RFD here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TbZ4jBemhGekEIx2FN0WMj8bbvvtyKlyPCFL-w-huis/edit?usp=sharing
If there's anyhting you feel like I didn't understand or want to expand on, let me know and I'll consider it.
Vote report: Alec
Mod decision: Removed
RFD: Forfeit by Con.
Reason: Forfeiting only one round is not enough to award the person a win without going through and analyzing the debate arguments, which he fails to do.
Posted! If this was a more formal debate, I would have gone more in depth and the nitty gritty, but since it's obvious you mainly want an informal and fun debate, I adjust my arguments as such!
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: stvitus // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to con for arguments and 2 points to pro for sources
>Reason for Decision:
Sleek's arguments were more compelling, and PhilSam repeatedly resorted to reformulations of previously refuted arguments as well as claiming objections to Sleek's argument which were equally applicable to his own. PhilSam frequently made recourse to generic thought experiments, even resorting to using a work of fiction as a counterexample in one case. Neither debater provided consistently reliable sources, but PhilSam's were generally more specific, going back to the original source of the ideas rather than an exposition of said source. Regardless, neither cited directly the passages from whence borrowed arguments originated, citing rather open resources on the Internet which, if not always subject to the same objections to credibility as Wikipedia, often represent only one interpretation of a given work. The problem with such citations is that neither debater employing them can justify their basis in the text from which they are derived, leaving the foundations of his argument open to hermeneutical objections. Spelling and grammar mistakes were negligible, and conduct was equally formal and cordial on either side. Overall an interesting question and a good exercise in critical thinking. This first-time reader has found it to be an excellent introduction to this online community.
>Reason for Mod Action: 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.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ramshutu // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to pro for arguments
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the standards
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Whiteflame // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to pro for arguments
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the standards
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Alec // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to con for arguments
>Reason for Decision: Con was hard to understand but I managed to see his argument. Pro I think went off topic and did not answer the question.
>Reason for Mod Action: (1) 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 of these things
************************************************************************
Not a problem. I'm trying to keep on top of the vote reports so that a debate outcome isn't changed by a few bad votes. Also I'm working on my RFD for the debate.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Defender // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Con for arguments and conduct; 3 points to Pro for sources and grammar
>Reason for Decision:
Very clearly, both side were basically confused of each other's explanation. However, Con did give a more convincing argument as he did rebuke Pro side(rational Madman)'s argument. However, he lacked siting of reliable sources. On the Pro side, he did a wonderful job on how democracy is better than dictatorship, if this debate is with that topic, I will give it to him for sure. However the ultimate point is tied. You guys did both got points. (Next time, RM, don't make decisions so early.)
>Reason for Mod Action: (1) 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. (2) the voter fails to sufficiently explain the conduct point. To award a conduct point a debater must be excessively rude or forfeit one or more rounds. (3) the grammar point is unexplained. To award this point one must go through to provide example of poor grammar AND explain why it made it hard to read; (4) the source point is insufficient. To award a source point one must compare the sources between the debaters and explain why their sources were better in quality.
************************************************************************
Thanks for the vote!
The problem with any K is that Con already accepted P2. If he didn’t accept P2 he could easily argue against moral absolutes. Once you accept P2 then you have to explain an objective framework
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Blamonkey // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro for arguments.
>Reason for decision: See vote
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter meets the voting standards.
************************************************************************
So, as Con highlights the terminological issues with pros argument - and pros completely failure to offer a rationalization of this interpretation - I cannot accept that his definitions can be interpreted in the way he said - thus the remainder of his argument concerning the ways in which the sun matches his interpretation - are irrelevant.
Pro attempted a Hail Mary - by claiming con conceded. I viewed cons statement not as a concession that you proved the contention - but that he personally believes in God: while I would discourage con from doing this, it was not substantial or significant enough to award pro points on a technicality.
Ironically, Pro was hoisted by his own petard - by deliberately making terms vague and ambiguous to wrangle his argument, his shifted his burden into establish his interpretation of the definitions that were agreed - if he attempted to justify this position he would have probably lost, as it would have alerted his opponent to the primary flaw in his position - if he didn’t attempt to justify his position, he fails to meet burden of proof. Pro does not defend his interpretation - simply asserting that this interpretation of the supplied definitions is correct - as this is the sole factor this entire debate hinges on, pro has obviously not established it, and con successfully casts doubt on it.
