*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Raltar // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 3 points to con for arguments
RFD:
Wow, this was a very professional, fierce and well executed debate on both sides. Both sides made excellent use of sources and formatted their arguments in a very professional way. Ultimately, I can only agree with Con because his closing statement highlights the key flaw in Pro's argument. When Pro claims that semi-automatic rifles aren't superior to handguns or shotguns, he ignores the obvious tactical differences between these weapons, as well as the fact pointed out by Con that more crimes are committed with handguns than rifles.
Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the standards set forth by the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
*******************************************************************
(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. 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).
(3) The Spelling and Grammar point is not sufficient. In order to award spelling and grammar (S&G) points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Give specific examples of S&G errors
Explain how these errors were excessive
Compare each debater's S&G from the debate
S&G errors are considered excessive when they render arguments incoherent or incomprehensible.
(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: Speedrace // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 2 points to pro for sources and 1 point to con for conduct
RFD: This was very interesting. Pro obviously gets sources. However, Con easily gets conduct. Pro specifically stated in the description that HE had the burden of proof, but then tries to shift it to being shared. That's dishonest debating. He also cusses twice in his rounds, and he inappropriately tries to correct Con's grammar (even though his isn't much better). Con was a little disrespectful in his last round, but Pro was much more so. As to the arguments, Pro definitely had good points and backed them up, but I feel that he didn't respond to Con's arguments very much. I would have given it to Con if he had used sources, but he ended up not doing so.
Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the standards set forth by the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
(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. 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: Speedrace // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 6 points to con for arguments, sources, and conduct
RFD: I feel like Pro spent a lot of time straw-manning Con's arguments. Con clearly stated his position and evidence and Pro wouldn't back off. I only wish that Con had pointed that out more. In addition, Pro criticizes Con for using scientific sources to support his position, but then turns around and says that since they're not 100% correct, they must support his position (or at least not support either side). However, it is obvious to the voter that since these studies are comprehensive, we can take what they say as the truth, because we can't function if we walk around in life not knowing everything 100%. Pro also insulted Con a few times, which is inappropriate.
Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the standards set forth by the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Alanwang123 // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 4 points to con for arguments and conduct
RFD: Reason: Con produced better reasons and arguments to why babies shouldn't be killed.
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.
(2) 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: Alanwang123 // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 7 point tie
RFD: It just feels like the right thing to do.
Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the standards set forth by the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
Even when you elect to tie the debate, a discussion on the arguments is still needed as to why the debate should be a tie
*******************************************************************
Conduct: Pro (Con goes off-topic by passive-aggressively asking Con whether he is “happily married”, regularly asks rhetorical questions “right?”, “No evidence huh?”, “You mean Pseudoscience “ and is confrontational in general “Oh no. You're not dodging this one.”, “Oh, you're a dating coach. Well I guess you have a bias towards this topic then right?”, “Appealing to the voters. hmmm. Yeah I guess I would do that too if I had weak arguments.”. Finally he acknowledges his “harsh” debating style and Pro’s good conduct: “I know I was harsh, but that's my style. Good debate to my well conducted opponent.”)
I wrote more thorough reasons for my voting decision but since Con's rebuttal and final round were thoroughly disappointing, I don't feel like I've got anything good to say about them, loved Pro's opening round though. Feel free to ask about any further justification of points awarded. It is beyond my comprehension how the other voters awarded the points while neglecting Con's consistently toxic tone, incoherent arguments, abundance of unnecessary rhetorical questions to dismiss arguments rather than elaborating why he believes them to be flawed and ad hominem attacks rather than focus on the debate [alluding to Pro's job and marriage].
Arguments: Pro (Pro’s Evolutionary Model and Scientific Data model are both successful [supported by evidence such as citations and studies and provided with sufficient examples such as bad hygiene negatively affecting sexual market value and autistic savants being considered generally unattractive] and logically coherent [The conclusions follow from the premises] while Con’s first and second argument are contradicted by the scientific data cited in Pro’s second argument [i.e. Pro showed that there are methods of reliably determining mate preferences such as using "Vaginal photoplethysmography"] and his third argument is a non-sequitur which is later pointed out by Pro “A man's knowledge and awareness of what strategies he is using to attract a woman is irrelevant to how the women experience them and also irrelevant to the debate, because we are debating what women are attracted to and we are not debating whether or not the men are aware of the concentration of androstenol in their sweat, their social status, or the pitch of their voice.”)
Sources: Pro (Human cited scientific literature and academic books, Ralph neglected to cite a single source even after Pro pointed this out in round 3).
S&G: Pro (Human structured his text neatly, remained on topic and made no significant S&G errors, Ralph devoted a significant portion of the debate off-topic subjects [such as whether Pro is happily married, his own marriage and at least ten unnecessary rhetorical questions] , his second argument is hard to distinguish from his first [except for the added appeal to a shared BoP] and there were S&G errors that made reading difficult throughout the debate [e.g. “woman” was constantly used instead of “women”, sentence starters are regularly not capitalised which decreases the flow “furthermore”, “whenever”…]
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: {username} // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 7 points to pro
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
(1) Sources are not sufficiently explained. In order to award source point, the voter must:
(a) Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate
(b) 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
(c) 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.
