Fair enough. At some point, we could probably debate the scientific merits of evolution or the global flood or the age of the Earth. I think that would be a fun debate, especially Noah's flood
I'm considering accepting it. I'd challenge a few key points on Christianity. Namley the trinity, deity of christ, and the resurrection of christ. Do you subscribe to a hyper-literal reading of Genesis (yec like Ken Ham)? If so I may challenge that as well
In order to award sources points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate
Directly evaluate at least one source in particular cited in the debate and explain how it either bolstered or weakened the argument it was used to support
Must explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's
Mere appeals to quantity are not sufficient to justify awarding sources points.
There’s no discussion on how it impacted the debate
The only thing I see that he didn’t do which is required is Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate. There’s no discussion on that impact
In order to award sources points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate
Directly evaluate at least one source in particular cited in the debate and explain how it either bolstered or weakened the argument it was used to support
Must explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's
Mere appeals to quantity are not sufficient to justify awarding sources points.
Your source point
Both gave sources but one gave evidence to why his definition of Fake News is correct compared to the other which didn't instead simply said "There are multiple definitions on fake news." without showing a source for his own Fake News definition.
Evaluate at least one source and compare the two and how it better supported their case
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Melcharaz // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 3 points to con for arguments
RFD: Pro reasons that the tapes would be benefical to psychological study
Con reasons the tapes could be manipulated and cause harm to family.
While i do agree it may help in psychological study, families had access to tapes in 99 I have no stake in this personally. Also it doesn't negate the local disclosure of the incident. I say let sleeping dogs lie. There are other videos of shootings and the 946 page report was released anyways.
Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the standards set forth by the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Madmax1976 // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 6 points to con for arguments, sources, and conduct
RFD: The reasons why I think con won over pro
Reason 1: First of all pro has basically stated that he is not right wing and they are bad and not everyone that is right wing is bad which is stupid in my opinion. Hitler was a bad person I think we can all agree that he was .H e was a left wing dose that make Him a good person I don’t think so which is why in this third round he states “Thank you now I can see how bad you really are” because Brendo is right wing which I don’t think should be accounted for when just because your left or right schooled count.
Reason 2: Omar stated that because he doesn't like what he said about the Muslims but dose they give you the right to throw an egg at someone for doing so I don’t think so and is classified as assault which Will was the main instigator for the assault so that dose not make it right to throw and egg
Final review: I believe brendo won’t this debate by far since Omar rambled on about things that were pointless and has no context to what he was talking about so all my points are giving to brendo other than spelling which was kept as a tie
Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the standards set forth by the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
Please read the COC page. Specifically the portion aboud what counts as a good vote
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Melcharaz // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 6 points to con for arguments, sources, and conduct
RFD: This turned into a semantic argument of "Was a racist" or "Is a racist" then a shift of blame on the burden of proof. Con provided better conduct in regards to faithfulness to debate, they both had equal grammar and spelling, con uses sources to verify the incidents of trumps racism.
Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the standards set forth by the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
“Rules: One must accept my given definitions of racism, and provide BoP that Trump has said or done racist things.”
Pro clearly states the rules of the debate are that con must show that Trump has done racist things. The racist things con mentions are clearly uncontested by pro, and pro simply attempts to backpeddle on the rules of tbe debage by changing the goalposts.
I am sympathetic to one debater changing or challenging the rules during a debate in the following scenarios:
- it can be shown that there is a clear harm to either debater if the rules are accepted as is (IE: the rule makes the debate logically unwinnable)
- the rule is obviously being applied in a way opposite or contrary to the way a regular person would interpret the rules. (IE: the rule is being used in a way contrary to its intent) and thus needs to be clarified.
If neither of these things are true here - pro does not show that the rules were misinterpreted, or that the interpretation of the rules makes the debate resolution unfair - I am forced to judge the debate on how a regular person would interpret the rules.
In this case. I am of the view con must show that Trump has done racist things to negate the resolution as per the stipulated rules. He has done this, and it and as not contested by pro.
While con didn’t waive the final round as stipulated - pro effectively forfeited two rounds - then attempted to simply change the rules in his final round.
The forfeits here are much more series than cons final round clarification (he made no new arguments), and the attempt to argue con should be held to a different set of rules constitutes a serious breach of conduct worthy of a conduct penalty.
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: {username} // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 4 points to con for conduct and arguments
RFD: See above
Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the standards set forth by the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
See below. The conduct point is fine, but with regards to the argument point, I want to see more detailed discussion about the specific arguments that con made and pro's response.