Arguments to con
Arguments:
Pro hinges his entire argument on definitions and semantics - if I accept every thing he said about the sun - his definitions still do not appear correct, nor valid in the context of the contention of the debate as I understand it: even with the definitions - I am highly skeptical as to why and how Pro could interpret the definition of God to include the sun and expected pro to justify why his interpretation of the definition was fair and reasonable. While I was perfectly willing to be convinced, no such argument was forthcoming that I could see at any point in the debate.
Pro may argue until he is blue in the face, that the Sun meets his interpretation of the definition - but if he doesn’t show his interpretation is valid, then the burden of proof he has an the positive claim is not satisfied.
Dictionary definitions are based on usage and meaning of the words as they are commonly used - not the other way around. As a result, I summarily reject pros argument that terms were “agreed”, as Con points out - elephants would match the definition of “superhuman”, but it would not generally be categorized as such. It is up to pro to argue that the vague and all encompassing interpretation he uses - which would also cover cows and magnets - is the right one to use.
While this makes me skeptical: I would not have awarded argument points had con not, in round 3, pointed this out:
“2. You stretch definitions to fit what you want.
Likewise, you think the "God" simply means has some greater powers than a human. No, there is more to a God then just that. The mighty elephant is stronger than any man. One can say it has super-human strength. But i stand by my statement, having one or a few powers greater than a human does not a God make. Sorry. It doesn't work like that”
Conduct: This debate and the way it played out appeared to be a deliberate bait and switch attempt by pro, with repeated deliberate omissions in his debate definition (see below) that seem clearly intended to trick a debater into accepting his debate based on the premise appearing to be saying one thing, only to have the entire premise turned on its head the moment his opponent accepted. This sort of shamefully dishonest conduct should not be tolerated on any debate. This together with pros petulant insults addressing his opponent which were utterly unnecessary: “Con obliviously asks:”, “Con whines:” makes penalization on conduct more than warranted. Conduct to con.
Sources - Pros argument were solely reliant on the specific definitions he used. Upon analyzing pros sources, there were misquotes and omissions which meant that pro was not arguing the definition he sources. The effect of these errors made his definition more ambiguous and broad so when considering the actual sources linked - not the misstated quotes - the sources actively undermined pros semantic argument. As a result I could trivially determine that pros argument was less strong than it seemed on its face just by looking at these sources.
Examples include his claim that the sub is a “perfect sphere” - his source says the sun is merely “near perfect” - which is not the same thing: his definitions for “being” in addition, specifically omitted key parts to the definition specifically related to “especially intelligent”. (Also some noted in comments)
As pros sources actively undermined his argument, he would have been better served posting no links or definitions at all. While con cited no sources, the lack of sources did not actively harm his argument - thus Sources must go to con for this reason.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ramshutu // Mod action:Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points to con for arguments, conduct, and sources.
>Reason for decision: Posted above
>Reason for Mod Action: The conduct point is sufficient, but arguments and sources are not. (1) Voters are required to assess the debate as it is presented. They are allowed to supplement that assessment with some deeper dives into the source materials given in the debate, but there must be some assessment based on how they're actually used. The voter must accept the rules and definitions of the debate in evaluating their vote regardless if they agree with it or not. (2) The voter is required to specifically assess sources given by both sides. Since the opposing side presented no sources one cannot give them the source point regardless of how poor the other side's sources were.
************************************************************************
Con's arguments were, at bottom, a rejection of Pro's definitions. And rejecting Pro's definitions violates the terms of the debate.
Rule #1:
"The definitions below are agreed to by accepting the debate and both debaters agree, by accepting, that all voters must use these definitions when weighing their vote and that if the voters do not use these definitions, both debaters will publicly request that the mods remove the vote."
Some of Con's arguments (paraphrased; forgive me):
"The sun, being made of matter, could not have created itself. Or life on Earth."
- Pro's definition of God says nothing about creation, so in the context of this debate, being a creator is not a necessary component of godhood.
"The sun is not God and cannot logically be called God."