This vote does not do these three
Everything else seems fine IMO
******************************************************************
RFD ok so I just read the rules for voting and they seem pretty straightforward. I am kinda on the pro side so i may be a tad bias however regardless here's my vote. Reliable sources should go to pro since one of Cons youtube sources was bias on the subject, and his other sources he didnt incorporate into his arguments very much. Although I did like the way he sited them by numbering them. con also didnt provide a source about how the majority of abortions happen after 5 months. Conduct goes to Pro since Con avoided the questions pro asked. for example, pro asked " So you would rather see a young girl be raped and be forced to give birth to a fetus which may or may not damage her physically and mentally than to see an organism that most likely isn't sentient yet to be terminated?" And than all con said was pull a red herring and start talking about how the baby shouldnt be punished. pro very obviously put con inside of a trap so con pulled a red herring. Arguments easily goes to pro. Pro kept debunked cons argument on existence by talking about how " are you against people unintentionally killing micro bacteria cells daily, mothers not fertilizing eggs, or men masturbating and their sperms cease to exist as a result?," con never answered this question. what was even funnier was seeing con in the comment section trying to squirm away from the question lol. con also conceeded on safety nets by agreeing to pros statement. all and all this was a pretty poor debate on cons part, as pro stated in the debate that the way society works is " legal until proven illegal," con didnt provide any good reason to outlaw abortion aside from a few contexts. anyways i hope this vote provided a clear indication of who won the debate :)
In order to award conduct points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
(a) Provide specific references to instances of poor conduct which occurred in the debate
(b) 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
(c) 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).
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: {username} // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 6 points to pro for arguments, sources, and conduct
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
(1) Arguments are not sufficiently explained. In order to award arguments, the voter must:
(a) Survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate
(b) Weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself)
(c) 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) Sources are not sufficient. In order to award sources, the voter must
(a) Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate
(b) 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
(c) Must explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's
Better conduct
Con spent a considerable portion of the debate arguing about the rules and round structure of the debate he agreed to be in. For example round 4 was outlined to include a one paragraph voting issues section; in round 4 pro outlined his voting issues to which Con replied: “Appealing to the voters. hmmm. Yeah I guess I would do that too if I had weak arguments.” Not only is this unnecessarily obnoxious, but it’s just downright confusing. Why is he surprised by this if it is in the round structure? Con was aggressive throughout the debate, making rude comments such as the one above and things like “You mean pseudo science.” Con’s rounds were difficult to read due to the excessive rudeness.
1 point to pro
Arguments, sources, and conduct clearly go to pro. I could understand how other people would tie the spelling and grammar if their criteria is that the debate is still coherent enough to be understood. But for me, Pro’s use of quotations for rebuttals, clearly laid out initial argument, and proper spelling and grammar makes him deserve the point over Con. Feel free to ask me for more input if you want on any of these points.
Better arguments
Pro’s evolutionary argument that women look for traits of a man that solve several of her needs was persuasive and matched up with the current scientific evidence he presented. Instead of Con creating arguments for his position to meet his bop, he spent the entire debate in rebuttal mode even though the debate structure and rounds were clearly outlined in round 1. Pro pointed this out and oddly enough con still did not choose to make any arguments for his side. Con made a couple flailing attempts to undermine science itself, which was easily dismissed by Pro as not the focus of the debate. As another voter pointed out, Con used tons of rhetorical questions instead of making an effort to form an argument.
3 points to pro
Better sources
Pro cited over a dozen sources from studies, websites, and books. Con cited no sources in the debate sense. He used many personal anecdotes like the “rotten beef a roni” friend and his n=1 of his wife’s 2-3 reasons for being with him. 2 points to pro
Better spelling and grammar
Con made too many spelling and grammar errors to enumerate, but the most annoying one was when he frequently misspelled ‘women’ when referring to a single woman. Another example of weird grammar that made the debate harder to read: “Moving on. When you bring up weaknesses. There is a flaw in your plan.” Con’s writing seemed to be from phone dictation rather than typing. Pro laid things out in a readable way, especially when using the quotation feature for rebuttals and I couldn’t find any horrible misspellings or grammar issues. 1 point to Pro
The Pro has shown (Mostly through smell) the science of physical attraction to the body and phermones, however the burden of proof to prove attraction would also invoke emotions and other concepts into the fray, his own sources do not cover the entirety of his debate, nor did he prove that those who are autistic have less attraction than those who do not. however con provided no sources either so i am giving that to both. I'm taking away conduct because of the insistence of Pro's burden of proof and appealing to voters.
Pro's point is that through understanding physical attraction we can conclude that specialization in activity is often to the downfall of those who seek to be attracted to.
Con points out the subtility of attraction is often not as varied or as exclusive as Pro concludes
Pro's point is that through the shown methods that there is MORE attraction, however there is no proof given that all these factors conclude to more attraction other than his link regarding odor and how wealth increases attraction.
