*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Bazza97125 // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 4 points to pro for sources/sg
RFD: The earth is flat is a retarded debate
Reason for mod action: In order to be eligible to vote, Accounts must have read the site's COC AND completed at least 2 non-troll debates without any forfeits OR posted 100 forum posts
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 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.
The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
The voter should also review this: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346?page=1&post_number=4
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: {username} // Mod Action: Not Removed
Reason for mod action: Troll debates are not moderated, per the site voting policy guidelines. No moderation action is appropriate on this vote.
Special mod note on this: Bsh and I discussed in depth about what to do when a voter votes on a troll debate but doesn't meet the eligability criteria. Bsh and I decided that if the default is to not moderate the vote.
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Bazza97125 // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 6 points to pro for arguments, sources, s/g
RFD: Good debate
Reason for mod action: This voter meets none of the criteria set forth in the COC. In order to be eligible to vote, Accounts must have read the site's COC AND completed at least 2 non-troll debates without any forfeits OR posted 100 forum posts
The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
The voter should also review this: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346?page=1&post_number=4
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Our_Boat_is_Right // Mod Action: Not Removed
Reason for mod action: The vote was borderline. By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient.
The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
The voter should also review this: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346?page=1&post_number=4
You actually can control who votes. If you select "Judicial Decision" and select the people you want to vote. That being said, we discussed the option of blocking people from voting on debates. It was almost unanimously voted down.
Hi there - I’m going to send you a DM after work. Those votes were cast prior to the rule being enforced. The site owner and I are working on coding the rule into the site.
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Dr.Franklin // Mod Action: Not Removed
Reason for mod action: The debater forfeited more than 1/2 the rounds. This vote is not moderated.
*******************************************************************
Pro provides many reasons BLM is not accurate in its' information and many reasons it does not actually focus on helping black people but they don't really stick to the original statement "Black Lives Matter brainwashes peoples' minds to make them hate whites." If this was the only issue with either side I would have to say Con had a more convincing argument. However, Con made a lot of statements that they did not back up with facts such as " White people don't have to worry about the texture of their hair, the color of their skin color or their cultural accessories as the reason why they didn't get a job.". Also, Con loses some credibility when they say, " White people don't have to worry about having a talk with their children about obeying police officers and following their every command or their life could be gone." Commands such as what? Drop your weapon? Back away from the children? It doesn't matter what race you are. If you're perceived as threatening bodily harm toward a police officer or anyone else and you are not following the officer's commands you will be either shot or subdued.
Sources:
Con:
. CNN (wildly known as having liberal bias)
. ABC (wildly known as having liberal bias)
. Wikipedia (notoriously inaccurate)
. NASA (used to back up statement "the sky is blue")
. USA Today (wildly known as having liberal bias)
. Washington Post (wildly known as having liberal bias)
.
Pro:
. You Gov
. TFC (The Filipeano Channel)
. FBI (Federal Biro of Investigation)
. Harvard
. Los Angeles Times (slight bias towards the left)
. Waco Tribune
Because of the reliability of Pro's sources vs Con's sources pro wins the point for sources.
I didn't see any issues with grammer so I tied it.
I have the same issue with Con's swearing and insults as stated in most of the other votes. Overall, while pro did use a few insults con used many more.
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Michael_Hastings // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 6 points to pro for arguments, sources, and conduct.
RFD: See above
Reason for mod action: This account is ineligible to vote. In order to be eligible to vote, Accounts must have read the site's COC AND completed at least 2 non-troll debates without any forfeits OR posted 100 forum posts
The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
The voter should also review this: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346?page=1&post_number=4
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Ad_Infinitum // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 7 points to con
RFD: Con was interested in the spirit of debate, and used logical processes to explain their argument, while pro resorted to Ad Hominem arguments and flagrant personal statements. In addition, pro failed to address their own original claim, and argued semantics.