- The sun actually does meet Pro's definition of God as worded.
"Pro has not proven the sun is God."
- I do believe he doesn't have to. It's not what the debate is about. He just has to make sure the sun meets his provided definition of a god. And it does. From there, all he has to prove is a) the sun exists and b) humans depend on the sun to live. I don't feel that Con really met Pro on either of those points. He spent most of his time arguing that the sun is not God, mostly by trying to bring his own definitions and outside presuppositions into the debate.
So I award arguments to Pro.
Con provided no sources at all, so sources automatically go to Pro.
Conduct a tie. Neither side was exactly genteel. Yes, this is another debate from Mag employing sneaky wording and very selective definitions, but on the other hand I feel like this should be fairly clear to anyone who reads the debate description thoroughly. It's all laid out there. Plus other members give warnings. But people still accept the debates without seeming to understand that they will have to compete while handcuffed. I am not without some sympathy. It seems the only real way to escape defeat is to not accept the debate.
Upon reevaluation of Castin vote, we find that Castin does not meet the voting standard. Their RFD is posted above. The issue is the source point.
"Con provided no sources at all, so sources automatically go to Pro."
As the COC says
The key to sufficiently ground awarding sources points is an emphasis on quality, not quantity. This means that 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. ***Even if one side does not present a source, the voter must at least establish the relevance of the other side's sources.*** There must be some comparative analysis between both debaters’ sources.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Castin // Mod action:Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points to Pro for arguments and sources.
>Reason for decision:See vote
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter sufficiently explains all points.
************************************************************************
RFD here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TbZ4jBemhGekEIx2FN0WMj8bbvvtyKlyPCFL-w-huis/edit?usp=sharing
If there's anyhting you feel like I didn't understand or want to expand on, let me know and I'll consider it.
Vote report: Alec
Mod decision: Removed
RFD: Forfeit by Con.
Reason: Forfeiting only one round is not enough to award the person a win without going through and analyzing the debate arguments, which he fails to do.
this is why you challenge them directly.
@Wisdom - this debate is for you. Please accept
thanks for the vote!
Thanks! I enjoyed the debate.
Sounds good. Looking forward!
Thanks!
It's not a problem at all!
Posted! If this was a more formal debate, I would have gone more in depth and the nitty gritty, but since it's obvious you mainly want an informal and fun debate, I adjust my arguments as such!
Yep! I’m working on my case now. Should be up within half hr. Do you want me to waive the second round since you are letting me go first?
I'm about 1/4 of the way done with my RFD. It's gonna be long.
Your arguments were pretty good!
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: stvitus // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to con for arguments and 2 points to pro for sources
>Reason for Decision:
Sleek's arguments were more compelling, and PhilSam repeatedly resorted to reformulations of previously refuted arguments as well as claiming objections to Sleek's argument which were equally applicable to his own. PhilSam frequently made recourse to generic thought experiments, even resorting to using a work of fiction as a counterexample in one case. Neither debater provided consistently reliable sources, but PhilSam's were generally more specific, going back to the original source of the ideas rather than an exposition of said source. Regardless, neither cited directly the passages from whence borrowed arguments originated, citing rather open resources on the Internet which, if not always subject to the same objections to credibility as Wikipedia, often represent only one interpretation of a given work. The problem with such citations is that neither debater employing them can justify their basis in the text from which they are derived, leaving the foundations of his argument open to hermeneutical objections. Spelling and grammar mistakes were negligible, and conduct was equally formal and cordial on either side. Overall an interesting question and a good exercise in critical thinking. This first-time reader has found it to be an excellent introduction to this online community.
>Reason for Mod Action: 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.
************************************************************************
test
looking forward to your arguments
LOL. The problem is her arguments are really really bad.
I'd be willing ot debate this with you
This was a quality debate that deserves a quality vote. I will try to vote on it when I've got time.
Define designed and I may accept
Thanks!
bump
Posted!
To be perfectly clear: The voting standards still apply to one round debates.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ramshutu // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to pro for arguments
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the standards
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Whiteflame // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to pro for arguments
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the standards
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Alec // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to con for arguments
>Reason for Decision: Con was hard to understand but I managed to see his argument. Pro I think went off topic and did not answer the question.
