner Selection for this type of debate. As much as User's vote does highlight a major boon of Categorical votes.
Would you all like the typo in the title corrected?
I feel awful the occasional time that happens. I've delayed bans, and even decreased their length to avoid that.
You opponent should be back in a few days, with about a week to submit his final round.
---RFD (1 of 2)---
1. problem of evil
Pro opens with a syllogism, and expands it with:
1.1 natural evils: Cancer and natural disasters, pretty much speak for themselves.
1.2 evil done to others: Going to just summarize pro’s case here with the powerful quote he offered: “If there is Auschwitz, there is no God.”
1.3 evil we do to ourselves: With pro conceding that it’s most easy to justify, I’m giving the other two my attention instead.
Disorganized, but con makes a decent defense against the omnipotence problem: “having such power does not compel Him to express that power”
Much later he insists that the problem of evil does not matter because evil will lose. The big one to me is natural evils, which do not have any obvious connection to free will. Con seems to state this was refuted someone didn’t do the work of digging deeper for an answer to next major contention. I’m also drawn back to the Halam Cohen quote.
2. argument from Biblical defects
Pro’s case apparently got harmed by the limited types of lists and bullet points.
So almost a half million variations of the gospels, and disagreement as to where stories are supposed to be organized.
Internal disagreement on such things as genealogy, place of birth, residences… Jesus is not going to get a security clearance.
Ethical defects are noted (throwing up in my mouth at the rapist part, as I usually do). Con defends the Dawkins quite since God is fictional (I think I get where he meant to go with that, it’s a good question to ask Dawkins, but it’s giving up a lot of ground in a debate when you’re trying to disprove the notion that God is fictional).
Con does pretty good against the Bible must be the only authoritative evidence of God point (FYI, calling him Teddy Drange initially caused him to not show up when I cross referenced). And offers the Book of Mormon. Pro commits a major pet peeve of mine, by claiming “yet the only positive evidence con cites for the existence of God is this Bible,” which with the book of Mormon is untrue (at least until such time as that is challenged as not being for the Christian God but rather the Mormon God … pro questions this validity at the very end of that round, the next round while con cites the book of Mormon, he never calls it out by name, and seemingly does not defend the overall relevance beyond using a renewed stream analogy complete with people intentionally pissing in it (his words, not mine)). Pro extends “This is about Christianity, not Mormonism.” Con says there’s some golden plates which say Mormonism is Christianity. … I think if Mormonism counts as Christianity is a debate worthy topic, but by default it does not (it is indeed an Abrahamic faith, much like Islam and Catholicism).
Con concedes: “there are plenty of biblical contradictions,” but disagrees with the conclusion. This is a risky bit, as the Bible is normally key evidence as the one making the claims.
Con argues that science evolving proves contradiction does not disprove anything… Ok, I am not understanding this whataboutism.
Pro defends that science uses learning, making it more reliable in the long term. Con says the bible uses virtually the same standard including experimentation, and argues that much like a builder the disbeliever must first fully invest in trying to believe in God before they can dismiss.
Con insists on the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence: “I see no link in the if/then statement of 1 simply by the evidence that God, if He exists, [playing devil’s advocate] did and does not reveal truth to man”
Pro counters with a Christopher Hitchens quote: "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” Con basically counters that on the basis that Christopher Hitchens is not a prophet of the lord, his opinion on God existing or not is worthless.
3. Counter Case
Con opens his counter with the rhetorical comparison to Scientific American. It took me a minute to get the connection to the bible he was going for, but I get it.
I believe con argues there are some humans with additional senses, to which proves God must exist.
Con cites how long it has been since God appeared to anyone. Pro seemingly leverages this with a deadbeat dad comparison.
---RFD (2 of 2)---
Arguments:
See above review of key points.
This is stated in the description to have shared BoP. This becomes a major weighting point for me, as it is not about if pro outright proves the unprovable, but rather who does a better job supporting their ends of it. Pro leveraged cancer and natural disasters. Con basically threw out the Christian holy book, suggesting we should use a different one, and even double checking the comment section I am not seeing any pre-agreement to that extension of Christianity against the status quo.