Con affirms holistic strategy is not conclusive form for appealing to attraction.
In general I agree the burden of proof is not shared in this debate, despite set up and appeal by pro. I would suggest there be more evidence to conclude dating strategy and to investigate emotional attraction by pro.
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Melcharaz // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 4 points to con for arguments and conduct
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 Specifically in this case the argument is sufficient, though the conduct point is not. In order to award conduct point, the voter must:
(a) Provide specific references to instances of poor conduct which occurred in the debate
(b) 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
(c) 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).
Points awarded: 5 points to con for argument and sources
RFD:
Con make it clear the potential and value of life where as pro seemed to dismiss intelligence and sentience in upholding the ideal of life.
Con provided scientific journal and other sources that supported non abortion while pro simply linked more popular websites as to why abortion is complicated and often bad, his first source actually shows conciousness and memory in 5 month old babies.
Both had acceptable grammar and spelling, though i would say that pro is more blunt in his under taking
Both had acceptable conduct.
Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the requirements set forth by the COC found here https://www.debateart.com/rules
(1) In order to award arguments points, the voter must:
(a) Survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate
(b) Weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself)
(c) 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) To award sources, the voter must:
(a) Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate
(b) 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
c) 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.
Points awarded: 4 points to con for argument and conduct
RFD:
For morality to be objective, moral propositions such as "Killing is bad","Stealing is bad", etc... need to be true independently of the person who is stating them.
Con correctly states the basis of subjective morality and argues with con about feelings regarding morals and morality. I feel Con could have come out clearer in support of Objective morality if he applied utiliarianism and argued more concerning the law, which pro makes a brief passing in but dismisses it in lumping it in with subjective morality.
Pro's example of murder and rape was rather extreme.
Both have good spelling and conduct, though i would argue con seemed more passionate in his expressions.
Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the requirements set forth by the COC found here https://www.debateart.com/rules
(1) In order to award arguments points, the voter must:
(a) Survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate
(b) Weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself)
(c) 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) To award conduct, the voter must:
(a) Provide specific references to instances of poor conduct which occurred in the debate
(b) 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
(c) Compare each debater's conduct from the debate
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: MrMaestro // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 2 points to pro for sources and 1 point to con for conduct
RFD:
Conduct:
I feal like Pro was "Moving the Goalposts". They changed the terms of the debate half way through, and they refused to debate alternatives to Capitalism. It feel that Pro was arguing in bad faith.
It wasn't clear to me as a judge that discussing alternatives to Capitalism should be off the table. Con had the burden of proof, however an argument by elimination is still a valid argument.Con argued that non-capitalist societies are worse off environmentally. Therefore, comparing the environmental state of non-capitalist countries to capitalist countries makes sense.
>Reason for Mod Action: Conduct is sufficiently explained, though sources are not. In order to award sources, the voter is required to compare the sources. The voter needs to explain how the sources were relevant to the debate. This requires that the voter explain how the sources impacted the debate, directly assessing the strength of at least one source, and explaining how it either strengthened or weakened the argument it was utilized for
***********************************************************************
Points awarded: 3 points to pro for arguments, 2 sources to con for sources
RFD:
Con cited more sources than pro did, therefore con should win on sources. However in terms of arguments, while con did make decent arguments, pro refuted every single one of them using common sense with a few examples.
Reason for Mod Action: The voter fails to meet the requirements set forth by the COC found here https://www.debateart.com/rules
(1) In order to award an argument point, the voter must:
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) In order to award a source point, the voter must:
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
The key is qulality, not quantity. Even if one side fails to use sources, one still needs to explain why the other sources are important and matter to the debate.
The voter fails to do this thus his vote is removed.
Vote Reported: Wrick-it-Ralph // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 3 point to pro for arguments, 2 points to con for sources, and 1 point to con for conduct
RFD: See above
Reason for mod action:
(1) In order to award argument point, the voter must:
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
2) Sources are insufficiently explained. In order to award sources, the voter must:
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
The voter fails to do these things thus is removed
Vote Reported: Wrick-it-Ralph // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 2 points to pro for sources and 1 point for conduct
RFD:
I found that neither side presented sufficient evidence. Pro was basically playing a zero sum game that gave a tie in this section at best. Con did not take the proper steps to show that there was an understanding of the term in question "socialism". Con simply quoted a definition several times verbatim. This does not show an understand. Con would have simply had to provide a few basic examples of the word socialism in a sentence and this debate would have been an easy vote for me.
Pro provided relevant sources and Con provided zero sources.
Reason for mod action:
(1) In order to award a source point, the voter must:
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
(2) The conduct point is sufficient.
The voter fails to do this thus his vote is removed.
Vote Reported: Wrick-it-Ralph // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 2 sources to pro for sources
RFD: Neither said made sufficient arguments. Con did not rule out enough alternatives and Pro grounded the argument in a slippery slope fallacy.
