*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: SupaDudz // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Pro for arguments and conduct
>Reason for Decision: CON conduct is awful and PRO answers with better claims.
>Reason for Mod Action: The conduct point is not sufficient. The voter needs to cite at least a forfeit or examples of extreme breechb of conduct in order to award this point. The argument point is insufficient. The voter needs to survey the main arguments, analyze those arguments to determine who won each, or weigh the main arguments to determine a winner. In order to cast a sufficient ballot
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ragnar // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to con for arguments
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: oromagi // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points to con for arguments and sources
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Alec // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Pro for arguments and conduct
>Reason for Decision: Con forfeit. This is poor arguing and poor conduct..
>Reason for Mod Action: The conduct point is sufficient, however because con did not full forfeit, the voter still needs to survey the main arguments, analyze those arguments to determine who won each, or weigh the main arguments to determine a winner. In order to cast a sufficient ballot
************************************************************************
Vote report: Alec // Mod action: Removed
Score: 1 point to pro for conduct
RFD: RM said, "Occam's Razor slice your neck, boom dead bye.". This is poor conduct.
Reason: Citing one example of poor conduct isn't enough to vote soley on conduct in a non-FF debate.
Vote reported: Death23 // Mod action: removed
Votes: All points tied
RFD: 1234567890
Reason for mod removal: Tied votes without RFDs are removed. To award a tie on a debate that is neither FF nor when they agree on a tie, the voter still needs to evaluate the arguments at minimum.
Vote report: joeyscarpa101 // Mod Action: Removed
Votes: 6 points to Pro for arguments, sources, and conduct
RFD:
While I agree with the negative position "That Islam is not a religion of peace", the affirmative did a better job of structuring their arguments and providing sources.
Sharia Law was the best argument that the negative made (and if he had gotten further into the situation in Europe, he would have had the affirmative hard pressed to respond. Actions do speak louder than words).
The affirmative quoted the Quran which is the official teachings of Islam and provided fairly balanced interpretations without cherrypicking too much.
I would have liked to see a definition of the whole term "religion of peace". If either side had defined it, the debate could have taken a much different turn.
Excellent debate!
Reasons for removal: (1) conduct is not explained. In order to award conduct one side must have forfeited one or more rounds or were excessively rude. The voter must give examples of excessive rudeness, which they do not do; (2) sources are insufficient. To award sources you must compare the quality of sources between the two debaters and evaluate why one side had higher quality sources; (3) finally the argument point is insufficient. The voter does not survey the main arguments, analyze those arguments to determine who won each, or weigh the main arguments to determine a winner. In order to cast a sufficient ballot, the voter should do all three of these things.
It is clearly a moderator directive for both of you to stop responding to each other in the comment section, but I fail to see how that is a public shaming.
e
"TBH my primary concern here is that these judgments will somehow influence the outcome of the debate"
Since it is directed at both of you, I doubt such an event will happen. If you believe it does, please PM me.
Also, I'm telling you both of you guys right now that I will NOT be voting on this debate.
I know you'll probably argue that everything has been genetically modified, but I hope you also touch up on the importance of stuff like what they do at Monsanto et al. Biotechnology is super important
Vote reported: WisdomofAges
Mod: Removed
RFD (full 7 points to pro): ISLAM has a proven record of ATROCITIES against humanity....try doing the same with the Hare Krishna....not going to happen...the Koran is another
Glorified Comic Book farce used as a TOOL for assimilation and VIOLENCE towards all that do not accept its idiocy on how to think and exist...
The instigator points out the flaws within this fabricated "GOD" spun from the JEW Moses playbook.....absurd....that anyone falls for this garbage...
so childish and petty....what one would expect from another wandering tribal lunatic in the Middle East desert meets GOD hoax...
Reason for removal: The voter fails to survey the main arguments, conduct, grammar, and appears to vote for the wrong side.
Vote Report: Chopsphene // Removed
RFD: Mopac had better arguments and sources, spelling and conduct is a tie.
Reason: Voter fails to explain all points
Vote report: BillHowitzer
Mod Decision: Removed
RFD: Con's argument lacks any substance. Mopac's appeal to the dictionary is a valid point. If con wants to discredit the validity of the dictionary, then how do we know what any words that con used meant?
Reason: The voter fails to explain all points
Vote report: Jboy3r
Mod: Removed
RFD: Con made a very convincing argument but pro had better spelling and grammar.
Reason: None of these are explained properly
Vote report: zedvictor4
Mod decision: Removed
RFD (con arguments, pro sources spelling and conduct): Typical theist rhetoric based argument, lacking any real substance or evidence. But otherwise Pro's presentation was far superior, especially with regard to conduct.
