Your vote has been deleted for vagueness. This wasn’t much of a debate, so little more is needed, but the debate isn’t an obvious foregone conclusion to allow for such little consideration.
Not sure the context, but there is no rule against quotation.
Possibly thematically related, anyone who has “honor” as a common part of their vocabulary, cannot stand to be quoted, because it’s an insult to their honor to accuse them of saying the things they said.
Thank you for the detailed vote. And even more so for agreeing with me that my conduct was atrocious, plus ridiculously immature (which I didn't think of the maturity level, but it's a fair assessment).
Your vote is also a great example of what I believe to be optimal thought process for voting on closely matched debates.
I will say it was such a minor removal to not go into the moderation log (how we denote a habit to build toward removing voting privileges). It was done in part to encourage greater (or in this case any) detail in future.
> "He was saying my songs made him feel better."
I don't know eastern spiritually to know that, nor was there enough context for me to figure it out. The vote was a little like Vickie's plan in The Good Place of "Needles!"
But yes, me not understanding the vote (at least one within this category), means I should have passed it onto another moderator. If there was then a joint "WTF is this even trying to say?" then removal would have been appropriate. Which is a long way to say: Yes I over moderated, and that was wrong of me. Sorry.
As has been mentioned before, FishChaser is welcome to revote. A single note beyond an eastern spiritually buzzword (which did not come up in the debate) would be plenty to improve it.
Were he to revote with literally the same vote, it would be an implicit appeal of the prior decision (especially given some of the comments), so another moderator would have to make the new determination.
To the person who reported this debate: I agree with all negative sentiments toward it.
Muslims idolize a warlord who was also a pedo. This violates the rule:
“You may not engage in or promote the sexual exploitation of minors.”
However rules are somewhat context dependent. The context of both a mythological/historical figure, and that of a debate, makes it something that would be unhealthy for the site if we limited debates to topics we don’t find repugnant.
At the same time, the topic is so ugly that it’s hard for the comments to be worse than the base level it creates.
Additionally, while I’m pretty sure I used to have less chill and banned some deplorable users for being deplorable… It can be beneficial for certain things to be exposed to the harsh light of day, so that they may be figuratively lynched by logic.
I have not. Due to repeated complaints about how biased I am against child rapists, another moderator should be requested to review any CoC violations.
If either of you happen to be on, I am somewhat ill suited to judge the following vote which was reported: https://www.debateart.com/debates/5321/votes/10114
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: FishChaser // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro
>Reason for Decision: "I got a better feeling in my chakras from Mharman's songs."
>Reason for Mod Action:
Even while this debate falls into a non-moderated category, there are occasionally exceptions.
Since neither debater mentions chakras, and AFAIK likewise with their songs, the vote ends up feeling like one cast without regard for the debate itself.
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.
**************************************************
My thoughts are much the same. Can doesn't mean should.
I'm sure con already covered it, but each food type has a definition. Leave a smoothie in the blender too long as it ceases to be a smoothie, but is converted to soup.
I personally advise against suicide. I don't know you, but most problems pass with time. You could move away to Alaska working seasonal gigs for example, and establish a new life without the current people (assuming they're part of the problem).
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Barney // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
For any non-moderator the vote would be fine. As a moderator, I'd grade it as at worst borderline.
The problem becomes that I keep second guessing it, and in light of that I've realized that paid too much attention to factors not presented inside the debate.
The big thing is I generally treated this debate as comedy. In comedy dildos win by a landslide, just because of the image of someone holding one (an image not presented by either debater). This isn't to say pro did not do a good job showing how they can poke someone in the eye in a fight, and keep the family together, but I'm not even sure if I graded the sanitation issues con raised to counter them.
That said, I can revote, and I still /might/, but I have a couple projects to focus on this weekend and have to complete them first before I lose myself in this debate.
**************************************************
#1
Reason:
I'm pretty close to the fence on this one. They talked past each other more than I would have liked, with pro being the worse offender. Plus by a good margin I prefer con's structure. I'd have liked more details in the setup, as maybe one more round.
To me the pan obviously beats the kettle.
It's taking me a bit to put my finger on it, but the dildo comes ahead of the textbook largely for feeling that it's valuable within one's life, whereas the text book is treated as something to be gotten rid of quickly with no focus on uses if kept (and both paths could be explored in the same debate; just not assuming both at once). And there was this weirdness of the desire to get rid of the book to acquire a dildo and kettle (that intuitively says it's better to have those things than a textbook).
---
Singular or plural: Singular
I initially thought pro was over reacting when talking about scope, but cross checking the resolution he's got a valid point that it's singular items instead of groups of them.
