If we had more users, I would attempt to streamline the entire CoC. As is, it's just not worth my time and effort right now.
Currently, your tl;dr would be outright good as a vote with the addition of one more comment on con's arguments. As is, I would personally call it borderline and not delete it were it the vote. If I felt it were suspect, I'd probably ask you some basic question about the debate.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 1:0; 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.
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
Outside content may be commented on, so long as it does not cross into being a determinant factor on the vote. Should the voter weigh things outside of what the debaters themselves presented inside the debate rounds, the vote is eligible for deletion (identified plagiarism is a notable exception).
**************************************************
"A machine is anything that reduces human effort" is a simple definition for the purpose of discourse. It is correct in that it gets the point across with minimal effort. There are of course things which would fit inside it, which we would argue are not machines, even while they are being used as such.
"Machines are any combination of bodies so connected that their relative motions are constrained..." is a much more exact definition, which was apparently the correct one within the fictional classroom.
I would say they have a few responsibilities, but the product or service which makes money will almost always be the foremost. Eliyahu M. Goldratt uses the example of profitable crime as something a business should not do, even while the goal is to make money.
I assumed it was automatically generated by some type of formula (possibly tied to how many comments this debate had), and posted to Facebook. How did it actually get made?
Not the biggest deal, but the formula used to generate the following could use a little refinement: https://www.facebook.com/debateartcom/posts/2612517185666023
I once wrote a decent paper on the subject of that God being limited due to loving us in a manner similar to a parent (basically that technical power, does not mean absolute utilization of it).
As I previously explained (https://www.debateart.com/debates/1895/comment_links/25680), some users are False Flag Trolls. Such as someone who claims to be trying to make Trump look bad, by putting time and effort into making Trump haters look mentally deficient (such as while starting over a dozen debates, unable to figure out how to press the submit argument button on this website).
An easy example of this kind of thing was my opponent on "Israel has no right to exist," whom I easily outed as really just an anti-Palestinian, trying to sow disdain for actual supporters of Palestinian independence (to whom he was badly impersonating). https://www.debateart.com/debates/1755/israel-has-no-right-to-exist
The main place I see this behavior is the religion forum, to which atheists pretend to be the most vile and offensive members of various religions, and vice versa, plus other variants.
In popular culture, actor Jussie Smollett could not find enough racism so hired a couple Nigerians to pretend lynch him.
I agree with Nevets on the time for arguments, but disagree on the character limit.
Based on what you presented in R1, you might want to go down to about 5000 characters. This will force you to be selective in what you reply to, which is a good skill to master.
"You are happy to allow nut cases to debate here as long as they..."
...participate in said debates.
No one is asking you to be good at arguments or even coherent, merely when starting a bunch of debates that you give a minimal level of participation to not reduce them to spam.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/rules#spamming
If factually opposed to Trump, all you've done is gotten people to research that he's not as bad as previously assumed.
Your freedom of speech has not been infringed upon, unless this website is secretly run by the US federal government. Even then, your choices to both not post arguments and not reply to moderator PMs, are why you have a debate creation restriction (which we don't mind easing, once you inform us that they're actually interested in engaging in debates ... they would have already been wholly lifted, had you not chosen to forsake arguments after they were enacted).
Right now you're resembling a False Flag Troll. You aren't making Trump look bad, rather you are putting time and effort into making Trump haters look mentally deficient (such as while starting over a dozen debates, unable to figure out how to press the submit argument button on this website).
An easy example of this kind of thing was my opponent on "Israel has no right to exist," whom I easily outed as really just an anti-Palestinian, trying to sow disdain for actual supporters of Palestinian independence (to whom he was badly impersonating). https://www.debateart.com/debates/1755/israel-has-no-right-to-exist
The main place I see this behavior is the religion forum, to which atheists pretend to be the most vile and offensive members of various religions, and vice versa, plus other variants.