>Reason for Mod Action: (1) 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 of these things
************************************************************************
Arguments will be up by 11 pm est
Not a problem. I'm trying to keep on top of the vote reports so that a debate outcome isn't changed by a few bad votes. Also I'm working on my RFD for the debate.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Defender // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Con for arguments and conduct; 3 points to Pro for sources and grammar
>Reason for Decision:
Very clearly, both side were basically confused of each other's explanation. However, Con did give a more convincing argument as he did rebuke Pro side(rational Madman)'s argument. However, he lacked siting of reliable sources. On the Pro side, he did a wonderful job on how democracy is better than dictatorship, if this debate is with that topic, I will give it to him for sure. However the ultimate point is tied. You guys did both got points. (Next time, RM, don't make decisions so early.)
>Reason for Mod Action: (1) 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. (2) the voter fails to sufficiently explain the conduct point. To award a conduct point a debater must be excessively rude or forfeit one or more rounds. (3) the grammar point is unexplained. To award this point one must go through to provide example of poor grammar AND explain why it made it hard to read; (4) the source point is insufficient. To award a source point one must compare the sources between the debaters and explain why their sources were better in quality.
************************************************************************
Ooh I may be interested
Lol nope typo
bump
Thank you!!
Thanks for the vote!
The problem with any K is that Con already accepted P2. If he didn’t accept P2 he could easily argue against moral absolutes. Once you accept P2 then you have to explain an objective framework
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Blamonkey // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro for arguments.
>Reason for decision: See vote
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter meets the voting standards.
************************************************************************
I completely agree
I win the debate by default since you FF and violates the terms of the debate
Np!
Because I didn't feel like it was necessary. I certainly could have given pro the source and possibly the conduct point also.
Much better on explaining the source point
So, as Con highlights the terminological issues with pros argument - and pros completely failure to offer a rationalization of this interpretation - I cannot accept that his definitions can be interpreted in the way he said - thus the remainder of his argument concerning the ways in which the sun matches his interpretation - are irrelevant.
Pro attempted a Hail Mary - by claiming con conceded. I viewed cons statement not as a concession that you proved the contention - but that he personally believes in God: while I would discourage con from doing this, it was not substantial or significant enough to award pro points on a technicality.
Ironically, Pro was hoisted by his own petard - by deliberately making terms vague and ambiguous to wrangle his argument, his shifted his burden into establish his interpretation of the definitions that were agreed - if he attempted to justify this position he would have probably lost, as it would have alerted his opponent to the primary flaw in his position - if he didn’t attempt to justify his position, he fails to meet burden of proof. Pro does not defend his interpretation - simply asserting that this interpretation of the supplied definitions is correct - as this is the sole factor this entire debate hinges on, pro has obviously not established it, and con successfully casts doubt on it.
Arguments to con
Arguments:
Pro hinges his entire argument on definitions and semantics - if I accept every thing he said about the sun - his definitions still do not appear correct, nor valid in the context of the contention of the debate as I understand it: even with the definitions - I am highly skeptical as to why and how Pro could interpret the definition of God to include the sun and expected pro to justify why his interpretation of the definition was fair and reasonable. While I was perfectly willing to be convinced, no such argument was forthcoming that I could see at any point in the debate.
Pro may argue until he is blue in the face, that the Sun meets his interpretation of the definition - but if he doesn’t show his interpretation is valid, then the burden of proof he has an the positive claim is not satisfied.
Dictionary definitions are based on usage and meaning of the words as they are commonly used - not the other way around. As a result, I summarily reject pros argument that terms were “agreed”, as Con points out - elephants would match the definition of “superhuman”, but it would not generally be categorized as such. It is up to pro to argue that the vague and all encompassing interpretation he uses - which would also cover cows and magnets - is the right one to use.
While this makes me skeptical: I would not have awarded argument points had con not, in round 3, pointed this out:
“2. You stretch definitions to fit what you want.
