Im interested in this debate..
But is cons position is the opposite?
Even if you're not homosexual, you can engage in such behaviors as a resort to sexual satisfaction while incarcerated. That is the truth.
Also, i'm not sure the title match's up all the way with your claim
Removing the ability for someone to tag you is absurd. He can't report and now you are suggesting taking away his ability to mention people (the mods)?
If someone believes different from you, which in this case he does, then let him. Who are you to say his vote is frivolous? I get it's frivolous to you, but to him it might not be. Even if he knows it is and that is likely, it doesn't matter. Just because you don't wanna hear 'complaints' or concerns doesn't mean you should take away someone's mention rights especially since he can't report.
Even if it is bothering the mods, it's anyone's right to report things. I understand mods aren't payed but on this website its there job to look into things that are of the members concerns. No matter how 'annoying' it is, read the report and if the mod doesn't think it violates the voting policy then they write if the report is denied and why. If they do agree it violates the voting policy then they adjust the vote and explain why.
On top of that, it does seem RM actually believes his stance. We recently had a conversation on the debate policy and can be seen here, https://www.debateart.com/debates/4124-islam-is-the-summarised-religion-of-jewish-and-christian?open_tab=comments&comments_page=1&comment_number=7
I don't agree with him but that his stance. And anyone should be allowed to report a vote especially when they feel it violates the Code of Conduct.
I didn't see this but I disagree.
Chocolate on pizza would actually be alright. As for durians, I'm not sure. I haven't ever tasted them. Pineapple on pizza seems worse..
Might go offline for quite awhile, i'll see about posting my argument within time, that is if Barney accepts to be the judge. Not sure if he would even want to being this is once again, a foregone conclusion.
"- if the debate forbids it, one single forfeit can be considered as FF and as such, make a side lose"
Correct. Thats if the debate forbids it, this all depends on the description and/or the amount of rounds you forfeit. Such as if there were 8 rounds, only forfeiting one of them can not make someone lose a point towards arguments. But lets say that theres 2 rounds and that person forfeited one, they (voters) could vote against them for arguments and conduct if the voter chooses. Also, there are debates that in the description state "forfeiting = concession" meaning if the person forfeited, voters must keep in mind the rules of the debate. Which would usually results in the loss of a concession, meaning all points (or important) points goes towards the other.
"- If one forfeits more than 40%, he may just have a poor conduct vote"
This goes for the multiple citations. Not only, but voters are able to vote against pro or con on arguments as well because its 40% or more forfeits by pro or con. Same applies for winner selection, you can vote against pro or con for that reason.
Check out my vote on this 'debate' if it better explains.
"- If so, the voter may give "conduct" vote to the opponent without giving explanation"
Usually the vote against con or pro would say "forfeited round(s)", which is the explanation.
They have already won, he could say as many or little characters as they wants, it wouldn't matter.
"All arguments", they were never specific if they were talking about publishing an argument or making an argument. Since they weren't making an argument, and was clarifying they won, technically they hasn't lost. Let me be a bit more specific, since they weren't 'really' making an argument but an extend and end, they won by default.
Such as if another debate said "forfeited round = loss and at least 100 characters", con forfeited an argument and con said "extend". They have already won, therefore it doesn't matter.
"If, after Round 1 of your arguments (even if the first round you argue is the penultimate Round) you forfeit, that counts as a pure FF on the rules. If I post as little as 'gg' I count as not technically forfeiting. The key to not technically forfeiting isn't to avoid the 40% as much as to avoid FF."
Depends on the voter, but kinda.
"The difference isn't in this debate as it's 'winner selection' but in the scenario one forfeits 40%+ but did not FF, you can only give conduct without explanation, not arguments etc."
"but by the choice of one side to miss at least 40% of the debate, the requirement ceases. And yes, this does apply to Choose Winner, which otherwise would not allow conduct to be the sole determinant)."
Per the rules of DebateArt, "but by the choice of one side to miss at least 40% of the debate, the requirement ceases."
As for the debate against Yassine and RationalMadMan, with his forfeit, it won't affect him terribly. The 'worst' that will happen is giving a point of conduct to Yassine.
RationalMadMan didn't forfeit 50% of his arguments, he only forfeited one of four.
