*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: [Ragnar] // Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Reason for Mod Action: [The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
]
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: [DynamicSquid] // Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was borderline. By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient.
************************************************************************
"I have no idea how I would write an RFD on this debate."
There are various methods on how to score debates like this, my preferred method is to declare a winner by round and add up whoever has the most points.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Zardi and RM // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 1 point to pro for conduct (zardi) and 1 point for conduct to RM
>Reason for Decision: Conduct for the ff'd round. I'd vote on args but my eyes glazed over during the first round.
>Reason for Mod Action: RM's vote is removed because cvbs are removed. Zardi's vote doesn't meet the requirements for voting. In order to award conduct point, a user 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
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).
In this case, one forfeited round is not enough to award just a conduct point as the debater didn't forfeit more than 1/2 the rounds.
************************************************************************
This sounds like an interesting debate. I think that Con should have some leeway in choosing a translation. The ESV often blunders the Hebrew spectacularly.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: [ethang5] // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 4 points to con for arguments and s/g
>Reason for Decision: Speed better tied his arguments to what we find in reality. Most people behave as if altruism is a better philosophy than hedonism.
Pro argued the hedonism was profitable for the individual, but failed to show how it is better for s society.
>Reason for Mod Action: Both the argument point and the s/g point is insufficient. 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.
None of this is done.
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.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Harleygator // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to con
>Reason for Decision: See below
>Reason for Mod Action: In order for users to be eligible to vote on debates, user's current accounts must reflect that they have read the site's COC AND either completed at least 2 non-troll debates without any forfeits or posted 100 forum posts. Any user who attempts to vote without having these criteria met will have their vote removed. If a user repeatedly attempts to vote without having these criteria met, their voting privileges may be suspended until they meet this criteria. In this case, the voter has not yet completed both debates. A debate is considered completed when it is in the voting period.
************************************************************************
CON set out a precise and consistent introduction, using a sound understanding of economics to detail the solid logic underpinning of their case; in particular, their acknowledgement of the "microcosmistic" (not a word; I don't care) nature of the blackboard analogy presupposed a later objection from PRO regarding the limited scope of the scenario - specifically, that the logic did not carry forward with situational relevance to workers pursuing the provision of their means, with what I felt wasn't sufficient explanation why given that CON set this not as circumstantial, but as explanatory of a more general economic principle. CON addressed this mistake in Round 4, and PRO's response was simply to restate it. To go further, PRO introduced not a rebuttal per se of the logic set out in the introduction, but instead presented a related but independent case for considering this through a demand-side analysis - like their treatment of causality in the matter of GDP in Round 3 (cleanly debunked by CON in Round 5), I felt that PRO failed to properly address the original economic logic as explained, while also failing to properly sustain a justification for a new frame of analysis. CON tackled the biscuit analogy in Round 4 with some pertinent questions; yet again, PRO's defence of this point relied mostly on incredulity and what I feel was an unsubstantiated and largely inaccurate understanding of demand, and especially of the role of money.
PRO's opening case set the tone for much of what I felt was problematic with their debating style more generally - largely rhetorical, derisory, and emotive, as evidenced by repeated sarcasm towards "the greatest nation on Earth", use of the loaded terms "trickle down economics" and "wage slavery", and multiple tangential references to power and/or wealth imbalance (with no proper connection to the motion). While there is nothing wrong with holding a particular ideology, I felt it granted the cases made a more rhetorical than substantive effect, though this is merely personal preference, with more substantive reasoning for my decision presented above.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Dynasty // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to pro
>Reason for Decision:FF for the boys.
>Reason for Mod Action: In order for users to be eligible to vote on debates, user's current accounts must reflect that they have read the site's COC AND either completed at least 2 non-troll debates without any forfeits or posted 100 forum posts. Any user who attempts to vote without having these criteria met will have their vote removed. If a user repeatedly attempts to vote without having these criteria met, their voting privileges may be suspended until they meet this criteria.
Thanks. I took a bit of a risk since it's opera, but nonetheless powerful nonetheless. Sia is one of the greatest female artist alive today. Good choice!
It really is. Classical music is my "home" and so that's where I have my roots, but I appreciate the beauty in all music. I deliberately left the genre to be vague and open. In my opinion, the resolution is basically a battle about female artists and vocals. That's how I would interpret this at least.