Reason for mod action: This voter is ineligible to vote. In order to be eligible to vote, Accounts must have read the site's COC AND completed at least 2 non-troll debates without any forfeits OR posted 100 forum posts
The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
The voter should also review this: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346?page=1&post_number=4
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Ragnar // Mod Action: Not Removed
Reason for mod action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Our_Boat_is_Right // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 1 point to pro for conduct
RFD: Con said a number of things that had poor conduct. I was going to give arguments to pro, but out of smypathy and not wanting to embarass con, I will not adress arguments.
"bitch"
"fuck you bitch"
"classic case of white supremacy"
"classic case of white privilege"----pro's not even white lmao
"The police are the trigger happy people"
"Have fun continuing to suck Trump's dick. "
"you're a racist cunt"---which doesn't even make sense since Pro is not even white lmao
"MLK is racist"
Reason for mod action: While the conduct vote is fine, the voter needs to justify the tied argument vote.
The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
The voter should also review this: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346?page=1&post_number=4
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 3 points to pro for arguments
RFD: Troll debate
Reason for mod action: This isn't a troll debate. Consequently, 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.
The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
The voter should also review this: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346?page=1&post_number=4
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: JasonGrace // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 4 points to con for arguments and conduct
RFD: Con had strong convincing arguments like how "if the earth was flat, it would effect gravity, time, the seasons and life on earth in many ways" whereas Pro responded with a lot of religious statements. Both Con and Pro provided reliable sources and both of them had good spelling and grammar. Pro often talked ill-mannered about Con's arguments by calling Con's arguments/questions; "DECEIVING QUOTE", "SATANIC QUESTIONS" and "UNGODLY SATANIC QUOTE". As a result, Con had better conduct.
Reason for mod action: In order to be eligible to vote, Accounts must have read the site's COC AND completed at least 2 non-troll debates without any forfeits OR posted 100 forum posts. They will regain the right to vote once they have done these things. The voter should read their PM for more info.
The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
The voter should also review this: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346?page=1&post_number=4
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Timewarps_1 // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 7 points to con
RFD: The contender had a better argument in my opinion.
Reason for mod action: Firstly, in order to be eligible to vote, Accounts must have read the site's COC AND completed at least 2 non-troll debates without any forfeits OR posted 100 forum posts. The voter has done none of these things and thus their vote is removed.
The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
The voter should also review this: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346?page=1&post_number=4
Reason for mod action: While arguments are fine, the conduct point isn't. 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).
The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
The voter should also review this: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346?page=1&post_number=4
"Trump implied that white supremacists were morally equivalent to the people resisting racism."
Pro does not provide any direct evidence for this and it is a cat fight back and forth about the sourcing. This point was a mess, so I can't award points for this.
"Trump said there are "some very fine people" among white supremacists."
Con provides the context of Trump's quote and his clarification that he wasn't talking about the Nazis and white supremacists. He shows that there were counter protestors of the taking down of the statue that weren't associated with the rally, so with all this, it is very clear Trump was not being racist.
"Trump racially discriminated against black people in his apartment building."
Con responds by saying Trump avoided renting welfare, no matter the race. This was also in the 1900's a long time ago, and the resolution says "IS racist", not "was." Either way, this comment does not prove Trump IS racist in current day.
All of this said, the argument point goes to con as there were not enough clear and cut examples of racism.
Sources: Tied
Spelling/Grammar: Tied
Conduct: Con dropped multiple points, although he did mention most of them later down the debate, it disrupted the flow of those points and didn't allow for nuanced discussion on them. Conduct to Pro.
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Christen // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 3 points to pro for arguments, 1 point to con for spelling and grammar.
RFD: I agree that Black Lives Matter is a black supremacist group that makes black people look bad.
Reason for mod action: First, this user is ineligible to vote. In order to be eligible to vote, accounts must have read the site's COC AND completed at least 2 non-troll debates without any forfeits OR posted 100 forum posts
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 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 should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
The voter should also review this: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346?page=1&post_number=4
Sources
Con cites definitions of human sacrifice, but he also gives car crash statistics that are vital to his argument, as well as citing the Declaration of Independence. He gets sources.
I really need to see how this weighs into the context of the debate and how this weighs more heavily to con's favor. You need to compare these sources to at least one of Pro's sources. The utility here isn't explained.
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Speedrace // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 6 points to con for arguments, sources, and conduct.
