Yes, I am bothered by bad votes, even if they don't change the outcome. I also do realize that arguments are tied in your vote, but you didn't justify why both sides have arguments and sources of equal quality. I don't understand why you would vote at all if you are not going to put in enough effort to make a sufficient vote.
I think our guidelines say that no sufficient vote can contain zero usefull analysis of the debate, and I think that description applies to Best.Koreas vote.
What you have written is not sufficient according to our guidelines to be a vote. You don't provide any justification for leaving sources, conduct and legibility tied. Also, you don't weight the arguments and counterarguments from each side against each other and explain why one side has better arguments. You don't even make any reference to the resolution of the debate. Also, you wrote something about the debate that is simply untrue. PRO never claimed that fetuses are people, so how could that possibly be a claim of his that went mostly unchallenged. I even wrote that "God doesn't count fetuses as human beings" in underscored and bold text, so I don't get how you missed that.
As you said, North Korea is a nuclear power with first-strike capabilities against its neighbours. They don't need any more leverage, the large military is a big waste.
I believe you are taking your points WAY to far. The point you should be trying to make is that North Korea is the better country when compared to capitalism's version of a poor, isolated authoritarian country. Yes, socialist programs have helped North Koreans live better lives than if they were left on their own like under capitalism; and it's impressive that the country stayed stable and growing for this long in such a harsh situation. However, the system is still extremely flawed in it's own ways. Imprisonment of dissenters, torture and excessive military spending -- these are inexcusable violations of human rights that need to stop. A state should never have to oppress its own citizens, especially if it tries to claim to be the best in the world.
If you live in Russia, China, the Middle East, Latin America, Brazil, Libya, Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Serbia or literally anywhere outside "the west", then America is either your cruel overlord or your nation's mortal enemy. North Korea is not even capable of harming these countries. North Koreans aren't able to topple governments and bomb hospitals or use sanctions to starve third-world countries to death.
Thanks. I really enjoyed this debate about such a concrete physical question and digging deep into the nitty gritty details. Definately the most interesting debate of the tournament. Good luck climbing the ladders.
"PRO has failed to meet his BoP when the goalpost is placed where it ought to be. ###The discussion is about whether or not schools should teach children that a religious modell of reality is a valid alternative to a scientific one###."
I wished to have a real debate with you, but you must learn to write resolutions that don't mislead or confuse the actual idea you want to debate. In this case, you argued for creationism as a study subject rather than the curriculum material, which was not what the resolution said.
We could hardly agree on a topic so no we didn't have time to properly agree on everything beforehand. However, both I and RM had the opportunity to define and dispute terms as in any debate. I did indeed provide sufficient justification for my usage of the term nuclear energy by citing encyclopedia britannica. What did RM do? Well, he ignored my defintions as well as my entire framework. The argument from common usage could have been used by CON to attempt to dispute my definition of the word, but he didn't even try to define the word in the first place. Why would you even want to pretend that he did? I mean, failing to define a term differently than the opponent -- in a debate -- is itself a silent nodding of agreement or unwillingness to disagree. Unless encyclopedica britannica is outright lying and providing a totally invalid definition, the definition that I used is the applicaple one for this debate.
Bruh, this popped up in the "quality debate" section. I don't think my first debate really is all that great if you know what I mean. Why is it considered "quality"?
Just because word salad comes froma philosopher doesn't mean it isn't word salad. The usage of words in your philosophical rant is flawed and ignoring the real definition of terms as we know them today thanks to science. Knowledge, happiness and freedom don't mean what the old philosopher believed they did.
Furthermore, stop insulting RationalMadman. On our website, we don't do shit like that.
Well actually I have hardly played RDR2, and Minecraft is closer to my heart. But I can't deny that the former is objectively a better quality open-world game.
Time is soon running out. I don't know why you haven't posted yet, but an auto-forfeit would be a shame. I hope you will find time to write the argument in time.
Vote bump
Vote bump.
https://www.britannica.com/money/forced-labour
Even though the earth is a sphere, a flat earth is not automatically a stupid idea especially for people with no science education millenia ago.
Even worse. Since he doesn't specify a definition, he has to prove that the resolution is false for any valid definition of murder.
Sorry I forgot to post my argument.
You came to this site and immidiately fell into a boss fight. I wish you good luck.
Whether or not the resolution is true depends entirely on how one defines identity.
Yes, I am bothered by bad votes, even if they don't change the outcome. I also do realize that arguments are tied in your vote, but you didn't justify why both sides have arguments and sources of equal quality. I don't understand why you would vote at all if you are not going to put in enough effort to make a sufficient vote.
I think our guidelines say that no sufficient vote can contain zero usefull analysis of the debate, and I think that description applies to Best.Koreas vote.