Reason: Nothing is explained properly
Vote Report: Alec
Mod decision: Removed
RFD (con arguments pro conduct): Con made convincing arguments in the final round even though your supposed to do this in prior rounds. He also forfeit a round which is poor conduct.
Reaosn: Arguments are not explained properly. The conduct point is fine
Vote Report: stvitus
Mod decision: Removed
RFD: Full 7 points to pro (see below)
Reason for mod decision: There is a lot wrong with this vote. Frist and foremost the grammar point is insufficiently explained. To award s/g one the debate arguments must be so bad that the readability is compromised. Second the conduct point is insufficiently explained. Third the arguments are insufficent. The voter fails to survey the main arguments by ignoring some of the key points while adding things that were not said in the debate.
Moeology is the clear winner here, and I look forward to hearing his perspective in future debates. Pro [RationalMadman] confused the debate by stubbornly insisting to refer to Con as Pro (but nonetheless did not succeed in tricking me into voting for him rather than Moeology); ignored the historical context of the verses he cited; cynically and antagonistically anticipated Con’s responses; focused on extremist terrorist groups and political conflict rather than the Qur’an as read by practicing Muslims around the world, including Con; commenced his argument by making unsubstantiated claims about Islam (NO sources); disregarded Con’s final distinctions in Round 1; misconstrued (possibly intentionally) Con’s reference to World War II; entered debate with a blatant prejudice against adherents of any faith, making an “appeal to authority” to pop philosopher Christopher Hitchens without establishing the truth value of “Hitchen’s razor,” among other fallacies pointed out by Con; entered debate with preconceptions not grounded in the religious texts of the faith and a total absence of knowledge about the body of texts which are relevant to Islamic practice and law and the different roles of each text; made several unsubstantiated generalizations, such as “Sharia Law is Fascism in every sense,” despite his obvious equation of Sharia law with outlier cases which are often disputed on the basis of differing Hadith; made broad historical claims without any sources whatsoever; failed to engage with Con’s arguments; held all practicing Muslims responsible for the crimes of a few tyrannical regimes and extremist individuals; etc. I could go on, but RationalMadman's tack here was all overwrought rhetoric with zero substance. Con was more prepared, more articulate, showed greater integrity in both engaging with Pro’s arguments and citing sources, and did not resort to rhetoric, polemics, or controversy in an attempt to “win.” As English is Con’s second language, his command of it i
Vote reported: Alec
Mod decision: Removed
RFD: Pro said, "but the risk he is talking about will be a risk no matter how long he waits". These risks will only increase as social media power increases. I personally don't care if Con asks her out or not as long as he doesn't do certain things during the relationship or any other relationship. Me mentioning them is a tangent.
If he gets rejected, oh well. He'll get over it. But what if she says yes? Then you get a girl.
reason: Alec fails to highlight and analyze the main arguments throughout the debate.
Yeah. If you look at my percentage of my entire 8+ year debate history, I have about a 47.41% win rate, which is about average especially considering my early debates were total shit
This is not a grudge vote.
Con didn't fulfill his BoP that well. Pro stated that Islam was peaceful. He provided some Quran quotes and rebuttaled some common counterexamples that he thought at the time Con would provide. There were many other uncited Quran verses that Con could have used that he did not directly use.
Sources:
For religious debates, I think citing the religious texts (the bible, the Quran, etc) are pretty reliable sources and more reliable then people's interpretation of them. People have biases on the bible and the bible does not have much bias on it's self. Pro cited a religious text and Con did not directly cite a religious text(in this case, the Quran).
Reason: The voter fails to highlight the main arguments of the debate and analyze them. Further he needs to go more in depth with source point
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: SupaDudz // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Pro for arguments and conduct
>Reason for Decision: CON conduct is awful and PRO answers with better claims.
>Reason for Mod Action: The conduct point is not sufficient. The voter needs to cite at least a forfeit or examples of extreme breechb of conduct in order to award this point. The argument point is insufficient. The voter needs to survey the main arguments, analyze those arguments to determine who won each, or weigh the main arguments to determine a winner. In order to cast a sufficient ballot
************************************************************************
But he argued in the other rounds, you need to take those arguments into consideration
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ragnar // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to con for arguments
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: oromagi // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points to con for arguments and sources
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Alec // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Pro for arguments and conduct
>Reason for Decision: Con forfeit. This is poor arguing and poor conduct..