Likewise, you think the "God" simply means has some greater powers than a human. No, there is more to a God then just that. The mighty elephant is stronger than any man. One can say it has super-human strength. But i stand by my statement, having one or a few powers greater than a human does not a God make. Sorry. It doesn't work like that”
Conduct: This debate and the way it played out appeared to be a deliberate bait and switch attempt by pro, with repeated deliberate omissions in his debate definition (see below) that seem clearly intended to trick a debater into accepting his debate based on the premise appearing to be saying one thing, only to have the entire premise turned on its head the moment his opponent accepted. This sort of shamefully dishonest conduct should not be tolerated on any debate. This together with pros petulant insults addressing his opponent which were utterly unnecessary: “Con obliviously asks:”, “Con whines:” makes penalization on conduct more than warranted. Conduct to con.
Sources - Pros argument were solely reliant on the specific definitions he used. Upon analyzing pros sources, there were misquotes and omissions which meant that pro was not arguing the definition he sources. The effect of these errors made his definition more ambiguous and broad so when considering the actual sources linked - not the misstated quotes - the sources actively undermined pros semantic argument. As a result I could trivially determine that pros argument was less strong than it seemed on its face just by looking at these sources.
Examples include his claim that the sub is a “perfect sphere” - his source says the sun is merely “near perfect” - which is not the same thing: his definitions for “being” in addition, specifically omitted key parts to the definition specifically related to “especially intelligent”. (Also some noted in comments)
As pros sources actively undermined his argument, he would have been better served posting no links or definitions at all. While con cited no sources, the lack of sources did not actively harm his argument - thus Sources must go to con for this reason.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ramshutu // Mod action:Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points to con for arguments, conduct, and sources.
>Reason for decision: Posted above
>Reason for Mod Action: The conduct point is sufficient, but arguments and sources are not. (1) Voters are required to assess the debate as it is presented. They are allowed to supplement that assessment with some deeper dives into the source materials given in the debate, but there must be some assessment based on how they're actually used. The voter must accept the rules and definitions of the debate in evaluating their vote regardless if they agree with it or not. (2) The voter is required to specifically assess sources given by both sides. Since the opposing side presented no sources one cannot give them the source point regardless of how poor the other side's sources were.
************************************************************************
shameless bump
Rofl.
Con's arguments were, at bottom, a rejection of Pro's definitions. And rejecting Pro's definitions violates the terms of the debate.
Rule #1:
"The definitions below are agreed to by accepting the debate and both debaters agree, by accepting, that all voters must use these definitions when weighing their vote and that if the voters do not use these definitions, both debaters will publicly request that the mods remove the vote."
Some of Con's arguments (paraphrased; forgive me):
"The sun, being made of matter, could not have created itself. Or life on Earth."
- Pro's definition of God says nothing about creation, so in the context of this debate, being a creator is not a necessary component of godhood.
"The sun is not God and cannot logically be called God."
- The sun actually does meet Pro's definition of God as worded.
"Pro has not proven the sun is God."
- I do believe he doesn't have to. It's not what the debate is about. He just has to make sure the sun meets his provided definition of a god. And it does. From there, all he has to prove is a) the sun exists and b) humans depend on the sun to live. I don't feel that Con really met Pro on either of those points. He spent most of his time arguing that the sun is not God, mostly by trying to bring his own definitions and outside presuppositions into the debate.
So I award arguments to Pro.
Con provided no sources at all, so sources automatically go to Pro.
Conduct a tie. Neither side was exactly genteel. Yes, this is another debate from Mag employing sneaky wording and very selective definitions, but on the other hand I feel like this should be fairly clear to anyone who reads the debate description thoroughly. It's all laid out there. Plus other members give warnings. But people still accept the debates without seeming to understand that they will have to compete while handcuffed. I am not without some sympathy. It seems the only real way to escape defeat is to not accept the debate.
Upon reevaluation of Castin vote, we find that Castin does not meet the voting standard. Their RFD is posted above. The issue is the source point.
"Con provided no sources at all, so sources automatically go to Pro."
As the COC says
The key to sufficiently ground awarding sources points is an emphasis on quality, not quantity. This means that 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. ***Even if one side does not present a source, the voter must at least establish the relevance of the other side's sources.*** There must be some comparative analysis between both debaters’ sources.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Castin // Mod action:Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points to Pro for arguments and sources.
>Reason for decision:See vote
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter sufficiently explains all points.
************************************************************************