What you have written is not sufficient according to our guidelines to be a vote. You don't provide any justification for leaving sources, conduct and legibility tied. Also, you don't weight the arguments and counterarguments from each side against each other and explain why one side has better arguments. You don't even make any reference to the resolution of the debate. Also, you wrote something about the debate that is simply untrue. PRO never claimed that fetuses are people, so how could that possibly be a claim of his that went mostly unchallenged. I even wrote that "God doesn't count fetuses as human beings" in underscored and bold text, so I don't get how you missed that.
Santa is discriminating against children of poorer families. Why does the value of the gift he gives you correlate with how much money your dad has?
As you said, North Korea is a nuclear power with first-strike capabilities against its neighbours. They don't need any more leverage, the large military is a big waste.
I believe you are taking your points WAY to far. The point you should be trying to make is that North Korea is the better country when compared to capitalism's version of a poor, isolated authoritarian country. Yes, socialist programs have helped North Koreans live better lives than if they were left on their own like under capitalism; and it's impressive that the country stayed stable and growing for this long in such a harsh situation. However, the system is still extremely flawed in it's own ways. Imprisonment of dissenters, torture and excessive military spending -- these are inexcusable violations of human rights that need to stop. A state should never have to oppress its own citizens, especially if it tries to claim to be the best in the world.
Better for WHOM?
If you live in Russia, China, the Middle East, Latin America, Brazil, Libya, Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Serbia or literally anywhere outside "the west", then America is either your cruel overlord or your nation's mortal enemy. North Korea is not even capable of harming these countries. North Koreans aren't able to topple governments and bomb hospitals or use sanctions to starve third-world countries to death.
Everyone voted for me except for RationalMadman.
This debate needs some more votes to resolve a voting controversy.
Thank you for voting.
Thanks. I really enjoyed this debate about such a concrete physical question and digging deep into the nitty gritty details. Definately the most interesting debate of the tournament. Good luck climbing the ladders.
My R1 conclusion:
"PRO has failed to meet his BoP when the goalpost is placed where it ought to be. ###The discussion is about whether or not schools should teach children that a religious modell of reality is a valid alternative to a scientific one###."
I expected a fair debate, not a dishonest resolution with nonsensical choice of definitions and BoP from PRO'S side.
I wished to have a real debate with you, but you must learn to write resolutions that don't mislead or confuse the actual idea you want to debate. In this case, you argued for creationism as a study subject rather than the curriculum material, which was not what the resolution said.
Thank you for voting
We could hardly agree on a topic so no we didn't have time to properly agree on everything beforehand. However, both I and RM had the opportunity to define and dispute terms as in any debate. I did indeed provide sufficient justification for my usage of the term nuclear energy by citing encyclopedia britannica. What did RM do? Well, he ignored my defintions as well as my entire framework. The argument from common usage could have been used by CON to attempt to dispute my definition of the word, but he didn't even try to define the word in the first place. Why would you even want to pretend that he did? I mean, failing to define a term differently than the opponent -- in a debate -- is itself a silent nodding of agreement or unwillingness to disagree. Unless encyclopedica britannica is outright lying and providing a totally invalid definition, the definition that I used is the applicaple one for this debate.
I was pressured for time and apparently missed the intentioned voting period by three week.
You only have 90 minutes left, please post before its too late.
If you have any personal attacks or valid criticism bubling up inside you, I would like to hear them and face my flaws head on.
5 hours left. I must finish my argument.
I really underestimated Putin's stupidity.
Thank you for voting
Thank you for voting.
Sorry for forfeiting. A real life event distracted me.
what
Bruh, this popped up in the "quality debate" section. I don't think my first debate really is all that great if you know what I mean. Why is it considered "quality"?
Just because word salad comes froma philosopher doesn't mean it isn't word salad. The usage of words in your philosophical rant is flawed and ignoring the real definition of terms as we know them today thanks to science. Knowledge, happiness and freedom don't mean what the old philosopher believed they did.
Furthermore, stop insulting RationalMadman. On our website, we don't do shit like that.
To skip a round in debateart without losing a conduct point one can waive the round. Next time, write and post "Waived" in order to avoid forfeiting.
Maybe you could write your argument in the comments?
How can we resolve the debate in a fair manner?
I will ensure you will not take the conduct point, that's a promise.
How do you suggest the debate to proceed?
That's fine. I don't blame you, lest I be hypocritical. We all make mistakes my friend.
Well actually I have hardly played RDR2, and Minecraft is closer to my heart. But I can't deny that the former is objectively a better quality open-world game.
Change it to "open-worlded games" and I will argue that Red Dead Redemption 2 is better.
I am PRO, that means the first, which is atheism.
LOL time slipped for me also.
Time is soon running out. I don't know why you haven't posted yet, but an auto-forfeit would be a shame. I hope you will find time to write the argument in time.
Sorry for forfeiting. I have an argument, I simply forgot to post it in time.
I am pleased to be debating you again, especially on this topic. I wish you the best of luck.
Thanks for voting.
Thank you for voting.