"Not all of them and one of every variety" goes against the grain of a few of his points, such as some dildos vibrate, but I get it. It's not the selective best for each possible situation, were this a video game then it'd just one potentially randomized set for a roguelike dungeon.
Con argues we should look more at the types of people who would have these items (someone with a book is most likely someone who will earn more money), but that feels just outside the direct scope. This is implicitly backed by his own arguments about cleaning difficulties and potential partners might not be into tea/coffee/pegging (we don't assume they have the perfect partner and special cleaning supplies).
Earnings: Textbook
Con argues schoolbooks are better because education is good for earnings, and is able to hold some ground that there's good value in even a single one. While it's argued items should be sold to buy the items of the other side, that feels like a needless kritik which concludes with (pan + kettle + dildo) > (kettle + dildo), which feels outside the spirit and scope of the debate.
Pro argues at least 3 are needed to actually pass those classes, which doesn't undermine the ~$55 value, but it defends well against the assumed better lifetime earning potential.
NOTE: Students tend to have debt, which pro should have used as a backup to his scope arguments.
Defense: Pan
Surprised it took until the final round before the rarity of these situations was mentioned.
Kettles can be used for physical fitness if no other tools are available, and that makes you far better at defending yourself (seems unlikely for the average person, even while it's a cool historical note). They also risk burning yourself if hot, but can be an unpredictable and unexpected improvised weapon to be wielded in a variety of wars (handle, power cord, used with a towel, etc,).
A dildo can poke a robber in the eye, block a knife swing, or even shield yourself from guns... Useful, but none of it implies actually winning such a fight (the shock factor of it would have worked)
The pan on the other hand is properly suited as a weapon, such that an old man could fend off a crocodile (I'd have preferred less focus on this one example). Honestly, a lot of it boils down (pun intended) to the simple likelihood of successful use without hurting yourself.
Cooking: Pan
It can pretty much cook anything. The kettle can likewise do a lot, but there's nothing it can cook that a pan cannot (even if suboptimal for boiling water).
Cleaning: Kettle
A kettle assists with cleaning nearly everything; it can even potentially be paired up with the dildo /somehow/.
Relations: Dildo
While the pan can cook a nice meal, the dildo apparently holds families together etc. Con accused pro's claim of making up for a micropenis to be from personal experience, and then acted as if he had depended a source; which is not the same thing. Also not sure why a man being gay would be a problem, not that a men pleasuring themselves makes them gay; but I did understand the point of highlighting insecurities.
A big mistake con makes is even at the end he treats the assumption of finding partners for the dildo as a likely occurrence "PRO wants us to live as broke coffeine and sex addicts"
FYI, by creating this debate you are implicitly suspending certain rules which are there for your protection. Hopefully it will be a clean case so it doesn't matter, but I don't want you going in without being warned.
If I was actively debating, I'd accept. My tactic would be to dismiss the OT and focus on the Christ part.
Of course were I on the other side, there's plenty of examples from the NT.
Either way, rather than spewing out giant confusing paragraphs, use of summaries and links are best. If there's any reenactment videos all the better (like Job in Good Omens, even while that changed the story a bit).
I've argued that much better in other debates. This one was just an introductory line to bait pro into disagreeing, and then I'd launch more.
Anyway, I'd bet money the supreme court has some weird rule along the lines of "well the authors never envisioned blacks would be treated as people, so the 13th amendment cannot be applied to black slaves" (yes, I know that one was written specifically for them, but done so properly to be also applicable to any other; this was hyperbole).
But yes, I do believe it is a crime to enslave (or involuntary servitude) women for use as a life support device for another.
Taking the current system to its stupid but logical conclusion, "where you going dressed like that with two kidneys, a senator needs a kidney."
As for kicking out children... While it drifts outside the scope, Nebraska actually made a law which allowed that (just had to reach a hospital, and you could drop them off without even leaving your name... Babysitting solved!). It of course is a situation where someone who would want to do that, probably shouldn't have been trusted with the care of children to begin with. Here it's worth noting that other states have a 72 hour rule for dropping off an undesired baby after birth). With children there does gets to be an implicit contract by your continual actions before you throw them into a snowstorm or whatever; but such a contract with them does not guarantee anything about what you do with your body; you could poison yourself (over simplifying Plan B), or if you're a real bastard betray them by fucking their mom.
https://youtu.be/NPPyvJN2Mxo?si=uc_GQP0HnhPuDhwH&t=57
I should add that when the trans-Atlantic slave trade was abolished, there was no stipulation that slaves had to keep serving their former masters if they were really really needed. There were probably a few isolated deaths from this among the elderly, who have a harder time caring for themselves.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Barney // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 to con
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Conduct is an optional award as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, such as extreme unsportsmanlike or outright toxic behavior which distracted from the topical debate.
