*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Gatorade // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 6 points to pro for arguments, grammar, and conduct
>Reason for Decision: See below
>Reason for Mod Action: The arguments are borderline, but the rest of the vote cannot stand. 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. Finally 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.
Round 1
CON waives, per description.
PRO brings up points about how Epstein was not watched, PRO also brings up a fake news source called "InfoWars". PRO mostly used conspiracy theories here to prove his point.
Round 2
CON brings up points attacking PRO's sources. These claims are correct, because InfoWars is not a reliable source. But CON does not have any sources backing up his claims of the 'YouTube' video being fake, and has no sources backing up his claims about the gurney photos being fake either.
PRO concedes that Epstein could have been murdered. PRO also makes several grammar mistakes, which makes it really hard to read. PRO states that the same guy investigated MLK and JFK, but that is simply not true. PRO also states that "he doesn't want to bring up fake news" which is just a simple way of stating "I'm to lazy to refute your claims".
ROUND 3
CON makes grammar mistakes in this round too, which makes it sort of hard to read, but nowhere close to the amount of PRO. CON rebuts PRO's points.
PRO should not have answered this round as BOP per CON's first argument rules.
ARGUMENT
CON convinced me.
SOURCES
Both had terrible sources.
GRAMMAR
PRO had the grammar of a five year old.
CONDUCT
PRO should've forfeited last round.
Fair enough. If you're interested, I"d also like to redo our Resurrection debate. Perhaps just copy and paste everything we did before and I will just have to do the final round. It's a shame I lost just because of that one round, but that's the nature of debates like that.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Risky112 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: Full points to pro
>Reason for Decision: I like drinking Gatorade.
>Reason for Mod Action: This vote is not eligible to vote. In order to vote, an account must: (1) Read the site’s COC AND have completed 2 non-troll/non-FF debate OR have 100 forum posts.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: christopher_best // Mod action:
>Points Awarded: Tie
>Reason for Decision: Let's be diplomatic and make this a tie. I found both the arguments "another round, another forfeit" and "forfeited" rather convincing and brilliant.
>Reason for Mod Action: This vote is not eligible to vote. In order to vote, an account must: (1) Read the site’s COC AND have completed 2 non-troll/non-FF debate OR have 100 forum posts.
\
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Risky112 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to con
>Reason for Decision: Full forfeit
>Reason for Mod Action: This vote is not eligible to vote. In order to vote, an account must: (1) Read the site’s COC AND have completed 2 non-troll/non-FF debate OR have 100 forum posts.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Kikomori // Mod action: Not removed
>Reason for Mod Action:Full forfeit debates are not moderated unless the voter voted for the forfeiting side, per the site voting policy guidelines. No moderation action is appropriate on this vote.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: PressF4Respect // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to con for arguments and conduct
>Reason for Decision: Why do people knowingly create/accept debates just to forfeit halfway through?
>Reason for Mod Action: This vote is not eligible to vote. In order to vote, an account must: (1) Read the site’s COC AND have completed 2 non-troll/non-FF debate OR have 100 forum posts.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ragnar // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to con for arguments
>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. There simply isn't enough discussion of the arguments to allow this vote to stand.
************************************************************************
Gist:
Massive BoP failure.
Plus I could have sworn I already voted on this... Pro,y ou need new debates or at least new points, if something wasn't convincing anyone the last dozen times, maybe try something else.
1. Medicine
In short: “No evidence is offered by PRO to establish medicine as of exclusively divine origin.”
2. Space
Off topic to life... Plus they are indeed moving at different speeds rather than being all perfectly synced.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: // Mod action: Ragnar
>Points Awarded: Not Removed
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
************************************************************************
Competition-style debate (e.g. rap battle, talent show, poetry competition)
Debate primarily designed to be humorous or facetious or containing primarily humorous or facetious content
Debate on a truism (e.g. "a bachelor is someone who is unmarried")
In this case, the readers (and con) has the general assumption that this debate is a troll debate and a rap battle. That is how we will view this debate and moderate any votes.