RFD: See below
Reason for mod action: While everything else is fine, sources are not sufficient. 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. In this case, I don't see any compare/contrast between pro's and con's sources to justify the point. There also isn't enough discussion on the strengh of those sources.
The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
The voter should also review this: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346?page=1&post_number=4
Pro says that human corpses can be used as sacrifices, and Con responds by saying that there are other more efficient ways of doing that. Pro says that we could do both, therefore creating a surplus. Because Con didn’t respond, this point goes to Pro.
(1B)
Pro says that we can sacrifice criminals and lower the crime rate. Con says that this will make farmers vigilantes and turn them into executioners. He also said it would be unfair for those who committed minor crimes. Pro says he doesn’t care about criminal’s rights. Con said that they are entitled to their rights regardless, and also makes the point that it wouldn’t be sacrifice unless you’re giving up something good. Pro says the Constitution never explicitly guarantees a right to life, and Con corrects himself and cites the Declaration of Independence.
Overall, Pro gave no real reason to sacrifice criminals beyond the crime rate. Con showed how criminals still have rights, and also that we shouldn’t sacrifice people who commit minor crimes. This point goes to Con.
(1C)
Pro says that this will allow fairness and increase our sense of community by making kind of a sport. Pro says that executing all criminals isn’t fair. Con uses consequentialism to state that if it lowers the crime rate, the end justifies the means. Con never responded to this, so this point goes to Pro.
(Ship Some Off To Africa)
Pro proposes sending some people to Africa to be food. Con shows how there are WAY to many criminals for this to be practical, as well as it raising African crime because cannibalism is illegal there. Pro just says that this will stop car crashes and help African crime rates (but gives no evidence for that). Con says that encouraging cannibalism doesn’t help. Lowering population rate should trump consequentialism here. This point goes to Con.
(Farmers Shouldn’t Kill)
Con says that farmers need to focus on their job, not killing. Pro says that they have to still do the killing to show solidarity, but that the bodies can be processed elsewhere. Pro argues that farmers become executioners, not farmers anymore. Pro gave no evidence to show how farmers killing increases solidarity. This point goes to Con.
Pro: 2
Con: 3
Sources
Con cites definitions of human sacrifice, but he also gives car crash statistics that are vital to his argument, as well as citing the Declaration of Independence. He gets sources.
Conduct
Pro forfeited. That’s bad conduct.
*All Other Points Tied*
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: RationalMadman // Mod Action: Not Removed
Reason for mod action: Troll debates are not moderated, per the site voting policy guidelines. No moderation action is appropriate on this vote.
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")
Since this debate is a truism, no action is taken.
*******************************************************************
Both sides had pretty good arguments however Cons's rebuttals were not so sharp.
Case 1.Pro claims:The amount of whites born out of wedlock,or dropping out of high schools,or growing up without fathers is significantly lower than blacks.
Con response:And?,Your white privilege card swiped again.
This was not a rebuttal. He also did not prove Why it was white privilege.
Case 2:Pro claims that BLM loses good morals in the black community-"Loose morals and bad culture."
Con response-"Bad culture now? Wow, I wonder what's next. Keep the stereotypes coming."
Con did not rebuttal with good points or facts. Instead claimed it was a stereotype
Sources-tie
S&P-Tie
Conduct-Poor conduct by con. As Pinkfreud08 politely outlined in his vote Con said this:
" You just want to pull out your white privilege card. "
" No, MLK was not a racist, but you are. "
" Again with the "what-if" scenarios. Nobody has time for that crap."
" Stop acting like you've never ever cussed in your life, bitch"
" Oh shut up you are the one with loose morals and loss of character "
He was also very rude in the comments to commentators such as myself, Boat, and Pinkfreud08.
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Dr.Franklin // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 4 points to pro for arguments and conduct
RFD: See above
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 is not enough discussion on these points in this RFD. Finally, and most significantly, one is not allowed to rely on other votes in order to make a decision. The voter must assess the content of the debate and only the debate, any reasoning based on arguments made or information given outside of the debate rounds is unacceptable. This includes reasoning that stems from already-placed votes, comment sections, and separate forums. Votes that impermissibly factor in outside content and which are reported will be removed.