Con gets this by default because pro did not provide any sources
Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the requirements set forth by the COC found here https://www.debateart.com/rules
(2) In order to award a source point, the voter must:
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
The key is qulality, not quantity. Even if one side fails to use sources, one still needs to explain why the other sources are important and matter to the debate.
The voter fails to do this thus his vote is removed.
Vote Reported: Wrick-it-Ralph // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 5 points to con for arguments and sources, 1 point to con for conduct
RFD: Con's argument had logical entailment and was at least reasonable. Pro went on a tangent and glossed over the real issue. Con was mostly composed but start to lose track of conduct later in the argument. Con won on sources by default because Pro only presented a BOP definition and a link to the flat earth society, which is a bias source.
Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the requirements set forth by the COC found here https://www.debateart.com/rules
(1) In order to award arguments points, the voter must:
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
(2) In order to award a source point, the voter must:
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
(3) In order to award conduct, the voter must:
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
The voter fails to do this thus his vote is removed.
Vote Reported: Wrick-it-Ralph // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 3 points to con for arguments
RFD: Sources were robust on both sides. All attacks made were to ideas, not people, so I call good conduct on this.
As for arguments. Pro spent most of the debate jumping off of the lily pads that Con was slapping into the water. Con stuck to the initial topic by keeping to arrests. Pro seemed to want more ground as the debate went on even though Pro's current grounding was already unjustified. Brining the justice system into the topic after the fact was pro's critical mistake. If pro had stuck to the initial topic, it would have been easy to make a practical appeal against direct arrests and Con had even left room for this during the debate. Ultimately, Con's conclusion seemed to handle the problem in the most efficient way. Con's best argument was demonstrating that their is a real element of danger in choosing not to arrest someone at the wrong time. A night in jail keeps everyone alive at the end of the day no matter how it goes down afterwards. Good debate.
Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the requirements set forth by the COC found here https://www.debateart.com/rules
In order to award arguments points, the voter must:
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
The voter fails to do this thus his vote is removed.
Vote Reported: Wrick-it-Ralph // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 3 points to pro for arguments
RFD: Pro's assessment of using subjective assessments to extrapolate facts about human interaction was ultimately a more convincing argument. Normally I'd be more inclined to go the other way on this subject, but Con did not appear to provide a convincing foundation that would hold objective morality nor was it explain how morality was necessarily objective.
Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the requirements set forth by the COC found here https://www.debateart.com/rules
In order to award arguments points, the voter must:
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
The voter fails to do this thus his vote is removed.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Bazza97125 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to pro for arguments and 2 points to con for sources
>RFD: The reason I voted for pro having more convincing arguments he rebutted all cons arguments, but con has way more evidence to back up what he was saying.
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote fails to adhear to the standards set forth in the code of conduct found here https://www.debateart.com/rules.
(1) In order to award the argument point, the voter must do the following: (a) Survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate; (b) Weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself); and (c) Explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points. The voter does neither of these things.
(2) In order to award the source point, the voter must: (a) Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate; (b) 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; and (c) Must explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's. The voter does none of these things
**********************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: KingArthur // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to con for arguments
>RFD:
I think CON did a much better job at showing that Cro Magnons were not superior to modern day homo sapiens. Overall it was a decent debate on both sides.
PRO did not do enough to carry the assertion that Cro Magnons are indeed superior to humans. He struggled to overcome the burden of proof in this manner.
Wikipedia was rampant on both sides which I see as an issue for such a scientific topic however, PRO used some better legitimate sources (though not by much).
Conduct and grammar were a tie, nothing special there.
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote fails to adhear to the standards set forth in the code of conduct found here https://www.debateart.com/rules.
(1) In order to award the argument point, the voter must do the following: (a) Survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate; (b) Weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself); and (c) Explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points. The voter does neither of these things.
**********************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: justincole // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 6 points to con for arguments, sources, and conduct
>RFD: Our_boat_is_right provided unbias source while Armorecat provided bias source and unreliable source like vox and wikii
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote fails to adhear to the standards set forth in the code of conduct found here https://www.debateart.com/rules.
(1) In order to award the argument point, the voter must do the following: (a) Survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate; (b) Weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself); and (c) Explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points. The voter does neither of these things.
(2) In order to award sources, the voter must:
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
The voter fails to do this.
(3) In order to award conduct point, the voter must
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
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Raltar // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 3 points to con for arguments
RFD:
Wow, this was a very professional, fierce and well executed debate on both sides. Both sides made excellent use of sources and formatted their arguments in a very professional way. Ultimately, I can only agree with Con because his closing statement highlights the key flaw in Pro's argument. When Pro claims that semi-automatic rifles aren't superior to handguns or shotguns, he ignores the obvious tactical differences between these weapons, as well as the fact pointed out by Con that more crimes are committed with handguns than rifles.
Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the standards set forth by the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
*******************************************************************
That’s a debate unto itself
No problem. I wish I’d have realized it was 2 day to respond and not 3. I felt it would be poor conduct to argue in this round
(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. 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).