While the off topic rape claims were somewhat distracting from the topic, a moderator is held to a higher standard.
**************************************************
Barney
03.06.2024 11:09AM
Reason:
In short: "All of your arguments are unproven assumptions."
Pro builds a case of incel propaganda (at least it wasn't copy/pasted)
IF true,
THEN sources are easy to find.
Sources would have undermined con, making his kritik weightless.
Con on the other hand kritiks it with an alternative sexuality; and rather than pointing out that it's not really hetero, pro asserts that they go for those little boys because they're so Chad. Which con wisely uses to mock that said chads are "short and weak," which pro flounders at, and somehow doubles down on his off topic rape isn't rape claims.
---
Conduct for overwhelming vileness against half the population of the planet. This was an example of "outright toxic behavior which distracted from the topical debate."
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Savant // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
**************************************************
The person who reported it was neither of the debaters, so not sure if they ever called you that... But I agree with the sentiment.
-> “ Cash out.”
It’s an FF debate, so the vote is fine. There are limitless ways to say full forfeiture, and they’re all valid.
-> “ what. pro offered zero proof”
Your vote has been deleted for vagueness. This wasn’t much of a debate, so little more is needed, but the debate isn’t an obvious foregone conclusion to allow for such little consideration.
Minor nitpick: Here those are referred to as extensions, rather than forfeitures.
Not sure the context, but there is no rule against quotation.
Possibly thematically related, anyone who has “honor” as a common part of their vocabulary, cannot stand to be quoted, because it’s an insult to their honor to accuse them of saying the things they said.
200 character limit… very tight
Thank you both for the quality votes!
Thank you for the detailed vote. And even more so for agreeing with me that my conduct was atrocious, plus ridiculously immature (which I didn't think of the maturity level, but it's a fair assessment).
Your vote is also a great example of what I believe to be optimal thought process for voting on closely matched debates.
https://youtu.be/vBJPlhnF3ao?si=EwW_U9cjdGnog-rd
> "I disagree with the removal."
I will say it was such a minor removal to not go into the moderation log (how we denote a habit to build toward removing voting privileges). It was done in part to encourage greater (or in this case any) detail in future.
> "He was saying my songs made him feel better."
I don't know eastern spiritually to know that, nor was there enough context for me to figure it out. The vote was a little like Vickie's plan in The Good Place of "Needles!"
But yes, me not understanding the vote (at least one within this category), means I should have passed it onto another moderator. If there was then a joint "WTF is this even trying to say?" then removal would have been appropriate. Which is a long way to say: Yes I over moderated, and that was wrong of me. Sorry.
As has been mentioned before, FishChaser is welcome to revote. A single note beyond an eastern spiritually buzzword (which did not come up in the debate) would be plenty to improve it.
Were he to revote with literally the same vote, it would be an implicit appeal of the prior decision (especially given some of the comments), so another moderator would have to make the new determination.
> "because it seems like not all will fit"
A clear implicit argument against child marriage.
To the person who reported this debate: I agree with all negative sentiments toward it.
Muslims idolize a warlord who was also a pedo. This violates the rule:
“You may not engage in or promote the sexual exploitation of minors.”
However rules are somewhat context dependent. The context of both a mythological/historical figure, and that of a debate, makes it something that would be unhealthy for the site if we limited debates to topics we don’t find repugnant.
At the same time, the topic is so ugly that it’s hard for the comments to be worse than the base level it creates.
Additionally, while I’m pretty sure I used to have less chill and banned some deplorable users for being deplorable… It can be beneficial for certain things to be exposed to the harsh light of day, so that they may be figuratively lynched by logic.
Both people are being major dicks to each other. Thankfully neither of them is underage.
While assigning zero points, my RFD is ready:
🤢🤮🤢🤮🤢🤮🤢🤮🤢
12 hours remain for you to post an argument.
I have not. Due to repeated complaints about how biased I am against child rapists, another moderator should be requested to review any CoC violations.
If either of you happen to be on, I am somewhat ill suited to judge the following vote which was reported: https://www.debateart.com/debates/5321/votes/10114
Were this in the forums, I'd have to lock the thread.
There's only a small window in which you may delete your own vote. That said, if you ask any moderator for assistance, we'll be happy to help.
Do I need to send an ambulance to check on you, given that you may have just over strained yourself coming up with such an /oh so original/ insult?