The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
The voter should also review this: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346?page=1&post_number=4
I would like to thank both opponents for this debate
POOR CONDUCT:
Con had the worst debate conduct I've ever seen on this website in a long time. Throughout the entire debate, Con insulted and had a condescending attitude with pro, CUE THE MONTAGE.
" You just want to pull out your white privilege card. "
" No, MLK was not a racist, but you are. "
" Again with the "what-if" scenarios. Nobody has time for that crap."
" Stop acting like you've never ever cussed in your life, bitch"
" Oh shut up you are the one with loose morals and loss of character "
And my personal FAVORITE!
" Have fun continuing to suck Trump's dick. "
This obnoxious behavior has cost Con their conduct point.
I ask for other voters to consider this as well when voting
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Pinkfreud08 // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 1 point to pro for conduct
RFD: See above
Reason for mod action: While the conduct point is sufficient, there still needs to be a RFD on why the argument point is left as a tie. Reminder: The only time when you can vote solely for conduct is when a debater forfeits more than 1/2 the rounds.
The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
The voter should also review this: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346?page=1&post_number=4
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Ramshutu // 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.
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: omar2345 // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 4 points to con for arguments and conduct
RFD: see below
Reason for mod action: This vote was rather difficult to judge. Upon closer inspection, I believe that the vote should be removed. First, 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. The key word here is explaining how this was excessive and making the debate toxic. I don't see enough analysis in this vote to award conduct point. The argument point is borderline; however "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 are many arguments and counterarguments that are left unaddressed in this vote.
The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
The voter should also review this: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346?page=1&post_number=4
The instigator's points were that sex is great and homosexuality isn't harmful. The instigator laid theses points very simply which I am sure helped the reader the contender understand what he was saying. The contender made points about homosexuality being evil by saying something done by homosexuals is harmful rather then how homosexuality is evil. He also decided to change what the instigator made this debate to be about with this "Is homosexuality harmful to society?". If the contender did not like the debate don't accept it or ask the instigator to change the debate in order to fit what he wanted. Second blunder of the contender was not addressing the instigator's arguments. He had more than enough space because he hardly used any and there was a 30k character limit. After not really that much added onto the instigator's Round 2 in the contender's Round 2 pretty much stated white people are not harmful to society but before that states he doens't know black people are harmful for society. I think this is a sign of cowardice by him for not stating his actual positions because more often than not white crime rates are of course compared to black crimes as well. With this in mind I believe he is actually lying about his position. This would me be enough to give the instigator a conduct point as well. The contender did not try to make a good faith approach to debunk the instigator's arguments tried to change what the debate was about and on top of that was what I consider lying about his position.
So basically the contender failed to point out how homosexuality is evil or even harmful to society whereas the instigator clearly showed the problems if they had a specific response to his arguments. The contender went down the your analogy doesn't apply route which is wrong and was not clearly shown by the contender to not apply to the debate at hand.
The instigator also gets the conduct point because he did try to rebut the contender's point and that same courtesy was not shown by the contender. The contender also tried to change the way the debate was headed and I would consider lying about his positions.
Everything else wasn't relevant to my vote so I left it out.
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Bazza97125 // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 4 points to pro for sources/sg
RFD: The earth is flat is a retarded debate
Reason for mod action: In order to be eligible to vote, Accounts must have read the site's COC AND completed at least 2 non-troll debates without any forfeits OR posted 100 forum posts
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 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.
The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
The voter should also review this: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346?page=1&post_number=4
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: {username} // Mod Action: Not Removed
Reason for mod action: Troll debates are not moderated, per the site voting policy guidelines. No moderation action is appropriate on this vote.
Special mod note on this: Bsh and I discussed in depth about what to do when a voter votes on a troll debate but doesn't meet the eligability criteria. Bsh and I decided that if the default is to not moderate the vote.