(3) The Spelling and Grammar point is not sufficient. In order to award spelling and grammar (S&G) points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Give specific examples of S&G errors
Explain how these errors were excessive
Compare each debater's S&G from the debate
S&G errors are considered excessive when they render arguments incoherent or incomprehensible.
(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: Speedrace // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 2 points to pro for sources and 1 point to con for conduct
RFD: This was very interesting. Pro obviously gets sources. However, Con easily gets conduct. Pro specifically stated in the description that HE had the burden of proof, but then tries to shift it to being shared. That's dishonest debating. He also cusses twice in his rounds, and he inappropriately tries to correct Con's grammar (even though his isn't much better). Con was a little disrespectful in his last round, but Pro was much more so. As to the arguments, Pro definitely had good points and backed them up, but I feel that he didn't respond to Con's arguments very much. I would have given it to Con if he had used sources, but he ended up not doing so.
Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the standards set forth by the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
*******************************************************************
(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. 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: Speedrace // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 6 points to con for arguments, sources, and conduct
RFD: I feel like Pro spent a lot of time straw-manning Con's arguments. Con clearly stated his position and evidence and Pro wouldn't back off. I only wish that Con had pointed that out more. In addition, Pro criticizes Con for using scientific sources to support his position, but then turns around and says that since they're not 100% correct, they must support his position (or at least not support either side). However, it is obvious to the voter that since these studies are comprehensive, we can take what they say as the truth, because we can't function if we walk around in life not knowing everything 100%. Pro also insulted Con a few times, which is inappropriate.
Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the standards set forth by the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Alanwang123 // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 4 points to pro for arguments and conduct, 2 points to con for sources and grammar
RFD: I feel like it
Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the standards set forth by the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Alanwang123 // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 4 points to con for arguments and conduct
RFD: Reason: Con produced better reasons and arguments to why babies shouldn't be killed.
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.
(2) 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: Alanwang123 // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 7 point tie
RFD: It just feels like the right thing to do.
Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the standards set forth by the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
Even when you elect to tie the debate, a discussion on the arguments is still needed as to why the debate should be a tie
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Alanwang123 // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 7 points to pro
RFD: It just feels like the right thing to do.
Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the standards set forth by the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
*******************************************************************
Conduct: Pro (Con goes off-topic by passive-aggressively asking Con whether he is “happily married”, regularly asks rhetorical questions “right?”, “No evidence huh?”, “You mean Pseudoscience “ and is confrontational in general “Oh no. You're not dodging this one.”, “Oh, you're a dating coach. Well I guess you have a bias towards this topic then right?”, “Appealing to the voters. hmmm. Yeah I guess I would do that too if I had weak arguments.”. Finally he acknowledges his “harsh” debating style and Pro’s good conduct: “I know I was harsh, but that's my style. Good debate to my well conducted opponent.”)
I wrote more thorough reasons for my voting decision but since Con's rebuttal and final round were thoroughly disappointing, I don't feel like I've got anything good to say about them, loved Pro's opening round though. Feel free to ask about any further justification of points awarded. It is beyond my comprehension how the other voters awarded the points while neglecting Con's consistently toxic tone, incoherent arguments, abundance of unnecessary rhetorical questions to dismiss arguments rather than elaborating why he believes them to be flawed and ad hominem attacks rather than focus on the debate [alluding to Pro's job and marriage].
Arguments: Pro (Pro’s Evolutionary Model and Scientific Data model are both successful [supported by evidence such as citations and studies and provided with sufficient examples such as bad hygiene negatively affecting sexual market value and autistic savants being considered generally unattractive] and logically coherent [The conclusions follow from the premises] while Con’s first and second argument are contradicted by the scientific data cited in Pro’s second argument [i.e. Pro showed that there are methods of reliably determining mate preferences such as using "Vaginal photoplethysmography"] and his third argument is a non-sequitur which is later pointed out by Pro “A man's knowledge and awareness of what strategies he is using to attract a woman is irrelevant to how the women experience them and also irrelevant to the debate, because we are debating what women are attracted to and we are not debating whether or not the men are aware of the concentration of androstenol in their sweat, their social status, or the pitch of their voice.”)
Sources: Pro (Human cited scientific literature and academic books, Ralph neglected to cite a single source even after Pro pointed this out in round 3).
S&G: Pro (Human structured his text neatly, remained on topic and made no significant S&G errors, Ralph devoted a significant portion of the debate off-topic subjects [such as whether Pro is happily married, his own marriage and at least ten unnecessary rhetorical questions] , his second argument is hard to distinguish from his first [except for the added appeal to a shared BoP] and there were S&G errors that made reading difficult throughout the debate [e.g. “woman” was constantly used instead of “women”, sentence starters are regularly not capitalised which decreases the flow “furthermore”, “whenever”…]
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: {username} // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 7 points to pro
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
(1) Sources are not sufficiently explained. In order to award source point, the voter must:
(a) Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate
(b) 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
(c) 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.