I’m going to call this a weak victory for pro.
Sources:
Both put in good effort on their research.
S&G:
Even under revised systems I would not penalize this, but it is worth noting that organization was a boon to pro and a bane to con.
Made it thought the first round of this. I'll try to get back to it, but I have a lot going on tomorrow. So here's my preliminaries from R1.
1. problem of evil
Pro opens with a syllogism, and expands it with:
1.1 natural evils: Cancer and natural disasters, pretty much speak for themselves.
1.2 evil done to others: Going to just summarize pro’s case here with the powerful quote he offered: “If there is Auschwitz, there is no God.”
1.3 evil we do to ourselves: With pro conceding that it’s most easy to justify, I’m giving the other two my attention inuste
Disorganized, but con makes a decent defense against the omnipotence problem: “having such power does not compel Him to express that power”
2. argument from Biblical defects
Pro’s case apparently got harmed by the limited types of lists and bullet points.
So almost a half million variations of the gospels, and disagreement as to where stories are supposed to be organized.
Internal disagreement on such things as genealogy, place of birth, residences… Jesus is not going to get a security clearance.
Ethical defects are noted (throwing up in my mouth at the rapist part, as I usually do). Con defends the Dawkins quite since God is fictional (I think I get where he meant to go with that, it’s a good question to ask Dawkins, but it’s giving up a lot of ground in a debate when you’re trying to disprove the notion that God is fictional).
Con does pretty good against the Bible must be the only authoritative evidence of God point (FYI, calling him Teddy Drange initially caused him to not show up when I cross referenced). And offers the Book of Mormon.
Con concedes: “there are plenty of biblical contradictions,” but disagrees with the conclusion. This is a risky bit, as the Bible is normally key evidence as the one making the claims (I later see the Book of Mormon offered as better evidence for the Christian God; I'm curious where that's going to go in this debate).
Con argues that science evolving proves contradiction does not disprove anything… Ok, I am not understanding this whataboutism.
3. Counter Case
Con opens his counter with the rhetorical comparison to Scientific American. It took me a minute to get the connection to the bible he was going for, but I get it.
I believe con argues there are some humans with additional senses, to which proves God must exist.
Con cites how long it’s been since God appeared to anyone.
Note: The ban was enacted after they chose to end the final round in another forfeiture.
How soon is your birthday? As you probably know, 13 is the minimum age to use this kind of site without parental consent.
You're up against a great opponent for this topic, who could easily argue either side of the resolution.
However, you've only truly lost, if you do not learn anything.
"I should probably tell you that I’m 12 years of age,"
Was that serious, or a just rhetorical device?
Could be a very interesting debate. IMO the truth is pretty static, but intepretations of what objective facts mean are subjective to the persons.
I'll offer a strange one: In the Harry Potter books, some people read them, and then deny that Harry and Draco were together.
Three days remain for voting.
I need to offer the obvious K to the topic: BLARRGH should not be allowed, it should be simultaneously mandatory and banned.
But studies about BLARGGH are still coming out. We voters need more than six months to analizie it properly!
Jack should have taken over the series or gotten a renewed spin-off.
Also I'm completely cool with the Prisoner of the Judoon episode. Weird stuff with the Doctor having a hidden regeneration, or bumping into a potential future regeneration, I'm intrigued (plus Captain Jack!).
I did not see the Christmas episode with a Dalek. I only found out I had missed anything, after finishing a binge of the latest season; at which point, I had simply given up on the show until they get a new show-runner.
You only say that because you're living in denial of yourself being a secret past incarnation of The Doctor! This is a distinct possibly about every human being, as implied by Chibnall's /brilliance./
I admit I really liked his Dinosaurs in Space episode (stand alone, unseen companions to imply there's plenty of unseen adventures, the Doctor choosing to kill the villain), but when looking for a new show-runner for the first female Doctor, maybe they should have steered clear of the mind behind Cyber Bikini.
https://tardis.fandom.com/wiki/Cyberwoman_(TV_story)
That is very fair. For the longest time I refused to assign points on abortion debates, due to the strength of my bias.