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Bazza97125 // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 6 points to pro for arguments, sources, s/g
RFD: Good debate
Reason for mod action: This voter meets none of the criteria set forth in the COC. In order to be eligible to vote, Accounts must have read the site's COC AND completed at least 2 non-troll debates without any forfeits OR posted 100 forum posts
The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
The voter should also review this: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346?page=1&post_number=4
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Our_Boat_is_Right // Mod Action: Not Removed
Reason for mod action: The vote was borderline. By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient.
The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
The voter should also review this: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346?page=1&post_number=4
*******************************************************************
You actually can control who votes. If you select "Judicial Decision" and select the people you want to vote. That being said, we discussed the option of blocking people from voting on debates. It was almost unanimously voted down.
Hi there - I’m going to send you a DM after work. Those votes were cast prior to the rule being enforced. The site owner and I are working on coding the rule into the site.
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Our_Boat_is_Right // Mod Action: Not Removed
Reason for mod action: The vote was borderline. By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient.
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Dr.Franklin // Mod Action: Not Removed
Reason for mod action: The debater forfeited more than 1/2 the rounds. This vote is not moderated.
*******************************************************************
Pro provides many reasons BLM is not accurate in its' information and many reasons it does not actually focus on helping black people but they don't really stick to the original statement "Black Lives Matter brainwashes peoples' minds to make them hate whites." If this was the only issue with either side I would have to say Con had a more convincing argument. However, Con made a lot of statements that they did not back up with facts such as " White people don't have to worry about the texture of their hair, the color of their skin color or their cultural accessories as the reason why they didn't get a job.". Also, Con loses some credibility when they say, " White people don't have to worry about having a talk with their children about obeying police officers and following their every command or their life could be gone." Commands such as what? Drop your weapon? Back away from the children? It doesn't matter what race you are. If you're perceived as threatening bodily harm toward a police officer or anyone else and you are not following the officer's commands you will be either shot or subdued.
Sources:
Con:
. CNN (wildly known as having liberal bias)
. ABC (wildly known as having liberal bias)
. Wikipedia (notoriously inaccurate)
. NASA (used to back up statement "the sky is blue")
. USA Today (wildly known as having liberal bias)
. Washington Post (wildly known as having liberal bias)
.
Pro:
. You Gov
. TFC (The Filipeano Channel)
. FBI (Federal Biro of Investigation)
. Harvard
. Los Angeles Times (slight bias towards the left)
. Waco Tribune
Because of the reliability of Pro's sources vs Con's sources pro wins the point for sources.
I didn't see any issues with grammer so I tied it.
I have the same issue with Con's swearing and insults as stated in most of the other votes. Overall, while pro did use a few insults con used many more.
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Michael_Hastings // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 6 points to pro for arguments, sources, and conduct.
RFD: See above
Reason for mod action: This account is ineligible to vote. In order to be eligible to vote, Accounts must have read the site's COC AND completed at least 2 non-troll debates without any forfeits OR posted 100 forum posts
The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
The voter should also review this: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346?page=1&post_number=4
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Ad_Infinitum // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 7 points to con
RFD: Con was interested in the spirit of debate, and used logical processes to explain their argument, while pro resorted to Ad Hominem arguments and flagrant personal statements. In addition, pro failed to address their own original claim, and argued semantics.
Reason for mod action: This voter is ineligible to vote. In order to be eligible to vote, Accounts must have read the site's COC AND completed at least 2 non-troll debates without any forfeits OR posted 100 forum posts
The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
The voter should also review this: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346?page=1&post_number=4
*******************************************************************
Mod note: Full forfeit debates are nod moderated unless the voter votes for the forfeiting side.
The title of the debate should make it clear what the resolution is.
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Ramshutu // Mod Action: Not Removed
Reason: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Ragnar // Mod Action: Not Removed
Reason for mod action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Our_Boat_is_Right // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 1 point to pro for conduct
RFD: Con said a number of things that had poor conduct. I was going to give arguments to pro, but out of smypathy and not wanting to embarass con, I will not adress arguments.
"bitch"
"fuck you bitch"
"classic case of white supremacy"
"classic case of white privilege"----pro's not even white lmao
"The police are the trigger happy people"
"Have fun continuing to suck Trump's dick. "
"you're a racist cunt"---which doesn't even make sense since Pro is not even white lmao
"MLK is racist"
Reason for mod action: While the conduct vote is fine, the voter needs to justify the tied argument vote.