NOTE: I cannot remove a debate unless BOTH of you agree to it.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Dr.Franklin // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to con for S/G
>Reason for Decision: Spelling and Grammar
Pro made multiple mistakes
1."though" should be thought
2."the marshlands" should just be marshlands
3."San Hose" should be San Jose
Neither side convinced me
>Reason for Mod Action: To award S/G points, the voter must (1) give specific examples of S/G errors, (2) explain how these errors were excessive, and (3) compare each debaters' S/G. S&G errors are considered excessive when they render arguments incoherent or incomprehensible. The voter fails to compare pro's s/g with con's. Moreover, he failed to explain why they rendered the argument incoherent or incomprehensible. Finally, the vote is removed as there still needs to be some explanation for the tied arguments.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Dr.Franklin // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to pro
>Reason for Decision: "You must call me master". That's poor conduct
Neither side convinced me
>Reason for Mod Action: "To cast a sufficient vote in the choose winner system, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks: (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. 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.
************************************************************************
For the record, the new policy relates to perma banned users. In other words, if type1 comes in and creates 20 new spam debates, we will delete all those spam debates.
Rather irrelevant to the debate.
***************************
Press for respect's vote has been removed and dr. franklin's counter vote bomb has been removed.
"I can't do this today."
Counts as a forfeit
***************************
MOD NOTE: This debate is unmoderated as this is a conceded debate.
"By Virtuoso" simply means that I carried out the ban. If a ban says "By bsh1" it means that bsh1 carried out the ban.
Rofl
I have no idea how to use YouTube live.
Thanks. I need to do more live debates. Sadly, I have no idea how to do them anymore since hangouts on air is dead.
Removed for the same reason below.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Gatorade // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 6 points to pro for arguments, grammar, and conduct
>Reason for Decision: See below
>Reason for Mod Action: The arguments are borderline, but the rest of the vote cannot stand. 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. Finally 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.
************************************************************************
Round 1
CON waives, per description.
PRO brings up points about how Epstein was not watched, PRO also brings up a fake news source called "InfoWars". PRO mostly used conspiracy theories here to prove his point.
Round 2
CON brings up points attacking PRO's sources. These claims are correct, because InfoWars is not a reliable source. But CON does not have any sources backing up his claims of the 'YouTube' video being fake, and has no sources backing up his claims about the gurney photos being fake either.
PRO concedes that Epstein could have been murdered. PRO also makes several grammar mistakes, which makes it really hard to read. PRO states that the same guy investigated MLK and JFK, but that is simply not true. PRO also states that "he doesn't want to bring up fake news" which is just a simple way of stating "I'm to lazy to refute your claims".
ROUND 3
CON makes grammar mistakes in this round too, which makes it sort of hard to read, but nowhere close to the amount of PRO. CON rebuts PRO's points.
PRO should not have answered this round as BOP per CON's first argument rules.
ARGUMENT
CON convinced me.
SOURCES
Both had terrible sources.
GRAMMAR
PRO had the grammar of a five year old.
CONDUCT
PRO should've forfeited last round.
Debate over. Please vote
There are literally thousands of secular Jews
JS Bach
Yes I am Jewish
OK awesome!
Fair enough. If you're interested, I"d also like to redo our Resurrection debate. Perhaps just copy and paste everything we did before and I will just have to do the final round. It's a shame I lost just because of that one round, but that's the nature of debates like that.
Technically I'm an Agnostic Theist with more leanings on the Agnostic side. Wanna accept?
A bit of both.
yep
Fair enough. You can now vote.
It says you have not yet read the site's code of conduct. There is a medal you receive when you read and accept the code of conduct.
No problem. Pentatonix is fantastic!
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Risky112 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: Full points to pro
>Reason for Decision: I like drinking Gatorade.
>Reason for Mod Action: This vote is not eligible to vote. In order to vote, an account must: (1) Read the site’s COC AND have completed 2 non-troll/non-FF debate OR have 100 forum posts.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: christopher_best // Mod action:
>Points Awarded: Tie
>Reason for Decision: Let's be diplomatic and make this a tie. I found both the arguments "another round, another forfeit" and "forfeited" rather convincing and brilliant.