This vote does not do these three
Everything else seems fine IMO
******************************************************************
RFD ok so I just read the rules for voting and they seem pretty straightforward. I am kinda on the pro side so i may be a tad bias however regardless here's my vote. Reliable sources should go to pro since one of Cons youtube sources was bias on the subject, and his other sources he didnt incorporate into his arguments very much. Although I did like the way he sited them by numbering them. con also didnt provide a source about how the majority of abortions happen after 5 months. Conduct goes to Pro since Con avoided the questions pro asked. for example, pro asked " So you would rather see a young girl be raped and be forced to give birth to a fetus which may or may not damage her physically and mentally than to see an organism that most likely isn't sentient yet to be terminated?" And than all con said was pull a red herring and start talking about how the baby shouldnt be punished. pro very obviously put con inside of a trap so con pulled a red herring. Arguments easily goes to pro. Pro kept debunked cons argument on existence by talking about how " are you against people unintentionally killing micro bacteria cells daily, mothers not fertilizing eggs, or men masturbating and their sperms cease to exist as a result?," con never answered this question. what was even funnier was seeing con in the comment section trying to squirm away from the question lol. con also conceeded on safety nets by agreeing to pros statement. all and all this was a pretty poor debate on cons part, as pro stated in the debate that the way society works is " legal until proven illegal," con didnt provide any good reason to outlaw abortion aside from a few contexts. anyways i hope this vote provided a clear indication of who won the debate :)
Continued from above
In order to award conduct points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
(a) Provide specific references to instances of poor conduct which occurred in the debate
(b) 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
(c) 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).
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: {username} // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 6 points to pro for arguments, sources, and conduct
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
(1) Arguments are not sufficiently explained. In order to award arguments, the voter must:
(a) Survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate
(b) Weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself)
(c) 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) Sources are not sufficient. In order to award sources, the voter must
(a) Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate
(b) 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
(c) Must explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's
*******************************************************************
Better conduct
Con spent a considerable portion of the debate arguing about the rules and round structure of the debate he agreed to be in. For example round 4 was outlined to include a one paragraph voting issues section; in round 4 pro outlined his voting issues to which Con replied: “Appealing to the voters. hmmm. Yeah I guess I would do that too if I had weak arguments.” Not only is this unnecessarily obnoxious, but it’s just downright confusing. Why is he surprised by this if it is in the round structure? Con was aggressive throughout the debate, making rude comments such as the one above and things like “You mean pseudo science.” Con’s rounds were difficult to read due to the excessive rudeness.
1 point to pro
Arguments, sources, and conduct clearly go to pro. I could understand how other people would tie the spelling and grammar if their criteria is that the debate is still coherent enough to be understood. But for me, Pro’s use of quotations for rebuttals, clearly laid out initial argument, and proper spelling and grammar makes him deserve the point over Con. Feel free to ask me for more input if you want on any of these points.
Better arguments
Pro’s evolutionary argument that women look for traits of a man that solve several of her needs was persuasive and matched up with the current scientific evidence he presented. Instead of Con creating arguments for his position to meet his bop, he spent the entire debate in rebuttal mode even though the debate structure and rounds were clearly outlined in round 1. Pro pointed this out and oddly enough con still did not choose to make any arguments for his side. Con made a couple flailing attempts to undermine science itself, which was easily dismissed by Pro as not the focus of the debate. As another voter pointed out, Con used tons of rhetorical questions instead of making an effort to form an argument.
3 points to pro
Better sources
Pro cited over a dozen sources from studies, websites, and books. Con cited no sources in the debate sense. He used many personal anecdotes like the “rotten beef a roni” friend and his n=1 of his wife’s 2-3 reasons for being with him. 2 points to pro
Better spelling and grammar
Con made too many spelling and grammar errors to enumerate, but the most annoying one was when he frequently misspelled ‘women’ when referring to a single woman. Another example of weird grammar that made the debate harder to read: “Moving on. When you bring up weaknesses. There is a flaw in your plan.” Con’s writing seemed to be from phone dictation rather than typing. Pro laid things out in a readable way, especially when using the quotation feature for rebuttals and I couldn’t find any horrible misspellings or grammar issues. 1 point to Pro
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: ViennaSausage // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded:
RFD: See above
Reason for mod action: This voter is not permitted to vote on this debate
*******************************************************************
Good enough. Thanks!
The Pro has shown (Mostly through smell) the science of physical attraction to the body and phermones, however the burden of proof to prove attraction would also invoke emotions and other concepts into the fray, his own sources do not cover the entirety of his debate, nor did he prove that those who are autistic have less attraction than those who do not. however con provided no sources either so i am giving that to both. I'm taking away conduct because of the insistence of Pro's burden of proof and appealing to voters.
Pro's point is that through understanding physical attraction we can conclude that specialization in activity is often to the downfall of those who seek to be attracted to.
Con points out the subtility of attraction is often not as varied or as exclusive as Pro concludes
Pro's point is that through the shown methods that there is MORE attraction, however there is no proof given that all these factors conclude to more attraction other than his link regarding odor and how wealth increases attraction.
Con affirms holistic strategy is not conclusive form for appealing to attraction.