*******************************************************************
(3) The conduct point is not sufficient. In order to award conduct points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Provide specific references to instances of poor conduct which occurred in the debate
Demonstrate how this poor conduct was either excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate
Compare each debater's conduct from the debate
Misconduct is excessive when it is extremely frequent and/or when it causes the debate to become incoherent or extremely toxic. In the case of awarding conduct points solely on the basis of forfeits, there is an exception to these steps: a debater may award conduct points solely for forfeited rounds, but only if one debater forfeited half or more of their rounds or if the voter also awards argument points (or explains their decision not to award argument points in a manner which meets the argument points voting standards).
(1) The argument point is not sufficient. In order to award argument points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate
Weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself)
Explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points
Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
(2) The source point is not sufficient. In order to award sources points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate
Directly evaluate at least one source in particular cited in the debate and explain how it either bolstered or weakened the argument it was used to support
Must explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's
Mere appeals to quantity are not sufficient to justify awarding sources points.
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Melcharaz // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 5 points to con for conduct and sources
RFD: While Pro did well to stipulate definitions in the very beginning, he failed to stipulate the meaning of "idiosyncratic," a major component in the description of delusion, the subject over which they argue. Con did well to stipulate the definition of idiosyncratic, thereby taking command of the description of "delusion." As far as I'm concerned, since Con won the semantics debate over the term, "delusion," he won the debate, since the subject over which they argue is "Christians are Delusional." However, if we extend the arguments beyond semantics, Con still provided more substantive arguments, particularly when he distinguished the concerns of Science and Religion. Pro focused far too much on scientific authority, which may have been valid had he established reality is subject to the domain of science. This was close, but eventually, I award "more convincing arguments" to Con.
Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the standards set forth by the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
See below. Neither arguments nor sources are sufficient.
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Athias // Mod Action: Not Removed
Points awarded: 3 points to con for arguments
Reason for mod action: The vote is borderline, but it is more sufficient than not so we will let it stand. If you have any problems or objections, please DM me.
ent. In order to award argument points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate
Weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself)
Explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points
Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
(2) The source point is not sufficient. In order to award sources points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate
Directly evaluate at least one source in particular cited in the debate and explain how it either bolstered or weakened the argument it was used to support
Must explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's
Mere appeals to quantity are not sufficient to justify awarding sources points.
(4) The conduct point is not sufficient. In order to award conduct points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Provide specific references to instances of poor conduct which occurred in the debate
Demonstrate how this poor conduct was either excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate
Compare each debater's conduct from the debate
Misconduct is excessive when it is extremely frequent and/or when it causes the debate to become incoherent or extremely toxic.
The argument point is not sufficient. In order to award argument points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate
Weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself)
Explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points
Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
(2) The source point is not sufficient. In order to award sources points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate
Directly evaluate at least one source in particular cited in the debate and explain how it either bolstered or weakened the argument it was used to support
Must explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's
Mere appeals to quantity are not sufficient to justify awarding sources points.
(3) The conduct point is not sufficient. In order to award conduct points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Provide specific references to instances of poor conduct which occurred in the debate
Demonstrate how this poor conduct was either excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate
Compare each debater's conduct from the debate
Misconduct is excessive when it is extremely frequent and/or when it causes the debate to become incoherent or extremely toxic.
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Athias // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 6 points to con for arguments, sources, and conduct
RFD: Pro chose to argue by induction without substantiating any of his premises, especially the first inductive argument--i.e. "Everything we observe is physical" (major premise.) Without this his series of sequential syllogisms fall apart. He then goes on to focus on particles and string theory, leaving his obligation to the onus he created in Round 1 unsatisfied. While Con does indulge the same focus on String Theory, he provides substantial arguments and sources to substantiate his contention. As for conduct, Pro mentions, "I'm a little bummed out, I was hoping for more contention," and "you're scared to even touch it with real logic..." etc. None of this has any place in a debate. For that, I am willing to award conduct to Con.
Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the standards set forth by the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
See above
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: K_Michael // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 1 point to pro for arguments
RFD: I don't agree, per se, but my vote is honest. Personally, I think that a personally leveled law enforcement to watch the law enforcement is a drain on public resources and tax dollars that isn't worth it. If there was more evidence of major crime by police officers, then Pro would be justified. RationalMadman made plenty of points in the comments, but strictly between pro and con, Pro won.
Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the standards set forth by the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
(1) The argument point is not sufficient. In order to award argument points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate
Weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself)
Explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points
Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
Finally one is not permitted to "piggy back" off of other user's RFDs or comments. All RFDs must be original.