If this remains unvoted in say a week, someone remind me and I'll break the tie.
Started reading this, and I'm instantly reminded of an old SNL skit starring Tom Brady: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxuUkYiaUc8
Any sources you wish to add?
> "You deleted my vote because you're a corrupt mod with anti-favoritism towards me and not because of the vote itself."
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-dont-even-know-who-you-are
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: FishChaser // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro
>Reason for Decision: "I got a better feeling in my chakras from Mharman's songs."
>Reason for Mod Action:
Even while this debate falls into a non-moderated category, there are occasionally exceptions.
Since neither debater mentions chakras, and AFAIK likewise with their songs, the vote ends up feeling like one cast without regard for the debate itself.
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 resolution and BoP statements are slightly misaligned.
My thoughts are much the same. Can doesn't mean should.
I'm sure con already covered it, but each food type has a definition. Leave a smoothie in the blender too long as it ceases to be a smoothie, but is converted to soup.
FYI, as a friendly reminder, you're down to less than three hours to post your argument.
/projection, gaslighting
Things can also be engaging, but require real effort if judging them.
Be forewarned: I am preparing an insult so good, that you'll be seeing red!
I had meant to vote on this, and it looks like a run read; but too much going on right now.
I personally advise against suicide. I don't know you, but most problems pass with time. You could move away to Alaska working seasonal gigs for example, and establish a new life without the current people (assuming they're part of the problem).
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Barney // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
For any non-moderator the vote would be fine. As a moderator, I'd grade it as at worst borderline.
The problem becomes that I keep second guessing it, and in light of that I've realized that paid too much attention to factors not presented inside the debate.
The big thing is I generally treated this debate as comedy. In comedy dildos win by a landslide, just because of the image of someone holding one (an image not presented by either debater). This isn't to say pro did not do a good job showing how they can poke someone in the eye in a fight, and keep the family together, but I'm not even sure if I graded the sanitation issues con raised to counter them.
That said, I can revote, and I still /might/, but I have a couple projects to focus on this weekend and have to complete them first before I lose myself in this debate.
**************************************************
Barney
02.26.2024 01:05AM
#1
Reason:
I'm pretty close to the fence on this one. They talked past each other more than I would have liked, with pro being the worse offender. Plus by a good margin I prefer con's structure. I'd have liked more details in the setup, as maybe one more round.
To me the pan obviously beats the kettle.
It's taking me a bit to put my finger on it, but the dildo comes ahead of the textbook largely for feeling that it's valuable within one's life, whereas the text book is treated as something to be gotten rid of quickly with no focus on uses if kept (and both paths could be explored in the same debate; just not assuming both at once). And there was this weirdness of the desire to get rid of the book to acquire a dildo and kettle (that intuitively says it's better to have those things than a textbook).
---
Singular or plural: Singular
I initially thought pro was over reacting when talking about scope, but cross checking the resolution he's got a valid point that it's singular items instead of groups of them.
"Not all of them and one of every variety" goes against the grain of a few of his points, such as some dildos vibrate, but I get it. It's not the selective best for each possible situation, were this a video game then it'd just one potentially randomized set for a roguelike dungeon.
Con argues we should look more at the types of people who would have these items (someone with a book is most likely someone who will earn more money), but that feels just outside the direct scope. This is implicitly backed by his own arguments about cleaning difficulties and potential partners might not be into tea/coffee/pegging (we don't assume they have the perfect partner and special cleaning supplies).
Earnings: Textbook
Con argues schoolbooks are better because education is good for earnings, and is able to hold some ground that there's good value in even a single one. While it's argued items should be sold to buy the items of the other side, that feels like a needless kritik which concludes with (pan + kettle + dildo) > (kettle + dildo), which feels outside the spirit and scope of the debate.
Pro argues at least 3 are needed to actually pass those classes, which doesn't undermine the ~$55 value, but it defends well against the assumed better lifetime earning potential.
NOTE: Students tend to have debt, which pro should have used as a backup to his scope arguments.
Defense: Pan
Surprised it took until the final round before the rarity of these situations was mentioned.
Kettles can be used for physical fitness if no other tools are available, and that makes you far better at defending yourself (seems unlikely for the average person, even while it's a cool historical note). They also risk burning yourself if hot, but can be an unpredictable and unexpected improvised weapon to be wielded in a variety of wars (handle, power cord, used with a towel, etc,).
A dildo can poke a robber in the eye, block a knife swing, or even shield yourself from guns... Useful, but none of it implies actually winning such a fight (the shock factor of it would have worked)
The pan on the other hand is properly suited as a weapon, such that an old man could fend off a crocodile (I'd have preferred less focus on this one example). Honestly, a lot of it boils down (pun intended) to the simple likelihood of successful use without hurting yourself.