I could quite frankly care less on disappointing someone unless its one I look up to with high standards. And even if it was someone I looked up to, it's not the end of the world and I won't be taking their opinion to the top. I still will consider your opinion and take it more "lightly" next time.
Didn't you kinda assume I was trying to take this with full on seriousness..? But okay..
I see no reason for you to apologize, its you're opinion.
In all honesty, for you to determine what the mood is does not make you right or wrong. Some people set debates like this, it doesn't mean they are looking for a "funny" debate. And if the long description never clarifies, I can take this as I please.
Maybe so..? Though, I get were you're coming from. And maybe you couldn't tell, I added humor of my own.
I'm not much into humor but when needed, i'll add a little something. If you looked into my other debates, you would see the difference. Either way, if you couldn't tell, its possible you just don't quite understand the small bits of my humor.
Basically, I didn't take this as seriously as you thought.
There was actually a way to disprove one of pros main argument..
However, i'll try to have my vote in today. I'm not sure if ill just count it as a *full* forfeit or base the winner on his one argument made.
Based on Barney's vote, it brought up words I forgot about. I apologize about that Best.Korea. My comment, "Curing homosexuality? Would that be the same as "curing Korean"? As many Koreans have violence occur in their life. I would presume we would want to "cure them" to greatly reduce the amount of violence, correct?" was unnecessary.
Would you be willing to debate this topic with me? You would be in your same position, con and I would be pro. Simply because I would like to go against my own belief.
Further (forgot to add this to the comment), you say "Then Con rebuttals in saying that if there were no homosexuals, then the violence wouldn't exist, which is true."
Correct how? In my last round I denied it and they had nothing to say. Meaning, that claim is incorrect based on my arguments, which is highlighted in the comment before this.
That said, i'm not completely sure if the voting policy says anything on your vote meaning no matter the reason it won't affect anything. Just curious.
What about the arguments con dropped in the first argument? Which means con didn't fully fulfill the BoP. Con dropped my arguments, while I dripped none of his.
As for this part "Pro states that the cause in violence is due to others being aggressive and demeaning to homosexuals, and that it isn't the homosexual's fault, but what Pro does not realize is that they are attacking their previous argument, in saying that homosexuality doesn't harm people" homosexuality verus homosexuals are different. And in my last argument, I state that one again its not homosexuality that causes the violence. Homosexuality does not harm people and it even goes with the me saying its due to the violence of others. "Homosexuality is not wrong or the reason for violence, its the discrimination and stigma against them."
I state: "Any violent act has a reason for its violence whether it is because they dislike some.thing of a person, disagree, or anything of sorts. This is not something that happens with just homosexuals. It is a person's mindset (opinions, beliefs, etc) that creates the violence.
Not everyone will violate a homosexual for being homosexual. What does this mean? If not everyone will violate a homosexual and can be respectful towards them, it is the person violating causes the violence"
A. Con dropped this part, never rebuttaling against how it is natural. Meaning con never proved this.
B. My first part of this argument explains this
Not saying your vote is wrong, just need a bit more clarification.
"Type: Standard" is unrated.
Im interested in this debate..
But is cons position is the opposite?
Even if you're not homosexual, you can engage in such behaviors as a resort to sexual satisfaction while incarcerated. That is the truth.
Also, i'm not sure the title match's up all the way with your claim
I'll vote on this right after I finish my vote for AleutianTexan and Sir.Lancelot's debate.
Removing the ability for someone to tag you is absurd. He can't report and now you are suggesting taking away his ability to mention people (the mods)?
If someone believes different from you, which in this case he does, then let him. Who are you to say his vote is frivolous? I get it's frivolous to you, but to him it might not be. Even if he knows it is and that is likely, it doesn't matter. Just because you don't wanna hear 'complaints' or concerns doesn't mean you should take away someone's mention rights especially since he can't report.
Even if it is bothering the mods, it's anyone's right to report things. I understand mods aren't payed but on this website its there job to look into things that are of the members concerns. No matter how 'annoying' it is, read the report and if the mod doesn't think it violates the voting policy then they write if the report is denied and why. If they do agree it violates the voting policy then they adjust the vote and explain why.
On top of that, it does seem RM actually believes his stance. We recently had a conversation on the debate policy and can be seen here, https://www.debateart.com/debates/4124-islam-is-the-summarised-religion-of-jewish-and-christian?open_tab=comments&comments_page=1&comment_number=7
I don't agree with him but that his stance. And anyone should be allowed to report a vote especially when they feel it violates the Code of Conduct.