The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
The voter should also review this: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346?page=1&post_number=4
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 3 points to pro for arguments
RFD: Troll debate
Reason for mod action: This isn't a troll debate. Consequently, 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.
The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
The voter should also review this: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346?page=1&post_number=4
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Our_Boat_is_Right // Mod Action: Not Removed
Reason for mod action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: JasonGrace // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 4 points to con for arguments and conduct
RFD: Con had strong convincing arguments like how "if the earth was flat, it would effect gravity, time, the seasons and life on earth in many ways" whereas Pro responded with a lot of religious statements. Both Con and Pro provided reliable sources and both of them had good spelling and grammar. Pro often talked ill-mannered about Con's arguments by calling Con's arguments/questions; "DECEIVING QUOTE", "SATANIC QUESTIONS" and "UNGODLY SATANIC QUOTE". As a result, Con had better conduct.
Reason for mod action: In order to be eligible to vote, Accounts must have read the site's COC AND completed at least 2 non-troll debates without any forfeits OR posted 100 forum posts. They will regain the right to vote once they have done these things. The voter should read their PM for more info.
The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
The voter should also review this: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346?page=1&post_number=4
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Timewarps_1 // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 7 points to con
RFD: The contender had a better argument in my opinion.
Reason for mod action: Firstly, in order to be eligible to vote, Accounts must have read the site's COC AND completed at least 2 non-troll debates without any forfeits OR posted 100 forum posts. The voter has done none of these things and thus their vote is removed.
The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
The voter should also review this: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346?page=1&post_number=4
*******************************************************************
I'm down
They are! It's very subjective and you get exposure to new music.
Thank you!
Fair point. I'll delete my vote.
he said it was countering Ramshutu, not Death
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported:Our_Boat_is_Right // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 3 points to con for arguments, 1 point to pro for conduct
RFD: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1E_AbjebQThhPKsDDkHDkuSTuT4oqrXPkx-X4Tjb6u30/edit?usp=sharing
Reason for mod action: While arguments are fine, the conduct point isn't. 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).
The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
The voter should also review this: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346?page=1&post_number=4
*******************************************************************
It's not a problem. I'm going to PM you in a few minutes. Welcome to the site!
"Trump implied that white supremacists were morally equivalent to the people resisting racism."
Pro does not provide any direct evidence for this and it is a cat fight back and forth about the sourcing. This point was a mess, so I can't award points for this.
"Trump said there are "some very fine people" among white supremacists."
Con provides the context of Trump's quote and his clarification that he wasn't talking about the Nazis and white supremacists. He shows that there were counter protestors of the taking down of the statue that weren't associated with the rally, so with all this, it is very clear Trump was not being racist.
"Trump racially discriminated against black people in his apartment building."
Con responds by saying Trump avoided renting welfare, no matter the race. This was also in the 1900's a long time ago, and the resolution says "IS racist", not "was." Either way, this comment does not prove Trump IS racist in current day.
All of this said, the argument point goes to con as there were not enough clear and cut examples of racism.
Sources: Tied
Spelling/Grammar: Tied
Conduct: Con dropped multiple points, although he did mention most of them later down the debate, it disrupted the flow of those points and didn't allow for nuanced discussion on them. Conduct to Pro.
Good job to both debaters. Interesting debate.
Your new vote looks better and is deemed sufficient
No because "Mere appeals to quantity are not sufficient to justify awarding sources points."
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Christen // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 3 points to pro for arguments, 1 point to con for spelling and grammar.
RFD: I agree that Black Lives Matter is a black supremacist group that makes black people look bad.
Reason for mod action: First, this user is ineligible to vote. In order to be eligible to vote, accounts must have read the site's COC AND completed at least 2 non-troll debates without any forfeits OR posted 100 forum posts
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 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 should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
The voter should also review this: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346?page=1&post_number=4
*******************************************************************
Sources
Con cites definitions of human sacrifice, but he also gives car crash statistics that are vital to his argument, as well as citing the Declaration of Independence. He gets sources.