Cooking: Pan
It can pretty much cook anything. The kettle can likewise do a lot, but there's nothing it can cook that a pan cannot (even if suboptimal for boiling water).
Cleaning: Kettle
A kettle assists with cleaning nearly everything; it can even potentially be paired up with the dildo /somehow/.
Relations: Dildo
While the pan can cook a nice meal, the dildo apparently holds families together etc. Con accused pro's claim of making up for a micropenis to be from personal experience, and then acted as if he had depended a source; which is not the same thing. Also not sure why a man being gay would be a problem, not that a men pleasuring themselves makes them gay; but I did understand the point of highlighting insecurities.
A big mistake con makes is even at the end he treats the assumption of finding partners for the dildo as a likely occurrence "PRO wants us to live as broke coffeine and sex addicts"
FYI, by creating this debate you are implicitly suspending certain rules which are there for your protection. Hopefully it will be a clean case so it doesn't matter, but I don't want you going in without being warned.
Good points!
Fun topic, especially since it can go either way.
If I was actively debating, I'd accept. My tactic would be to dismiss the OT and focus on the Christ part.
Of course were I on the other side, there's plenty of examples from the NT.
Either way, rather than spewing out giant confusing paragraphs, use of summaries and links are best. If there's any reenactment videos all the better (like Job in Good Omens, even while that changed the story a bit).
I've argued that much better in other debates. This one was just an introductory line to bait pro into disagreeing, and then I'd launch more.
Anyway, I'd bet money the supreme court has some weird rule along the lines of "well the authors never envisioned blacks would be treated as people, so the 13th amendment cannot be applied to black slaves" (yes, I know that one was written specifically for them, but done so properly to be also applicable to any other; this was hyperbole).
But yes, I do believe it is a crime to enslave (or involuntary servitude) women for use as a life support device for another.
Taking the current system to its stupid but logical conclusion, "where you going dressed like that with two kidneys, a senator needs a kidney."
As for kicking out children... While it drifts outside the scope, Nebraska actually made a law which allowed that (just had to reach a hospital, and you could drop them off without even leaving your name... Babysitting solved!). It of course is a situation where someone who would want to do that, probably shouldn't have been trusted with the care of children to begin with. Here it's worth noting that other states have a 72 hour rule for dropping off an undesired baby after birth). With children there does gets to be an implicit contract by your continual actions before you throw them into a snowstorm or whatever; but such a contract with them does not guarantee anything about what you do with your body; you could poison yourself (over simplifying Plan B), or if you're a real bastard betray them by fucking their mom.
https://youtu.be/NPPyvJN2Mxo?si=uc_GQP0HnhPuDhwH&t=57
I should add that when the trans-Atlantic slave trade was abolished, there was no stipulation that slaves had to keep serving their former masters if they were really really needed. There were probably a few isolated deaths from this among the elderly, who have a harder time caring for themselves.
generally not. I’d personally treat this one as a concession.
True heterosexual men don't need to make a big deal about it, we do things like being lumberjacks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FshU58nI0Ts
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Barney // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 to con
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Conduct is an optional award as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, such as extreme unsportsmanlike or outright toxic behavior which distracted from the topical debate.
While the off topic rape claims were somewhat distracting from the topic, a moderator is held to a higher standard.
**************************************************
Barney
03.06.2024 11:09AM
Reason:
In short: "All of your arguments are unproven assumptions."
Pro builds a case of incel propaganda (at least it wasn't copy/pasted)
IF true,
THEN sources are easy to find.
Sources would have undermined con, making his kritik weightless.
Con on the other hand kritiks it with an alternative sexuality; and rather than pointing out that it's not really hetero, pro asserts that they go for those little boys because they're so Chad. Which con wisely uses to mock that said chads are "short and weak," which pro flounders at, and somehow doubles down on his off topic rape isn't rape claims.
---
Conduct for overwhelming vileness against half the population of the planet. This was an example of "outright toxic behavior which distracted from the topical debate."
Fair enough.
Watch American History X, and apply the lessons to your situation.
Has misogyny improved your life at all?
A fun related topic would be Star Trek teleporters, which incinerate someone (hopefully painlessly), and at a later time recreates them elsewhere.
Admittedly, I am biased in favor of people who write arguments.
Technically a callout debate, but BK seems cool with it.
Exactly that. For the most part, we have vote handling standardized.
Of course more details may be added to the report, and my decision can be appealed to other moderators.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Savant // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
**************************************************