In popular culture, actor Jussie Smollett could not find enough racism so hired a couple Nigerians to pretend lynch him.
"1. How many bankruptcies is "endless?"
2. Did Trump ever declare personal bankruptcy?
3. Let's calculate the number of bankruptcies to the number of businesses under the Trump umbrella."
1. Endless would be pretty hard, but I'll give the hyperbole the benefit of say 1 per year (would not be continuous, but close enough).
2. No.
3. Just over 1%. Which by year works out to something like 0.0026 of a percentage point.
As a note, Nevets recently used 29,440 characters for an opening round. Since replies often take longer than the initial statements, the rule "If my opponent does not dispute any of the information provided, then it must be accepted that my opponent agrees with the information" is a dangerous one.
I'll always appreciate some humor.
I think next time my girlfriend is over, I'll introduce her to these games.
If we had more users, I would attempt to streamline the entire CoC. As is, it's just not worth my time and effort right now.
Currently, your tl;dr would be outright good as a vote with the addition of one more comment on con's arguments. As is, I would personally call it borderline and not delete it were it the vote. If I felt it were suspect, I'd probably ask you some basic question about the debate.
Bump to encourage voting.
I have a spreadsheet which generates all that with just a few clicks.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 1:0; 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.
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
Outside content may be commented on, so long as it does not cross into being a determinant factor on the vote. Should the voter weigh things outside of what the debaters themselves presented inside the debate rounds, the vote is eligible for deletion (identified plagiarism is a notable exception).
**************************************************
The only way is to delete the vote for you to recast it with any corrections.
Is that would you would like to do?
"Religious conservatives and homophobes are not encouraged," who else is likely to accept?
Only 6 hours remain for anyone to vote.
FF means any vote which falls the majority in your favor are not moderated. So generally people just put them all towards you.
If Envisage comes back, a vote in his favor which does not award you conduct, would most likely be deleted by moderation.
I personaly hate final round blitzkriegs as a tactic, so IMO this one is a foregone conclusion, but Envisage may always challenge you to a rematch.
On a two round debate, a single forfeiture constitutes an FF.
Odd little thought: Were it aliens, that would be identification; making them not count as UFOs anymore.
One day remains.
Yes, I am bumping stuff in greater need of attention.
Had it been more than a single round forfeiture, it would be a different matter. You may of course re-vote, just including some argument details.
Only two days remain for any voters.
COVID is everywhere, unlike the 5G.
I am not accepting. I rarely debate anymore.
"A machine is anything that reduces human effort" is a simple definition for the purpose of discourse. It is correct in that it gets the point across with minimal effort. There are of course things which would fit inside it, which we would argue are not machines, even while they are being used as such.
"Machines are any combination of bodies so connected that their relative motions are constrained..." is a much more exact definition, which was apparently the correct one within the fictional classroom.
I would say they have a few responsibilities, but the product or service which makes money will almost always be the foremost. Eliyahu M. Goldratt uses the example of profitable crime as something a business should not do, even while the goal is to make money.
Even with the corrected resolution, there was a time I would have had some fun trolling this...
Very funny clip. I would say that it's a correct definition, even if not all inclusive.
Perhaps try a third time?
As half the debate was forfeited, a conduct only vote is warranted without any analysis of arguments.
Technically a vote for con could still be justified, but I doubt it would pass the BS test, considering SkepticalOne's skill level.
You're welcome.
I strongly suggest you begin using headings.
I assumed it was automatically generated by some type of formula (possibly tied to how many comments this debate had), and posted to Facebook. How did it actually get made?
Not the biggest deal, but the formula used to generate the following could use a little refinement: https://www.facebook.com/debateartcom/posts/2612517185666023
I'm so confused right now...
Not sure what part of this whole thing generated this: https://www.facebook.com/debateartcom/posts/2612517185666023
I agree with the pro stance. However, I am not in the mood right now.
For using "need" instead of "should," be sure to have a strong case.
