*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Juubi_Wolf// Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded:7 points to con
>Reason for Decision: 1=1.000000000
1 does not equal .9999999
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter does not explain any of the points that we awarded. .
************************************************************************
==================================================================
>Reported vote: drafterman // Moderator action: NOT Removed<
3 points to Pro (arguments). RFD in comments.
Reason for not removal: drafterman’a RFD thoroughly analyzes sourcss and more than sufficiently meeets the votin standard.
==================================================================
Thanks for your feedback! I understand your conduct point to pro and that you feel I was intentionally lazy. Unfortunately real life shit just got in the way. I definitely feel like I should have done much better this debate
"Unless the ban on shirtless models is lifted, has the company lost its touch, its glamour, and its identity completely and is it time for them to regret that draconian mistake, YES or NO?"
In all honesty, this is a question that YOU must answer and connect your answer to the resolution. The debate is about the ethics/morality of their choice. Losing touch, glamor, and identity doesn't have much to do with the resolution IMO.
I agree, but I kinda felt that his argument didn't even hold water as it was irrelevant to the debate itself so I was focusing more on other things in the RFD. Great job.
The resolution here is "Abercrombie and Fitch's ban on shirtless models is unacceptable." The resolution here implies an ethical/moral issue. Is Abercombie's decision *ethical* or was it *immoral* for them to do this. Con points this out in round 1. Since the BOP wasn't defined, I view Pro having the entire BOP here to show that it was immoral.
Immediately in round 1 we run into trouble. Pro shows the sales decline in the company, but fails to show that their decision had anything to do with it. For his argument to be even remotely effective, he needed to prove that sales would have been higher, or at least the same, as they were if they did not make this choice.
Con's case I think is quite good. Con shows that the way things are advertised have a way of us looking at ourselves.
Pro's case doesn't get much better in round 2. Pro continues to argue that their decision was a result of their sales decline. Pro's comment: "So, the Opposition used the basis of morality in maintaining that ban. From what I can tell, that is immaturity" could warrant a conduct point going to con.
He doesn't really explain why he gives sources to con. IMO a good vote should be one that actually gives feedback to both debaters. I don't think you need to type out a 5 paragraph essay, but simply saying "sources to con" is not enough.
Lol. I think you're a fairly solid debater. Though to be fair the majority of your debates were with Type1. Anyone who loses to them should feel bad
Thanks so much for accepting! I've been really wanting to debate you on a topic
Debate over. Would love your vote
Honor and trump should never be used in the same sentence
I respect that. It can be difficult playing devil’s advocate especially when you’re passionate about the topic
Thank you!!
Will post after work. Thanks
Hey I'm really sorry for forfeiting. I had a lot going on. Thanks for the debate. Would love to revisit this topic
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Juubi_Wolf// Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded:7 points to con
>Reason for Decision: 1=1.000000000
1 does not equal .9999999
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter does not explain any of the points that we awarded. .
************************************************************************
You waive the last round not the first round
I know. Growing up I heard this argument millions of times.
Correct.
Remind me when this is over to vote on this
==================================================================
>Reported vote: drafterman // Moderator action: NOT Removed<
3 points to Pro (arguments). RFD in comments.
Reason for not removal: drafterman’a RFD thoroughly analyzes sourcss and more than sufficiently meeets the votin standard.
==================================================================
Following!
No it hasn’t. I can leave your vote up because I forfeited and you voted against me. No reason to remove it.
If you want a proper debate on free will I’ll gladly send you a challenge
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: the_bat_man// Mod action: Removed<
2 points awarded. Reasons for voting decision: I object. If Earth wanted judges he/she should have set up the debate as a judge panel process.
[*Reason for removal*] Vote fails to properly explain his vote.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: JCEuroVision96 // Mod action: Removed<
3 points awarded. Reasons for voting decision: Pro made very clear views on the existence of God, while Con dodges his attack.
[*Reason for removal*] JCEuroVision96 voted for the forfeiting side.
************************************************************************
Thanks for your feedback! I understand your conduct point to pro and that you feel I was intentionally lazy. Unfortunately real life shit just got in the way. I definitely feel like I should have done much better this debate
True.
I’ll vote on this later tonight or tomorrow
I was just thinking the way you had it worded it looked like you were arguing against international law
Yeah it’ll be interesting to follow.
Just a thought - it may be better for you to frame this in he positive and have you take the pro position.
Posted round 2!
JC - you have the full BOP in this debate.
"Unless the ban on shirtless models is lifted, has the company lost its touch, its glamour, and its identity completely and is it time for them to regret that draconian mistake, YES or NO?"
In all honesty, this is a question that YOU must answer and connect your answer to the resolution. The debate is about the ethics/morality of their choice. Losing touch, glamor, and identity doesn't have much to do with the resolution IMO.
Unfortunately I can't judge a debate by only one question. "He will in if and only if he answers my question..." is not a valid way to judge a debate.
I agree, but I kinda felt that his argument didn't even hold water as it was irrelevant to the debate itself so I was focusing more on other things in the RFD. Great job.
=== FULL RFD==
The resolution here is "Abercrombie and Fitch's ban on shirtless models is unacceptable." The resolution here implies an ethical/moral issue. Is Abercombie's decision *ethical* or was it *immoral* for them to do this. Con points this out in round 1. Since the BOP wasn't defined, I view Pro having the entire BOP here to show that it was immoral.
Immediately in round 1 we run into trouble. Pro shows the sales decline in the company, but fails to show that their decision had anything to do with it. For his argument to be even remotely effective, he needed to prove that sales would have been higher, or at least the same, as they were if they did not make this choice.
Con's case I think is quite good. Con shows that the way things are advertised have a way of us looking at ourselves.
Pro's case doesn't get much better in round 2. Pro continues to argue that their decision was a result of their sales decline. Pro's comment: "So, the Opposition used the basis of morality in maintaining that ban. From what I can tell, that is immaturity" could warrant a conduct point going to con.
Check your DMs please
If you want to change your vote or nullify it, ask the admin on the site. Thanks for the vote and the feedback
Yeah if I had more time I’d probably be able to put together a better case.
Got it. Thanks for your feedback
I was arguing for the resolution just to be clear. Not sure if you realizes that or not. I was just a bit confused by the RCD
Brief note: the last quote was from this source
https://slate.com/human-interest/2018/01/the-feminist-case-for-universal-basic-income.html
I can’t believe I forgot to put it in the sources. Oh well.
Did you even read the debate? I conceded as I didn’t have time. @Admin please remove JC’s vote.
Thanks. I should have my arguments up later tonight or tomorrow
Earth’s vote is perfectly fine. RM is so arrogant he can’t stanf the thought of him losin a debate.
Fair enough. @Batman - please explain your vote
For now, my counter vote stays.
He doesn't really explain why he gives sources to con. IMO a good vote should be one that actually gives feedback to both debaters. I don't think you need to type out a 5 paragraph essay, but simply saying "sources to con" is not enough.
Any chance you can remove the_bat_man's vote and my vote so I can vote properly?
Thanks!
Accepted. Can you wait till Sunday to waive the first round?
I agree with you so I won’t accept. But gl
Mind if I take this debate?
Can't wait for this debate!
Ok awesome. Challenge me to the debate.
Shit! I was almost finished my arguments. Fuck phone posting! @Budda - Mind if we tie and restart?
Glad you got it in on time! It would be a shame to forfeit the last round in an excellent debate.