In general I agree the burden of proof is not shared in this debate, despite set up and appeal by pro. I would suggest there be more evidence to conclude dating strategy and to investigate emotional attraction by pro.
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Melcharaz // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 4 points to con for arguments and conduct
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 Specifically in this case the argument is sufficient, though the conduct point is not. In order to award conduct point, the voter must:
(a) Provide specific references to instances of poor conduct which occurred in the debate
(b) 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
(c) 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).
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: killshot // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 7 points to con
RFD: It was over in the first round.
Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the standards set forth by the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Melcharaz // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 5 points to con for argument and sources
RFD:
Con make it clear the potential and value of life where as pro seemed to dismiss intelligence and sentience in upholding the ideal of life.
Con provided scientific journal and other sources that supported non abortion while pro simply linked more popular websites as to why abortion is complicated and often bad, his first source actually shows conciousness and memory in 5 month old babies.
Both had acceptable grammar and spelling, though i would say that pro is more blunt in his under taking
Both had acceptable conduct.
Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the requirements set forth by the COC found here https://www.debateart.com/rules
(1) In order to award arguments points, the voter must:
(a) Survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate
(b) Weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself)
(c) 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) To award sources, the voter must:
(a) Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate
(b) 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
c) 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: 4 points to con for argument and conduct
RFD:
For morality to be objective, moral propositions such as "Killing is bad","Stealing is bad", etc... need to be true independently of the person who is stating them.
Con correctly states the basis of subjective morality and argues with con about feelings regarding morals and morality. I feel Con could have come out clearer in support of Objective morality if he applied utiliarianism and argued more concerning the law, which pro makes a brief passing in but dismisses it in lumping it in with subjective morality.
Pro's example of murder and rape was rather extreme.
Both have good spelling and conduct, though i would argue con seemed more passionate in his expressions.
Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the requirements set forth by the COC found here https://www.debateart.com/rules
(1) In order to award arguments points, the voter must:
(a) Survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate
(b) Weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself)
(c) 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) To award conduct, the voter must:
(a) Provide specific references to instances of poor conduct which occurred in the debate
(b) 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
(c) Compare each debater's conduct from the debate
Vote Reported: Ramshutu // Mod Action: Not Removed
Reason for decision: This vote is sufficent
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: MrMaestro // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 2 points to pro for sources and 1 point to con for conduct
RFD:
Conduct:
I feal like Pro was "Moving the Goalposts". They changed the terms of the debate half way through, and they refused to debate alternatives to Capitalism. It feel that Pro was arguing in bad faith.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts
It wasn't clear to me as a judge that discussing alternatives to Capitalism should be off the table. Con had the burden of proof, however an argument by elimination is still a valid argument.Con argued that non-capitalist societies are worse off environmentally. Therefore, comparing the environmental state of non-capitalist countries to capitalist countries makes sense.
>Reason for Mod Action: Conduct is sufficiently explained, though sources are not. In order to award sources, the voter is required to compare the sources. The voter needs to explain how the sources were relevant to the debate. This requires that the voter explain how the sources impacted the debate, directly assessing the strength of at least one source, and explaining how it either strengthened or weakened the argument it was utilized for
***********************************************************************
Report Voted: Melcharaz // Mod Action: Not Removed
Reason for mod decision: This vote is sufficient
Vote Reported: Pinkfreud08 // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 3 points to pro for arguments, 2 sources to con for sources
RFD:
Con cited more sources than pro did, therefore con should win on sources. However in terms of arguments, while con did make decent arguments, pro refuted every single one of them using common sense with a few examples.
Reason for Mod Action: The voter fails to meet the requirements set forth by the COC found here https://www.debateart.com/rules
(1) In order to award an argument point, the voter must:
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) In order to award a source point, the voter must:
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
The key is qulality, not quantity. Even if one side fails to use sources, one still needs to explain why the other sources are important and matter to the debate.
The voter fails to do this thus his vote is removed.
Vote Reported: Wrick-it-Ralph // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 3 point to pro for arguments, 2 points to con for sources, and 1 point to con for conduct
RFD: See above
Reason for mod action:
(1) In order to award argument point, the voter must:
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
2) Sources are insufficiently explained. In order to award sources, the voter must:
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
The voter fails to do these things thus is removed
Vote Reported: Wrick-it-Ralph // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 2 points to pro for sources and 1 point for conduct
RFD:
I found that neither side presented sufficient evidence. Pro was basically playing a zero sum game that gave a tie in this section at best. Con did not take the proper steps to show that there was an understanding of the term in question "socialism". Con simply quoted a definition several times verbatim. This does not show an understand. Con would have simply had to provide a few basic examples of the word socialism in a sentence and this debate would have been an easy vote for me.
Pro provided relevant sources and Con provided zero sources.
Reason for mod action:
(1) In order to award a source point, the voter must:
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
(2) The conduct point is sufficient.
The voter fails to do this thus his vote is removed.
Vote Reported: Wrick-it-Ralph // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 2 sources to pro for sources
RFD: Neither said made sufficient arguments. Con did not rule out enough alternatives and Pro grounded the argument in a slippery slope fallacy.