I really need to see how this weighs into the context of the debate and how this weighs more heavily to con's favor. You need to compare these sources to at least one of Pro's sources. The utility here isn't explained.
Basically, I need you to go more in-depth on the source point.
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Speedrace // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 6 points to con for arguments, sources, and conduct.
RFD: See below
Reason for mod action: While everything else is fine, sources are not sufficient. 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. In this case, I don't see any compare/contrast between pro's and con's sources to justify the point. There also isn't enough discussion on the strengh of those sources.
The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
The voter should also review this: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346?page=1&post_number=4
*******************************************************************
Arguments
Practicality (1A)
Pro says that human corpses can be used as sacrifices, and Con responds by saying that there are other more efficient ways of doing that. Pro says that we could do both, therefore creating a surplus. Because Con didn’t respond, this point goes to Pro.
(1B)
Pro says that we can sacrifice criminals and lower the crime rate. Con says that this will make farmers vigilantes and turn them into executioners. He also said it would be unfair for those who committed minor crimes. Pro says he doesn’t care about criminal’s rights. Con said that they are entitled to their rights regardless, and also makes the point that it wouldn’t be sacrifice unless you’re giving up something good. Pro says the Constitution never explicitly guarantees a right to life, and Con corrects himself and cites the Declaration of Independence.
Overall, Pro gave no real reason to sacrifice criminals beyond the crime rate. Con showed how criminals still have rights, and also that we shouldn’t sacrifice people who commit minor crimes. This point goes to Con.
(1C)
Pro says that this will allow fairness and increase our sense of community by making kind of a sport. Pro says that executing all criminals isn’t fair. Con uses consequentialism to state that if it lowers the crime rate, the end justifies the means. Con never responded to this, so this point goes to Pro.
(Ship Some Off To Africa)
Pro proposes sending some people to Africa to be food. Con shows how there are WAY to many criminals for this to be practical, as well as it raising African crime because cannibalism is illegal there. Pro just says that this will stop car crashes and help African crime rates (but gives no evidence for that). Con says that encouraging cannibalism doesn’t help. Lowering population rate should trump consequentialism here. This point goes to Con.
(Farmers Shouldn’t Kill)
Con says that farmers need to focus on their job, not killing. Pro says that they have to still do the killing to show solidarity, but that the bodies can be processed elsewhere. Pro argues that farmers become executioners, not farmers anymore. Pro gave no evidence to show how farmers killing increases solidarity. This point goes to Con.
Pro: 2
Con: 3
Sources
Con cites definitions of human sacrifice, but he also gives car crash statistics that are vital to his argument, as well as citing the Declaration of Independence. He gets sources.
Conduct
Pro forfeited. That’s bad conduct.
*All Other Points Tied*
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: RationalMadman // Mod Action: Not Removed
Reason for mod action: Troll debates are not moderated, per the site voting policy guidelines. No moderation action is appropriate on this vote.
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")
Since this debate is a truism, no action is taken.
*******************************************************************
I will refer that to bsh1 as he handles the bans. In the future, please privately PM us if you have a problem with a user.
Both sides had pretty good arguments however Cons's rebuttals were not so sharp.
Case 1.Pro claims:The amount of whites born out of wedlock,or dropping out of high schools,or growing up without fathers is significantly lower than blacks.
Con response:And?,Your white privilege card swiped again.
This was not a rebuttal. He also did not prove Why it was white privilege.
Case 2:Pro claims that BLM loses good morals in the black community-"Loose morals and bad culture."
Con response-"Bad culture now? Wow, I wonder what's next. Keep the stereotypes coming."
Con did not rebuttal with good points or facts. Instead claimed it was a stereotype
Sources-tie
S&P-Tie
Conduct-Poor conduct by con. As Pinkfreud08 politely outlined in his vote Con said this:
" You just want to pull out your white privilege card. "
" No, MLK was not a racist, but you are. "
" Again with the "what-if" scenarios. Nobody has time for that crap."