>Reason for Mod Action: This vote is not eligible to vote. In order to vote, an account must: (1) Read the site’s COC AND have completed 2 non-troll/non-FF debate OR have 100 forum posts.
\
************************************************************************
See below. Same reason for removal
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Risky112 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to con
>Reason for Decision: Full forfeit
>Reason for Mod Action: This vote is not eligible to vote. In order to vote, an account must: (1) Read the site’s COC AND have completed 2 non-troll/non-FF debate OR have 100 forum posts.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Kikomori // Mod action: Not removed
>Reason for Mod Action:Full forfeit debates are not moderated unless the voter voted for the forfeiting side, per the site voting policy guidelines. No moderation action is appropriate on this vote.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: PressF4Respect // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to con for arguments and conduct
>Reason for Decision: Why do people knowingly create/accept debates just to forfeit halfway through?
>Reason for Mod Action: This vote is not eligible to vote. In order to vote, an account must: (1) Read the site’s COC AND have completed 2 non-troll/non-FF debate OR have 100 forum posts.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ragnar // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to con for arguments
>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. There simply isn't enough discussion of the arguments to allow this vote to stand.
************************************************************************
Gist:
Massive BoP failure.
Plus I could have sworn I already voted on this... Pro,y ou need new debates or at least new points, if something wasn't convincing anyone the last dozen times, maybe try something else.
1. Medicine
In short: “No evidence is offered by PRO to establish medicine as of exclusively divine origin.”
2. Space
Off topic to life... Plus they are indeed moving at different speeds rather than being all perfectly synced.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: // Mod action: Ragnar
>Points Awarded: Not Removed
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
************************************************************************
See below
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Ramshutu // Mod Decision: Removed
NOTE: FF debates are not moderated unless the voter votes for the forfeiting side. Since Ramshutu voted for the forfeiting side, his vote is removed.
*******************************************************************
Done!
Mod note: RM's and Dr.Franklin's votes are fine.
A troll debate is any:
Competition-style debate (e.g. rap battle, talent show, poetry competition)
Debate primarily designed to be humorous or facetious or containing primarily humorous or facetious content
Debate on a truism (e.g. "a bachelor is someone who is unmarried")
In this case, the readers (and con) has the general assumption that this debate is a troll debate and a rap battle. That is how we will view this debate and moderate any votes.
NOTE: I cannot remove a debate unless BOTH of you agree to it.
This is a troll debate. Votes are not moderated
That was the original topic, but we realized it was way too broad so we narrowed it down some.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Dr.Franklin // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to con for S/G
>Reason for Decision: Spelling and Grammar
Pro made multiple mistakes
1."though" should be thought
2."the marshlands" should just be marshlands
3."San Hose" should be San Jose
Neither side convinced me
>Reason for Mod Action: To award S/G points, the voter must (1) give specific examples of S/G errors, (2) explain how these errors were excessive, and (3) compare each debaters' S/G. S&G errors are considered excessive when they render arguments incoherent or incomprehensible. The voter fails to compare pro's s/g with con's. Moreover, he failed to explain why they rendered the argument incoherent or incomprehensible. Finally, the vote is removed as there still needs to be some explanation for the tied arguments.
************************************************************************
********************************
MOD NOTE: Conceded and FF debates are not moderated.
********************************
Thanks. I'll need it
**Note: Pro and I agreed to debate this in PM**
**********************
Forfeited debates aren't moderated
**********************
I'll let Bsh see this. Wylted was banned for a different reason.
Forfeited debates aren't moderated
Forfeited debates aren't moderated.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Dr.Franklin // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to pro
>Reason for Decision: "You must call me master". That's poor conduct
Neither side convinced me
>Reason for Mod Action: "To cast a sufficient vote in the choose winner system, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks: (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. 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.
************************************************************************
Sorry for dropping the ball here. This happened while I was AFK. @RM - thanks so much for CB'ing!
Which debates were those?
For the record, the new policy relates to perma banned users. In other words, if type1 comes in and creates 20 new spam debates, we will delete all those spam debates.
The debate started before Wylted was banned. The debate will not be deleted.