While I disagree, that I might be over hyping it is a non-falsifiable statement.
Part of my appreciation for this episode, is that it was stand alone, being set a quarter of a million years in the future, so not trying to overwrite everything else.
The evolution of the episode is of note, as during pre-production they realized Matt Smith was capable of playing both roles (the doctor and the cyber-planner). Which resulted in a very fun game of chess: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbB3MKRpn_s&feature=emb_logo
Sadly ideas therein were recently poorly recycled in a true disaster of an episode: https://tardis.fandom.com/wiki/The_Timeless_Children_(TV_story)
If doing this again, I suggest including a couple links, such as to:
https://tardis.fandom.com/wiki/Third_Doctor
https://tardis.fandom.com/wiki/Twelfth_Doctor
Voters shouldn't have to Google pictures of the actors to think of this.
Personally, Matt Smith will probably remain my favorite. Mainly due to the superb writing throughout... Okay probably only the first half of his run... Still, multiple Neil Gaiman episodes!
https://tardis.fandom.com/wiki/Neil_Gaiman
https://tiny.cc/Kritik
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: nmvarco // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 2:0; 2 points to Con.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments 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
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 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.
**************************************************
nmvarco
1 day 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:
Sources: I thought con has more reliable sources from more reliable websites (a lot of govs) while pro used more opinion pieces or pieces by news outlets. Everything else was pretty much a tie though.
Bump to encourage voting.
The vote stated "Con wins by protocol, but all points to Pro" but assigned all the points to con, which strikes me as a clear accident. ... If I'm mistaken, please recast it as is (or refined in any way you want), and a different moderator will handle the requested review of it.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:7; All points to Con.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Full Forfeitures, explicit concessions, subjective competitions, truisms, and comedy (even if facetious) are not eligible for moderation (barring certain exceptions).
This is one of those exceptions... Generally this is enacted for simple mistakes when the outcome is a foregone conclusion (such as for concessions and Full Forfeitures, but the voter mistakenly voted for the wrong side)
**************************************************
fauxlaw
4 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: Con's single round of argument [round 2] offered more reasoning than Con's three rounds, combined, which amounted to taunting Con rather than offering positive argument on the subject. Point to Con.
Sources: Pro's sourcing was primarily citing Con's citations, with the exception of citing a definition, which Con also did. However, only Con had a exterior source relative to her argument. Point to Con.
S&G: Pro: "Been it for 2 rounds already" not only bad grammar, but wrong as, to that point, Con had offered but one round. Point to Con
Conduct: Con taunted Pro during all three rounds, without really offering any argument as a proponent. Point to Con.
But for the fact that Con forfeited two rounds, when all that would have been necessary to save her one good argument would have been to extend her argument in round three based on an excellent 2nd round argument. Con wins by protocol, but all points to Pro.
Pretty much you need to complete two debates or play a game of Mafia, then you can vote.
Could prove to be a very interesting topic.
I suggest making it two rounds, as single rounds deny you any chance to make dumb replies, in turn automatically dropping every point con raises. Which yes is stupid, but perhaps too stupid to give you the win you seek.
Thank you for casting such a great vote on this debate.
Insulting what voters you attract, is about the worst way to try to get them to refine their votes. Next time I suggest just asking for further feedback on debate content.
Good luck!
Back when this debate took place, I was not yet a moderator (it's actually a pretty recent development). As a moderator, I may not block people on a whim.
Your arguments are improving rapidly!
Banned in what sense?
You certainly don't need to explain that humans depend on oxygen, or that there is such a thing as an electromagnetic spectrum. That said, when trying to show harm coming from one of those, some details to that harm will be important. On a debate about immediately converting the rain forests into TP, I might cite how much of the oxygen production on the planet comes from it (not the method trees use to do such); whereas my opponent would likely counter with how little oxygen we actually need (perhaps even using CPR to illustrate his or her point).
Clearly labeling parts of your argument can be very helpful. If you start explaining how the earth formed, I can skip ahead to something I don't need the background on, where my energy will be better spent.
Nice setup.
Are they still pushing that? I thought it was a settled matter...