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Joshua_Stebold // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 1 point to con for conduct
RFD: Although Pro accused Con of bad conduct, Con's next argument settled this. Pro took it a little too literally. However, to me it is bad conduct for accusing your opponent of having bad conduct as you don't really have the authority.
Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the standards set forth by the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
(1) The conduct point is not sufficient. In order to award conduct points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Provide specific references to instances of poor conduct which occurred in the debate
Demonstrate how this poor conduct was either excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate
Compare each debater's conduct from the debate
Misconduct is excessive when it is extremely frequent and/or when it causes the debate to become incoherent or extremely toxic. In the case of awarding conduct points solely on the basis of forfeits, there is an exception to these steps: a debater may award conduct points solely for forfeited rounds, but only if one debater forfeited half or more of their rounds or if the voter also awards argument points (or explains their decision not to award argument points in a manner which meets the argument points voting standards).
Finally when awarding only a conduct point, the voter must still explain why the arguments should be a tie.
Trials would be considered "call out threads" and will be deleted. This is not considered a trial because Pro is debating the merits of his ban, not whether he should be permanently banned.
Fair enough. At some point, we could probably debate the scientific merits of evolution or the global flood or the age of the Earth. I think that would be a fun debate, especially Noah's flood
I'm considering accepting it. I'd challenge a few key points on Christianity. Namley the trinity, deity of christ, and the resurrection of christ. Do you subscribe to a hyper-literal reading of Genesis (yec like Ken Ham)? If so I may challenge that as well
I apologize. I was called into work and had forgotten about it. I will post one soon
I'd be interested in this possibly. If I were you, I'd define the terms "inherently" and "rational."
I’m a student and part time retail worker
I’ll post my arguments when I get home from work
Thanks. He’s a great debater. I thoroughly enjoyed our last debate.
My opening arguments are ready whenever you are.
In order to award sources points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate
Directly evaluate at least one source in particular cited in the debate and explain how it either bolstered or weakened the argument it was used to support
Must explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's
Mere appeals to quantity are not sufficient to justify awarding sources points.
There’s no discussion on how it impacted the debate
The only thing I see that he didn’t do which is required is Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate. There’s no discussion on that impact
He pointed specific examples of sources that were conspiracy and unreliable, not just a generalization. Because of that the vote is fine.
Perhaps we can debate whether or not Isaiah 7:14 predicts the virgin birth of Jesus or the proper translation of HaAlmah
Perhaps we should stick to one or two of your best arguments. It is easy to gish gallop a hundred verses, but it takes a long time to unpack each one.
If you want to debate me on this topic next, I’d be happy to do so.
thanks
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Type1 // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 7 points to con
RFD: RM is a liar and an idiot. RM forfeited a round and is just plain wrong because he raped his own mother.
Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the standards set forth by the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
*******************************************************************
I'll post a vote tomorrow. I think you won hands down
I'm a bit behind on the report log. I will work on it as soon as I can
Posted. Sorry for the long arguments
It's crossed, not tiwaz. Under the provided definition, water can be a poison
You need to define your terms. What does "poison" mean in this context?
Votes will not be moderated as this is a troll/non standard debate
Bsh will be removing the vote tomorrow and taking care of the rest of the log.
Thanks!
In order to award sources points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate
Directly evaluate at least one source in particular cited in the debate and explain how it either bolstered or weakened the argument it was used to support
Must explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's
Mere appeals to quantity are not sufficient to justify awarding sources points.
Your source point
Both gave sources but one gave evidence to why his definition of Fake News is correct compared to the other which didn't instead simply said "There are multiple definitions on fake news." without showing a source for his own Fake News definition.
Evaluate at least one source and compare the two and how it better supported their case
Not a problem. ON the second read, I need you to go more in-depth on the source point.
vote reported: omar2345 // Mod action: not removed
Reason: This vote is fine
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Melcharaz // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 3 points to con for arguments
RFD: Pro reasons that the tapes would be benefical to psychological study
Con reasons the tapes could be manipulated and cause harm to family.
While i do agree it may help in psychological study, families had access to tapes in 99 I have no stake in this personally. Also it doesn't negate the local disclosure of the incident. I say let sleeping dogs lie. There are other videos of shootings and the 946 page report was released anyways.
Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the standards set forth by the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: BigBoonj // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 6 points to pro for arguments, sources, and conduct
RFD: While I don't agree with the Pro, the Con's arguments were very bad.
Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the standards set forth by the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Madmax1976 // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 6 points to con for arguments, sources, and conduct
RFD: The reasons why I think con won over pro
Reason 1: First of all pro has basically stated that he is not right wing and they are bad and not everyone that is right wing is bad which is stupid in my opinion. Hitler was a bad person I think we can all agree that he was .H e was a left wing dose that make Him a good person I don’t think so which is why in this third round he states “Thank you now I can see how bad you really are” because Brendo is right wing which I don’t think should be accounted for when just because your left or right schooled count.
Reason 2: Omar stated that because he doesn't like what he said about the Muslims but dose they give you the right to throw an egg at someone for doing so I don’t think so and is classified as assault which Will was the main instigator for the assault so that dose not make it right to throw and egg
Final review: I believe brendo won’t this debate by far since Omar rambled on about things that were pointless and has no context to what he was talking about so all my points are giving to brendo other than spelling which was kept as a tie
Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the standards set forth by the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
Please read the COC page. Specifically the portion aboud what counts as a good vote
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Melcharaz // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 6 points to con for arguments, sources, and conduct
RFD: This turned into a semantic argument of "Was a racist" or "Is a racist" then a shift of blame on the burden of proof. Con provided better conduct in regards to faithfulness to debate, they both had equal grammar and spelling, con uses sources to verify the incidents of trumps racism.
Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the standards set forth by the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
See below for more info
*******************************************************************
“Rules: One must accept my given definitions of racism, and provide BoP that Trump has said or done racist things.”
Pro clearly states the rules of the debate are that con must show that Trump has done racist things. The racist things con mentions are clearly uncontested by pro, and pro simply attempts to backpeddle on the rules of tbe debage by changing the goalposts.
I am sympathetic to one debater changing or challenging the rules during a debate in the following scenarios:
- it can be shown that there is a clear harm to either debater if the rules are accepted as is (IE: the rule makes the debate logically unwinnable)
- the rule is obviously being applied in a way opposite or contrary to the way a regular person would interpret the rules. (IE: the rule is being used in a way contrary to its intent) and thus needs to be clarified.
If neither of these things are true here - pro does not show that the rules were misinterpreted, or that the interpretation of the rules makes the debate resolution unfair - I am forced to judge the debate on how a regular person would interpret the rules.
In this case. I am of the view con must show that Trump has done racist things to negate the resolution as per the stipulated rules. He has done this, and it and as not contested by pro.
While con didn’t waive the final round as stipulated - pro effectively forfeited two rounds - then attempted to simply change the rules in his final round.
The forfeits here are much more series than cons final round clarification (he made no new arguments), and the attempt to argue con should be held to a different set of rules constitutes a serious breach of conduct worthy of a conduct penalty.
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: {username} // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 4 points to con for conduct and arguments
RFD: See above
Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the standards set forth by the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
See below. The conduct point is fine, but with regards to the argument point, I want to see more detailed discussion about the specific arguments that con made and pro's response.
*******************************************************************
(3) The conduct point is not sufficient. In order to award conduct points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Provide specific references to instances of poor conduct which occurred in the debate
Demonstrate how this poor conduct was either excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate
Compare each debater's conduct from the debate
Misconduct is excessive when it is extremely frequent and/or when it causes the debate to become incoherent or extremely toxic. In the case of awarding conduct points solely on the basis of forfeits, there is an exception to these steps: a debater may award conduct points solely for forfeited rounds, but only if one debater forfeited half or more of their rounds or if the voter also awards argument points (or explains their decision not to award argument points in a manner which meets the argument points voting standards).
(1) The argument point is not sufficient. In order to award argument points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate
Weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself)
Explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points
Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
(2) The source point is not sufficient. In order to award sources points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate
Directly evaluate at least one source in particular cited in the debate and explain how it either bolstered or weakened the argument it was used to support
Must explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's
Mere appeals to quantity are not sufficient to justify awarding sources points.
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Wrick-It-Ralph // Mod Action: Not Removed
Points awarded: 3 points to pro for arguments
Reason for mod action: The vote is sufficient
******************************************************************
I removed your vote by mistake when I meant to remove the one below you. I apologize for this
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Melcharaz // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 5 points to con for conduct and sources
RFD: While Pro did well to stipulate definitions in the very beginning, he failed to stipulate the meaning of "idiosyncratic," a major component in the description of delusion, the subject over which they argue. Con did well to stipulate the definition of idiosyncratic, thereby taking command of the description of "delusion." As far as I'm concerned, since Con won the semantics debate over the term, "delusion," he won the debate, since the subject over which they argue is "Christians are Delusional." However, if we extend the arguments beyond semantics, Con still provided more substantive arguments, particularly when he distinguished the concerns of Science and Religion. Pro focused far too much on scientific authority, which may have been valid had he established reality is subject to the domain of science. This was close, but eventually, I award "more convincing arguments" to Con.
Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the standards set forth by the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
See below. Neither arguments nor sources are sufficient.
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Athias // Mod Action: Not Removed
Points awarded: 3 points to con for arguments
Reason for mod action: The vote is borderline, but it is more sufficient than not so we will let it stand. If you have any problems or objections, please DM me.
*******************************************************************
ent. In order to award argument points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate
Weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself)
Explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points
Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
(2) The source point is not sufficient. In order to award sources points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate
Directly evaluate at least one source in particular cited in the debate and explain how it either bolstered or weakened the argument it was used to support
Must explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's
Mere appeals to quantity are not sufficient to justify awarding sources points.
(4) The conduct point is not sufficient. In order to award conduct points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Provide specific references to instances of poor conduct which occurred in the debate
Demonstrate how this poor conduct was either excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate
Compare each debater's conduct from the debate
Misconduct is excessive when it is extremely frequent and/or when it causes the debate to become incoherent or extremely toxic.
The argument point is not sufficient. In order to award argument points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate
Weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself)
Explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points
Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
(2) The source point is not sufficient. In order to award sources points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate
Directly evaluate at least one source in particular cited in the debate and explain how it either bolstered or weakened the argument it was used to support
Must explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's
Mere appeals to quantity are not sufficient to justify awarding sources points.
(3) The conduct point is not sufficient. In order to award conduct points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Provide specific references to instances of poor conduct which occurred in the debate
Demonstrate how this poor conduct was either excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate
Compare each debater's conduct from the debate
Misconduct is excessive when it is extremely frequent and/or when it causes the debate to become incoherent or extremely toxic.
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Athias // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 6 points to con for arguments, sources, and conduct
RFD: Pro chose to argue by induction without substantiating any of his premises, especially the first inductive argument--i.e. "Everything we observe is physical" (major premise.) Without this his series of sequential syllogisms fall apart. He then goes on to focus on particles and string theory, leaving his obligation to the onus he created in Round 1 unsatisfied. While Con does indulge the same focus on String Theory, he provides substantial arguments and sources to substantiate his contention. As for conduct, Pro mentions, "I'm a little bummed out, I was hoping for more contention," and "you're scared to even touch it with real logic..." etc. None of this has any place in a debate. For that, I am willing to award conduct to Con.
Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the standards set forth by the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
See above
*******************************************************************
Vote looks ok to me
I’ll handle it tomorrow.
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: K_Michael // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 1 point to pro for arguments
RFD: I don't agree, per se, but my vote is honest. Personally, I think that a personally leveled law enforcement to watch the law enforcement is a drain on public resources and tax dollars that isn't worth it. If there was more evidence of major crime by police officers, then Pro would be justified. RationalMadman made plenty of points in the comments, but strictly between pro and con, Pro won.
Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the standards set forth by the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
(1) The argument point is not sufficient. In order to award argument points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate
Weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself)
Explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points
Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
Finally one is not permitted to "piggy back" off of other user's RFDs or comments. All RFDs must be original.
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Joshua_Stebold // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 1 point to con for conduct
RFD: Although Pro accused Con of bad conduct, Con's next argument settled this. Pro took it a little too literally. However, to me it is bad conduct for accusing your opponent of having bad conduct as you don't really have the authority.
Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the standards set forth by the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
(1) The conduct point is not sufficient. In order to award conduct points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Provide specific references to instances of poor conduct which occurred in the debate
Demonstrate how this poor conduct was either excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate
Compare each debater's conduct from the debate
Misconduct is excessive when it is extremely frequent and/or when it causes the debate to become incoherent or extremely toxic. In the case of awarding conduct points solely on the basis of forfeits, there is an exception to these steps: a debater may award conduct points solely for forfeited rounds, but only if one debater forfeited half or more of their rounds or if the voter also awards argument points (or explains their decision not to award argument points in a manner which meets the argument points voting standards).
Finally when awarding only a conduct point, the voter must still explain why the arguments should be a tie.
*******************************************************************
Trials would be considered "call out threads" and will be deleted. This is not considered a trial because Pro is debating the merits of his ban, not whether he should be permanently banned.
The rules specifically forbids trials because it encourages mob rule.
I'd be willing to take this as a redo our last debate if you don't mind.
Fantastic RFD! Thanks so much for the feedback