This depends. Are we allowed to infer that the bible says so? Or does it exactly have to say those exact words?
I'll be subscribed to this debate.
I didn't see this but I disagree.
Chocolate on pizza would actually be alright. As for durians, I'm not sure. I haven't ever tasted them. Pineapple on pizza seems worse..
Might go offline for quite awhile, i'll see about posting my argument within time, that is if Barney accepts to be the judge. Not sure if he would even want to being this is once again, a foregone conclusion.
Thanks for the vote.
Completed.
Accidently said "Vote Pro" I meant con guys.
Oops. I already have my response written, I just need to polish it up a bit.
I'll get it down within a hour or so, my apologies for the wait.
I'll vote later on, I have a few things to finish up but other than that i'll vote afterwards.
Your recap was mostly correct.
"- if the debate forbids it, one single forfeit can be considered as FF and as such, make a side lose"
Correct. Thats if the debate forbids it, this all depends on the description and/or the amount of rounds you forfeit. Such as if there were 8 rounds, only forfeiting one of them can not make someone lose a point towards arguments. But lets say that theres 2 rounds and that person forfeited one, they (voters) could vote against them for arguments and conduct if the voter chooses. Also, there are debates that in the description state "forfeiting = concession" meaning if the person forfeited, voters must keep in mind the rules of the debate. Which would usually results in the loss of a concession, meaning all points (or important) points goes towards the other.
"- If one forfeits more than 40%, he may just have a poor conduct vote"
This goes for the multiple citations. Not only, but voters are able to vote against pro or con on arguments as well because its 40% or more forfeits by pro or con. Same applies for winner selection, you can vote against pro or con for that reason.
Check out my vote on this 'debate' if it better explains.
"- If so, the voter may give "conduct" vote to the opponent without giving explanation"
Usually the vote against con or pro would say "forfeited round(s)", which is the explanation.
They have already won, he could say as many or little characters as they wants, it wouldn't matter.
"All arguments", they were never specific if they were talking about publishing an argument or making an argument. Since they weren't making an argument, and was clarifying they won, technically they hasn't lost. Let me be a bit more specific, since they weren't 'really' making an argument but an extend and end, they won by default.
Such as if another debate said "forfeited round = loss and at least 100 characters", con forfeited an argument and con said "extend". They have already won, therefore it doesn't matter.
I still believe it's up to the voter.
I have a few other things to say, but I think i've mostly said them, so i'll leave it here.
"If, after Round 1 of your arguments (even if the first round you argue is the penultimate Round) you forfeit, that counts as a pure FF on the rules. If I post as little as 'gg' I count as not technically forfeiting. The key to not technically forfeiting isn't to avoid the 40% as much as to avoid FF."
Depends on the voter, but kinda.
"The difference isn't in this debate as it's 'winner selection' but in the scenario one forfeits 40%+ but did not FF, you can only give conduct without explanation, not arguments etc."
"but by the choice of one side to miss at least 40% of the debate, the requirement ceases. And yes, this does apply to Choose Winner, which otherwise would not allow conduct to be the sole determinant)."
My bad. I wasn't reading the entire description and was talking in general without reading it.. i'll update my response.
I'm not into religion all that much, I wouldn't know.
Per the rules of DebateArt, "but by the choice of one side to miss at least 40% of the debate, the requirement ceases."
As for the debate against Yassine and RationalMadMan, with his forfeit, it won't affect him terribly. The 'worst' that will happen is giving a point of conduct to Yassine.
RationalMadMan didn't forfeit 50% of his arguments, he only forfeited one of four.
I completely forgot about this. My bad. I'll have a response next round.
Thanks for your vote. At least I know my humor wasn't totally invisible.
I could quite frankly care less on disappointing someone unless its one I look up to with high standards. And even if it was someone I looked up to, it's not the end of the world and I won't be taking their opinion to the top. I still will consider your opinion and take it more "lightly" next time.
Didn't you kinda assume I was trying to take this with full on seriousness..? But okay..
I see no reason for you to apologize, its you're opinion.
In all honesty, for you to determine what the mood is does not make you right or wrong. Some people set debates like this, it doesn't mean they are looking for a "funny" debate. And if the long description never clarifies, I can take this as I please.