I'm listening to some of your songs now. Great choices! Good luck
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: OoDart // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 6 points to pro for arguments, conduct, and sources
>Reason for Decision: See below
>Reason for Mod Action:
To award argument points, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.
To award sources points, the voter must (1) explain how the debaters' sources impacted the debate, (2) directly assess the strength/utility of at least one source in particular cited in the debate, and (3) explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's.
To award conduct points, the voter must (1) identify specific instances of misconduct, (2) explain how this misconduct was excessive, unfair, or in breach of the debate's rules, and (3) compare each debater's conduct. 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).
Pro explained how the two processes could not occur simultaneously.
Con failed to rebut, simply providing opinions without sources and essentially saying, "You are wrong."
In R2, con essentially conceded the debate, saying, "I probably will lose this debate but at this point I have zero idea what Pro is arguing."
It's fairly obvious what pro is arguing. There is a resolution to this debate, after all.
Pro used reputable sources, con used one source, although it didn't cover the information that was being talked about.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: bobo // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 6 points to pro for sources, conduct, and arguments
>Reason for Decision: Pro provided understandable information from reliable sources. Did not notice any misspelling. Pro used proper and polite words to disagree with con.
>Reason for Mod Action: This user is inelligable to vote. In order for an account to be eligable to vote, they must first have completed 2 debates OR 100 forum posts AND read the site's COC. They have done none of these.
Please review the COC: https://www.debateart.com/rules
************************************************************************
Fantastic topic! I look forward to reading.
This should be a good debate. I was thinking of starting a debate on the same topic.
Good luck guys!
Posted my arguments.
Ok! I'm looking forward!! @Orogami - go ahead and take it!
Take our immediate and I’ll play devils advocate
Thank you. I’m sad I forfeited the last round
Thank you. I am looking forward to your arguments. I likewise commit to no personal attacks in my debates.
Same here
LOL! I love your RFD
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: [Ragnar] // Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Reason for Mod Action: [The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
]
************************************************************************
I think you cast your vote for the wrong side
I agree
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Pinkfreud08 // Mod action: Not Removed
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
**************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: [DynamicSquid] // Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was borderline. By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient.
************************************************************************
Sure
Thank you for taking the time to read the debate and cast a vote!
Thank you so much for your vote and analysis!
Nope. Vote however you want.
Thank you!
Debate over. Please vote if you can :)
Less than 2 days remaining
Thanks
Thanks guys. Sorry I've been slammed the past few days.
Posted my round. Wanna do a duet just for fun?
"I have no idea how I would write an RFD on this debate."
There are various methods on how to score debates like this, my preferred method is to declare a winner by round and add up whoever has the most points.
Same here. BTW for the record, I'm using the Smule app to make my recordings and will be posting it to YouTube.
I'm just getting over a head cold. I'll have my first video up by Wednesday.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Zardi and RM // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 1 point to pro for conduct (zardi) and 1 point for conduct to RM
>Reason for Decision: Conduct for the ff'd round. I'd vote on args but my eyes glazed over during the first round.
>Reason for Mod Action: RM's vote is removed because cvbs are removed. Zardi's vote doesn't meet the requirements for voting. In order to award conduct point, a user 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
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).
In this case, one forfeited round is not enough to award just a conduct point as the debater didn't forfeit more than 1/2 the rounds.
************************************************************************
So glad to see you debate <3 <3
Yes please
Vote Reported: RM // Mod action: Not remove
Vote is good
I think your opponent should pick their preferred translation.
This sounds like an interesting debate. I think that Con should have some leeway in choosing a translation. The ESV often blunders the Hebrew spectacularly.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: [ethang5] // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 4 points to con for arguments and s/g
>Reason for Decision: Speed better tied his arguments to what we find in reality. Most people behave as if altruism is a better philosophy than hedonism.
Pro argued the hedonism was profitable for the individual, but failed to show how it is better for s society.
>Reason for Mod Action: Both the argument point and the s/g point is insufficient. 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.
None of this is done.
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.
Again, none of this is done
************************************************************************
This looks like an interesting debate so far! Please ping me when the debate is over and I'll vote on it.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Harleygator // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to con
>Reason for Decision: See below
>Reason for Mod Action: In order for users to be eligible to vote on debates, user's current accounts must reflect that they have read the site's COC AND either completed at least 2 non-troll debates without any forfeits or posted 100 forum posts. Any user who attempts to vote without having these criteria met will have their vote removed. If a user repeatedly attempts to vote without having these criteria met, their voting privileges may be suspended until they meet this criteria. In this case, the voter has not yet completed both debates. A debate is considered completed when it is in the voting period.