>Reason for Mod Action: The conduct point is sufficient, however because con did not full forfeit, the voter still needs to survey the main arguments, analyze those arguments to determine who won each, or weigh the main arguments to determine a winner. In order to cast a sufficient ballot
************************************************************************
Vote report: Alec // Mod action: Removed
Score: 1 point to pro for conduct
RFD: RM said, "Occam's Razor slice your neck, boom dead bye.". This is poor conduct.
Reason: Citing one example of poor conduct isn't enough to vote soley on conduct in a non-FF debate.
Thanks for the feedback
Not a problem
Vote reported: Death23 // Mod action: removed
Votes: All points tied
RFD: 1234567890
Reason for mod removal: Tied votes without RFDs are removed. To award a tie on a debate that is neither FF nor when they agree on a tie, the voter still needs to evaluate the arguments at minimum.
Vote report: joeyscarpa101 // Mod Action: Removed
Votes: 6 points to Pro for arguments, sources, and conduct
RFD:
While I agree with the negative position "That Islam is not a religion of peace", the affirmative did a better job of structuring their arguments and providing sources.
Sharia Law was the best argument that the negative made (and if he had gotten further into the situation in Europe, he would have had the affirmative hard pressed to respond. Actions do speak louder than words).
The affirmative quoted the Quran which is the official teachings of Islam and provided fairly balanced interpretations without cherrypicking too much.
I would have liked to see a definition of the whole term "religion of peace". If either side had defined it, the debate could have taken a much different turn.
Excellent debate!
Reasons for removal: (1) conduct is not explained. In order to award conduct one side must have forfeited one or more rounds or were excessively rude. The voter must give examples of excessive rudeness, which they do not do; (2) sources are insufficient. To award sources you must compare the quality of sources between the two debaters and evaluate why one side had higher quality sources; (3) finally the argument point is insufficient. The voter does not survey the main arguments, analyze those arguments to determine who won each, or weigh the main arguments to determine a winner. In order to cast a sufficient ballot, the voter should do all three of these things.
While I disagree with you, I will be the first to offer a public apology if you feel that I was wrong. Same way with Magic.
It is clearly a moderator directive for both of you to stop responding to each other in the comment section, but I fail to see how that is a public shaming.
e
"TBH my primary concern here is that these judgments will somehow influence the outcome of the debate"
Since it is directed at both of you, I doubt such an event will happen. If you believe it does, please PM me.
Also, I'm telling you both of you guys right now that I will NOT be voting on this debate.
I'm not shaming either of you publicly. I am just asking you guys to please stop.
stop
Ooh this looks like this is gonna be good. :popcorn:
Hope you get a good opponent.
Thank you guys for your feedback!
You must have prophetic powers...
I know you'll probably argue that everything has been genetically modified, but I hope you also touch up on the importance of stuff like what they do at Monsanto et al. Biotechnology is super important
I was thinking about doing a debate on this. I fully support GMOs and run a few GMO pages on facebook. Good luck.
write out your RFD first and let me see it. I'll show you where to improve.
A little more than 12 hrs left
https://www.100daysofrealfood.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/popcorn1.jpg
Vote reported: WisdomofAges
Mod: Removed
RFD (full 7 points to pro): ISLAM has a proven record of ATROCITIES against humanity....try doing the same with the Hare Krishna....not going to happen...the Koran is another
Glorified Comic Book farce used as a TOOL for assimilation and VIOLENCE towards all that do not accept its idiocy on how to think and exist...
The instigator points out the flaws within this fabricated "GOD" spun from the JEW Moses playbook.....absurd....that anyone falls for this garbage...
so childish and petty....what one would expect from another wandering tribal lunatic in the Middle East desert meets GOD hoax...
Reason for removal: The voter fails to survey the main arguments, conduct, grammar, and appears to vote for the wrong side.
Such a vote would be removed.
Thank you guys for your vote!!!
Yeah this is basically openly slandering someone which I view as a serious offense. Let the mod team do their work please.
Vote Report: Chopsphene // Removed
RFD: Mopac had better arguments and sources, spelling and conduct is a tie.
Reason: Voter fails to explain all points
Vote report: BillHowitzer
Mod Decision: Removed
RFD: Con's argument lacks any substance. Mopac's appeal to the dictionary is a valid point. If con wants to discredit the validity of the dictionary, then how do we know what any words that con used meant?
Reason: The voter fails to explain all points
Vote report: Jboy3r
Mod: Removed
RFD: Con made a very convincing argument but pro had better spelling and grammar.