The debate may need to be recreated to lower the rating.
I'll also outright say that ratings are overrated. 😎
I once wrote a decent paper on the subject of that God being limited due to loving us in a manner similar to a parent (basically that technical power, does not mean absolute utilization of it).
As I previously explained (https://www.debateart.com/debates/1895/comment_links/25680), some users are False Flag Trolls. Such as someone who claims to be trying to make Trump look bad, by putting time and effort into making Trump haters look mentally deficient (such as while starting over a dozen debates, unable to figure out how to press the submit argument button on this website).
An easy example of this kind of thing was my opponent on "Israel has no right to exist," whom I easily outed as really just an anti-Palestinian, trying to sow disdain for actual supporters of Palestinian independence (to whom he was badly impersonating). https://www.debateart.com/debates/1755/israel-has-no-right-to-exist
The main place I see this behavior is the religion forum, to which atheists pretend to be the most vile and offensive members of various religions, and vice versa, plus other variants.
In popular culture, actor Jussie Smollett could not find enough racism so hired a couple Nigerians to pretend lynch him.
Virt forfeited... Thanks Obama!
Thank you all for voting.
I agree with Nevets on the time for arguments, but disagree on the character limit.
Based on what you presented in R1, you might want to go down to about 5000 characters. This will force you to be selective in what you reply to, which is a good skill to master.
Bumping over spam to encourage other voters.
Thank you for the detailed vote.
"You are happy to allow nut cases to debate here as long as they..."
...participate in said debates.
No one is asking you to be good at arguments or even coherent, merely when starting a bunch of debates that you give a minimal level of participation to not reduce them to spam.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/rules#spamming
Thanks for the entertainment.
If factually opposed to Trump, all you've done is gotten people to research that he's not as bad as previously assumed.
Your freedom of speech has not been infringed upon, unless this website is secretly run by the US federal government. Even then, your choices to both not post arguments and not reply to moderator PMs, are why you have a debate creation restriction (which we don't mind easing, once you inform us that they're actually interested in engaging in debates ... they would have already been wholly lifted, had you not chosen to forsake arguments after they were enacted).
One hour remains for you to post your arguments.
Been a long time since I saw one of these. Good luck to both sides.
Bumping over the spam...
Right now you're resembling a False Flag Troll. You aren't making Trump look bad, rather you are putting time and effort into making Trump haters look mentally deficient (such as while starting over a dozen debates, unable to figure out how to press the submit argument button on this website).
An easy example of this kind of thing was my opponent on "Israel has no right to exist," whom I easily outed as really just an anti-Palestinian, trying to sow disdain for actual supporters of Palestinian independence (to whom he was badly impersonating). https://www.debateart.com/debates/1755/israel-has-no-right-to-exist
The main place I see this behavior is the religion forum, to which atheists pretend to be the most vile and offensive members of various religions, and vice versa, plus other variants.
In popular culture, actor Jussie Smollett could not find enough racism so hired a couple Nigerians to pretend lynch him.
"1. How many bankruptcies is "endless?"
2. Did Trump ever declare personal bankruptcy?
3. Let's calculate the number of bankruptcies to the number of businesses under the Trump umbrella."
1. Endless would be pretty hard, but I'll give the hyperbole the benefit of say 1 per year (would not be continuous, but close enough).
2. No.
3. Just over 1%. Which by year works out to something like 0.0026 of a percentage point.
You likely mean "truly" not "truelly."
Atheism, /can/ also reject Atheism.
If unable to post arguments in the usual section, please add them to the comments and I will firmly insist they be weighted as per normal.
As a note, Nevets recently used 29,440 characters for an opening round. Since replies often take longer than the initial statements, the rule "If my opponent does not dispute any of the information provided, then it must be accepted that my opponent agrees with the information" is a dangerous one.
While brain rot is certainly a hyperbole, what metrics define entertainment as good or bad?