" Stop acting like you've never ever cussed in your life, bitch"
" Oh shut up you are the one with loose morals and loss of character "
He was also very rude in the comments to commentators such as myself, Boat, and Pinkfreud08.
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Dr.Franklin // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 4 points to pro for arguments and conduct
RFD: See above
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 is not enough discussion on these points in this RFD. Finally, and most significantly, one is not allowed to rely on other votes in order to make a decision. The voter must assess the content of the debate and only the debate, any reasoning based on arguments made or information given outside of the debate rounds is unacceptable. This includes reasoning that stems from already-placed votes, comment sections, and separate forums. Votes that impermissibly factor in outside content and which are reported will be removed.
The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
The voter should also review this: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346?page=1&post_number=4
*******************************************************************
I would like to thank both opponents for this debate
POOR CONDUCT:
Con had the worst debate conduct I've ever seen on this website in a long time. Throughout the entire debate, Con insulted and had a condescending attitude with pro, CUE THE MONTAGE.
" You just want to pull out your white privilege card. "
" No, MLK was not a racist, but you are. "
" Again with the "what-if" scenarios. Nobody has time for that crap."
" Stop acting like you've never ever cussed in your life, bitch"
" Oh shut up you are the one with loose morals and loss of character "
And my personal FAVORITE!
" Have fun continuing to suck Trump's dick. "
This obnoxious behavior has cost Con their conduct point.
I ask for other voters to consider this as well when voting
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Pinkfreud08 // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 1 point to pro for conduct
RFD: See above
Reason for mod action: While the conduct point is sufficient, there still needs to be a RFD on why the argument point is left as a tie. Reminder: The only time when you can vote solely for conduct is when a debater forfeits more than 1/2 the rounds.
The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
The voter should also review this: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346?page=1&post_number=4
*******************************************************************
I'll let bsh take a look, though I'm pretty sure this qualifies as a FF.
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Ramshutu // 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.
*******************************************************************
A truism is defined as "a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new or interesting." In this case, this meets the definition.
Not a problem. We make mistakes at times and we would always be willing to listen to appeals. This was a bit of a challenging decision.
See below
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: omar2345 // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 4 points to con for arguments and conduct
RFD: see below
Reason for mod action: This vote was rather difficult to judge. Upon closer inspection, I believe that the vote should be removed. First, 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. The key word here is explaining how this was excessive and making the debate toxic. I don't see enough analysis in this vote to award conduct point. The argument point is borderline; however "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 are many arguments and counterarguments that are left unaddressed in this vote.
The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
The voter should also review this: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346?page=1&post_number=4
*******************************************************************
The instigator's points were that sex is great and homosexuality isn't harmful. The instigator laid theses points very simply which I am sure helped the reader the contender understand what he was saying. The contender made points about homosexuality being evil by saying something done by homosexuals is harmful rather then how homosexuality is evil. He also decided to change what the instigator made this debate to be about with this "Is homosexuality harmful to society?". If the contender did not like the debate don't accept it or ask the instigator to change the debate in order to fit what he wanted. Second blunder of the contender was not addressing the instigator's arguments. He had more than enough space because he hardly used any and there was a 30k character limit. After not really that much added onto the instigator's Round 2 in the contender's Round 2 pretty much stated white people are not harmful to society but before that states he doens't know black people are harmful for society. I think this is a sign of cowardice by him for not stating his actual positions because more often than not white crime rates are of course compared to black crimes as well. With this in mind I believe he is actually lying about his position. This would me be enough to give the instigator a conduct point as well. The contender did not try to make a good faith approach to debunk the instigator's arguments tried to change what the debate was about and on top of that was what I consider lying about his position.
(3/3
So basically the contender failed to point out how homosexuality is evil or even harmful to society whereas the instigator clearly showed the problems if they had a specific response to his arguments. The contender went down the your analogy doesn't apply route which is wrong and was not clearly shown by the contender to not apply to the debate at hand.
The instigator also gets the conduct point because he did try to rebut the contender's point and that same courtesy was not shown by the contender. The contender also tried to change the way the debate was headed and I would consider lying about his positions.
Everything else wasn't relevant to my vote so I left it out.