Reason: None of these are explained properly
Vote report: zedvictor4
Mod decision: Removed
RFD (con arguments, pro sources spelling and conduct): Typical theist rhetoric based argument, lacking any real substance or evidence. But otherwise Pro's presentation was far superior, especially with regard to conduct.
Reason: Nothing is explained properly
Vote Report: Alec
Mod decision: Removed
RFD (con arguments pro conduct): Con made convincing arguments in the final round even though your supposed to do this in prior rounds. He also forfeit a round which is poor conduct.
Reaosn: Arguments are not explained properly. The conduct point is fine
Bifokal's RFD is more than sufficient per our standards.
Thanks! Glad you found me vote to be honest. That’s all what I want
I think your vote is OK. I'll let blamonkey make the decision. If he's ok with it then I'll allow it to stand.
I'll look at it in depth when i get back. Thanks.
Vote Report: stvitus
Mod decision: Removed
RFD: Full 7 points to pro (see below)
Reason for mod decision: There is a lot wrong with this vote. Frist and foremost the grammar point is insufficiently explained. To award s/g one the debate arguments must be so bad that the readability is compromised. Second the conduct point is insufficiently explained. Third the arguments are insufficent. The voter fails to survey the main arguments by ignoring some of the key points while adding things that were not said in the debate.
Moeology is the clear winner here, and I look forward to hearing his perspective in future debates. Pro [RationalMadman] confused the debate by stubbornly insisting to refer to Con as Pro (but nonetheless did not succeed in tricking me into voting for him rather than Moeology); ignored the historical context of the verses he cited; cynically and antagonistically anticipated Con’s responses; focused on extremist terrorist groups and political conflict rather than the Qur’an as read by practicing Muslims around the world, including Con; commenced his argument by making unsubstantiated claims about Islam (NO sources); disregarded Con’s final distinctions in Round 1; misconstrued (possibly intentionally) Con’s reference to World War II; entered debate with a blatant prejudice against adherents of any faith, making an “appeal to authority” to pop philosopher Christopher Hitchens without establishing the truth value of “Hitchen’s razor,” among other fallacies pointed out by Con; entered debate with preconceptions not grounded in the religious texts of the faith and a total absence of knowledge about the body of texts which are relevant to Islamic practice and law and the different roles of each text; made several unsubstantiated generalizations, such as “Sharia Law is Fascism in every sense,” despite his obvious equation of Sharia law with outlier cases which are often disputed on the basis of differing Hadith; made broad historical claims without any sources whatsoever; failed to engage with Con’s arguments; held all practicing Muslims responsible for the crimes of a few tyrannical regimes and extremist individuals; etc. I could go on, but RationalMadman's tack here was all overwrought rhetoric with zero substance. Con was more prepared, more articulate, showed greater integrity in both engaging with Pro’s arguments and citing sources, and did not resort to rhetoric, polemics, or controversy in an attempt to “win.” As English is Con’s second language, his command of it i
No problem. I really hope you found it to be thorough and honest at least
Forgot to post my vote.
Posted!
I love short text debates with less than 5000 characters!
Vote reported: Alec
Mod decision: Removed
RFD: Pro said, "but the risk he is talking about will be a risk no matter how long he waits". These risks will only increase as social media power increases. I personally don't care if Con asks her out or not as long as he doesn't do certain things during the relationship or any other relationship. Me mentioning them is a tangent.
If he gets rejected, oh well. He'll get over it. But what if she says yes? Then you get a girl.
reason: Alec fails to highlight and analyze the main arguments throughout the debate.
Over. Please vote.
Would love a vote please
Yeah. If you look at my percentage of my entire 8+ year debate history, I have about a 47.41% win rate, which is about average especially considering my early debates were total shit
tbh I really don't care about win percentage
Rofl. Given that I'm now no. 6 on the leaderboard...
Not a problem. I'd gladly take this debate sometime soon if you wanna redo it.
Bump
Vote reported: Alec
Mod decision: Removed
RFD:
This is not a grudge vote.
Con didn't fulfill his BoP that well. Pro stated that Islam was peaceful. He provided some Quran quotes and rebuttaled some common counterexamples that he thought at the time Con would provide. There were many other uncited Quran verses that Con could have used that he did not directly use.
Sources:
For religious debates, I think citing the religious texts (the bible, the Quran, etc) are pretty reliable sources and more reliable then people's interpretation of them. People have biases on the bible and the bible does not have much bias on it's self. Pro cited a religious text and Con did not directly cite a religious text(in this case, the Quran).
Reason: The voter fails to highlight the main arguments of the debate and analyze them. Further he needs to go more in depth with source point
I'm gonna keep this up before I cast my vote to allow any objections