Thanks for your vote either way.
Maybe so..? Though, I get were you're coming from. And maybe you couldn't tell, I added humor of my own.
I'm not much into humor but when needed, i'll add a little something. If you looked into my other debates, you would see the difference. Either way, if you couldn't tell, its possible you just don't quite understand the small bits of my humor.
Basically, I didn't take this as seriously as you thought.
If you check the comments, I was, per my request to take this debate "seriously".
Description never stated I had to take this as a funny debate, and I really only accepted for his voting.
Is it possible for you to vote on this? No worries if you can't. I'm trying to continue my win streak or lose it, knowing it was an explained vote.
I mentioned you because of your appearance in this thread and as of right now trust your judgment.
No problem. Thank you.
My argument was on the rough side. Sorry!
Thank you. I'm trying to hurry it up, i'm attending an event in a couple. The argument will be posted in a couple of minutes.
Alright. I'm not really into trolling and only really came for viewing the short description. Is it alright for me to take this "seriously"?
My bad, saw your short description.
Are we actually debating or are you just writing a few words to get your voting?
Well.. I'll vote on this. I don't think the current vote points are correct.
Depending on if the contender responds, would you be willing to do the same debate with me?
Same parameters expect for a possible change of three days.
Guess I expected that. We're all are entitled to our own opinions.
Is it the homosexuality.. or the explict scenes?
There was actually a way to disprove one of pros main argument..
However, i'll try to have my vote in today. I'm not sure if ill just count it as a *full* forfeit or base the winner on his one argument made.
I'll probably vote on this in a little while.
I might do this debate if you can increase the characters?
No reason to apologize, you accepted it first. Let me know if your willing to do this debate with me sometime.
I didn't get to see this.. it would've been nice to accept. Been thinking about this topic as of recently.
You're alright, glad you're back. I'm willing to re-do this debate with you if wanted.
Your vote is appreciated. Next time when doing this debate, ill keep the recommendations in mind.
Mostly to improve my first arguments along with information on gays being better parents on average.
Thank you.
Huh?
Based on Barney's vote, it brought up words I forgot about. I apologize about that Best.Korea. My comment, "Curing homosexuality? Would that be the same as "curing Korean"? As many Koreans have violence occur in their life. I would presume we would want to "cure them" to greatly reduce the amount of violence, correct?" was unnecessary.
So, basically a free win for anyone that can show proof that you suggested such words?
With the multiple of posts, that would take a quite long time especially if you went through all that only to be proved wrong.
Would you be willing to debate this topic with me? You would be in your same position, con and I would be pro. Simply because I would like to go against my own belief.
Many thanks, good to see someone thinks similarly.
My bad with the sources, was a bit confused.
Further (forgot to add this to the comment), you say "Then Con rebuttals in saying that if there were no homosexuals, then the violence wouldn't exist, which is true."
Correct how? In my last round I denied it and they had nothing to say. Meaning, that claim is incorrect based on my arguments, which is highlighted in the comment before this.
That said, i'm not completely sure if the voting policy says anything on your vote meaning no matter the reason it won't affect anything. Just curious.
I see. Thanks for the vote.
I do have some questions.
What about the arguments con dropped in the first argument? Which means con didn't fully fulfill the BoP. Con dropped my arguments, while I dripped none of his.
As for this part "Pro states that the cause in violence is due to others being aggressive and demeaning to homosexuals, and that it isn't the homosexual's fault, but what Pro does not realize is that they are attacking their previous argument, in saying that homosexuality doesn't harm people" homosexuality verus homosexuals are different. And in my last argument, I state that one again its not homosexuality that causes the violence. Homosexuality does not harm people and it even goes with the me saying its due to the violence of others. "Homosexuality is not wrong or the reason for violence, its the discrimination and stigma against them."
I state: "Any violent act has a reason for its violence whether it is because they dislike some.thing of a person, disagree, or anything of sorts. This is not something that happens with just homosexuals. It is a person's mindset (opinions, beliefs, etc) that creates the violence.
Not everyone will violate a homosexual for being homosexual. What does this mean? If not everyone will violate a homosexual and can be respectful towards them, it is the person violating causes the violence"
A. Con dropped this part, never rebuttaling against how it is natural. Meaning con never proved this.
B. My first part of this argument explains this
Not saying your vote is wrong, just need a bit more clarification.