Con gets this by default because pro did not provide any sources
Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the requirements set forth by the COC found here https://www.debateart.com/rules
(2) In order to award a source point, the voter must:
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
The key is qulality, not quantity. Even if one side fails to use sources, one still needs to explain why the other sources are important and matter to the debate.
The voter fails to do this thus his vote is removed.
Vote Reported: Wrick-it-Ralph // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 5 points to con for arguments and sources, 1 point to con for conduct
RFD: Con's argument had logical entailment and was at least reasonable. Pro went on a tangent and glossed over the real issue. Con was mostly composed but start to lose track of conduct later in the argument. Con won on sources by default because Pro only presented a BOP definition and a link to the flat earth society, which is a bias source.
Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the requirements set forth by the COC found here https://www.debateart.com/rules
(1) In order to award arguments points, the voter must:
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
(2) In order to award a source point, the voter must:
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
(3) In order to award conduct, the voter must:
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
The voter fails to do this thus his vote is removed.
Vote Reported: Wrick-it-Ralph // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 3 points to con for arguments
RFD: Sources were robust on both sides. All attacks made were to ideas, not people, so I call good conduct on this.
As for arguments. Pro spent most of the debate jumping off of the lily pads that Con was slapping into the water. Con stuck to the initial topic by keeping to arrests. Pro seemed to want more ground as the debate went on even though Pro's current grounding was already unjustified. Brining the justice system into the topic after the fact was pro's critical mistake. If pro had stuck to the initial topic, it would have been easy to make a practical appeal against direct arrests and Con had even left room for this during the debate. Ultimately, Con's conclusion seemed to handle the problem in the most efficient way. Con's best argument was demonstrating that their is a real element of danger in choosing not to arrest someone at the wrong time. A night in jail keeps everyone alive at the end of the day no matter how it goes down afterwards. Good debate.
Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the requirements set forth by the COC found here https://www.debateart.com/rules
In order to award arguments points, the voter must:
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
The voter fails to do this thus his vote is removed.
Vote Reported: Wrick-it-Ralph // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 3 points to pro for arguments
RFD: Pro's assessment of using subjective assessments to extrapolate facts about human interaction was ultimately a more convincing argument. Normally I'd be more inclined to go the other way on this subject, but Con did not appear to provide a convincing foundation that would hold objective morality nor was it explain how morality was necessarily objective.
Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the requirements set forth by the COC found here https://www.debateart.com/rules
In order to award arguments points, the voter must:
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
The voter fails to do this thus his vote is removed.
1) ROFL = Rolling on the floor laughing
2) I honestly have no clue....
Your conduct was fine. I believe he's being sarcastic.
They're called arm sleeves
Rofl
I’d rather debate the whether Judaism or Islam is true
Anytime my friend
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Bazza97125 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to pro for arguments and 2 points to con for sources
>RFD: The reason I voted for pro having more convincing arguments he rebutted all cons arguments, but con has way more evidence to back up what he was saying.
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote fails to adhear to the standards set forth in the code of conduct found here https://www.debateart.com/rules.
(1) In order to award the argument point, the voter must do the following: (a) Survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate; (b) Weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself); and (c) Explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points. The voter does neither of these things.
(2) In order to award the source point, the voter must: (a) Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate; (b) 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; and (c) Must explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's. The voter does none of these things
**********************************************************************
Vote reported: ArgentTongue // Mod Decision: Not Removed
Reason for mod decision: Vote is sufficient per the standards
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: KingArthur // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to con for arguments
>RFD:
I think CON did a much better job at showing that Cro Magnons were not superior to modern day homo sapiens. Overall it was a decent debate on both sides.
PRO did not do enough to carry the assertion that Cro Magnons are indeed superior to humans. He struggled to overcome the burden of proof in this manner.
Wikipedia was rampant on both sides which I see as an issue for such a scientific topic however, PRO used some better legitimate sources (though not by much).
Conduct and grammar were a tie, nothing special there.
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote fails to adhear to the standards set forth in the code of conduct found here https://www.debateart.com/rules.
(1) In order to award the argument point, the voter must do the following: (a) Survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate; (b) Weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself); and (c) Explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points. The voter does neither of these things.
**********************************************************************
Hey I removed your voting privileges when I removed the vote. I meant to send you a PM but I got behind. I’ll send you a PM soon. Welcome to the site
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: justincole // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 6 points to con for arguments, sources, and conduct
>RFD: Our_boat_is_right provided unbias source while Armorecat provided bias source and unreliable source like vox and wikii
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote fails to adhear to the standards set forth in the code of conduct found here https://www.debateart.com/rules.
(1) In order to award the argument point, the voter must do the following: (a) Survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate; (b) Weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself); and (c) Explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points. The voter does neither of these things.
(2) In order to award sources, the voter must:
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
The voter fails to do this.
(3) In order to award conduct point, the voter must
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
The voter fails to do this.
**********************************************************************