************************************************************************
CON set out a precise and consistent introduction, using a sound understanding of economics to detail the solid logic underpinning of their case; in particular, their acknowledgement of the "microcosmistic" (not a word; I don't care) nature of the blackboard analogy presupposed a later objection from PRO regarding the limited scope of the scenario - specifically, that the logic did not carry forward with situational relevance to workers pursuing the provision of their means, with what I felt wasn't sufficient explanation why given that CON set this not as circumstantial, but as explanatory of a more general economic principle. CON addressed this mistake in Round 4, and PRO's response was simply to restate it. To go further, PRO introduced not a rebuttal per se of the logic set out in the introduction, but instead presented a related but independent case for considering this through a demand-side analysis - like their treatment of causality in the matter of GDP in Round 3 (cleanly debunked by CON in Round 5), I felt that PRO failed to properly address the original economic logic as explained, while also failing to properly sustain a justification for a new frame of analysis. CON tackled the biscuit analogy in Round 4 with some pertinent questions; yet again, PRO's defence of this point relied mostly on incredulity and what I feel was an unsubstantiated and largely inaccurate understanding of demand, and especially of the role of money.
PRO's opening case set the tone for much of what I felt was problematic with their debating style more generally - largely rhetorical, derisory, and emotive, as evidenced by repeated sarcasm towards "the greatest nation on Earth", use of the loaded terms "trickle down economics" and "wage slavery", and multiple tangential references to power and/or wealth imbalance (with no proper connection to the motion). While there is nothing wrong with holding a particular ideology, I felt it granted the cases made a more rhetorical than substantive effect, though this is merely personal preference, with more substantive reasoning for my decision presented above.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Dynasty // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to pro
>Reason for Decision:FF for the boys.
>Reason for Mod Action: In order for users to be eligible to vote on debates, user's current accounts must reflect that they have read the site's COC AND either completed at least 2 non-troll debates without any forfeits or posted 100 forum posts. Any user who attempts to vote without having these criteria met will have their vote removed. If a user repeatedly attempts to vote without having these criteria met, their voting privileges may be suspended until they meet this criteria.
************************************************************************
Thanks. I took a bit of a risk since it's opera, but nonetheless powerful nonetheless. Sia is one of the greatest female artist alive today. Good choice!
It really is. Classical music is my "home" and so that's where I have my roots, but I appreciate the beauty in all music. I deliberately left the genre to be vague and open. In my opinion, the resolution is basically a battle about female artists and vocals. That's how I would interpret this at least.
I'm listening to some of your songs now. Great choices! Good luck
I glanced at your RFD and must say that from what I've read, that is one of the most thorough RFDs that I think I have seen on the site.
Lol
Then obviously amend the constitution.
I will handle it. Thanks
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: OoDart // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 6 points to pro for arguments, conduct, and sources
>Reason for Decision: See below
>Reason for Mod Action:
To award argument points, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.
To award sources points, the voter must (1) explain how the debaters' sources impacted the debate, (2) directly assess the strength/utility of at least one source in particular cited in the debate, and (3) explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's.
To award conduct points, the voter must (1) identify specific instances of misconduct, (2) explain how this misconduct was excessive, unfair, or in breach of the debate's rules, and (3) compare each debater's conduct. 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).
None of these are satisfactorily completed.
************************************************************************
Pro explained how the two processes could not occur simultaneously.
Con failed to rebut, simply providing opinions without sources and essentially saying, "You are wrong."
In R2, con essentially conceded the debate, saying, "I probably will lose this debate but at this point I have zero idea what Pro is arguing."
It's fairly obvious what pro is arguing. There is a resolution to this debate, after all.
Pro used reputable sources, con used one source, although it didn't cover the information that was being talked about.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: bobo // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 6 points to pro for sources, conduct, and arguments
>Reason for Decision: Pro provided understandable information from reliable sources. Did not notice any misspelling. Pro used proper and polite words to disagree with con.
>Reason for Mod Action: This user is inelligable to vote. In order for an account to be eligable to vote, they must first have completed 2 debates OR 100 forum posts AND read the site's COC. They have done none of these.
Please review the COC: https://www.debateart.com/rules
************************************************************************
Yes
I think this is the longest argument I've ever written.