You did nothing wrong. Someone reported your vote and I determined that it did not need to be removed. Anytime someone reports a vote, I will tag the person who gets reported and will give them an explanation for any mod decision that I make.
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: WolframMagic // Mod Action: Not Removed
Points awarded: 4 points to pro for arguments and conduct
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.
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: {username} // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 5 points to con for arguments
RFD: See ramshutu's vote
Reason for mod action: First and foremost, the voter is illegible 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. When they have done these things, they will regain the eligibility to vote. Finally, it is never acceptable to plagiarize someone else's vote. The voter should see their DMs 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
A Song of Ice and Fire and Lord of the Rings. Ultimately though, this is a trap debate as he will hatch on to the **In my opinion** part of the resolution.
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: K_Michael // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 5 points to con for arguments and sources.
RFD: If Ramshutu can prove it, then he can teach RM to prove it. Since Pro never refuted the ability of Con's methods of proof, they are considered valid.
Arguments to Con.
I believe having any sources at all compared to Pro's zero constitutes a win. Sources to Con.
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. Second 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. Since the vote failed to do these things, the 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
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Pinkfreud08 // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: Full 7 points to pro
RFD: I would like to thank both opponents for this debate.
POOR CONDUCT
Con has ff the majority of the rounds of the debate which is poor conduct
I ask the other voters to consider this when voting on conduct as well.
Reason for mod action: Although con forfeited half the rounds, it is not enough to award full 7 points to pro. Conduct is sufficiently explained, though they need to justify the remaining points.
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: Removed
Points awarded: 4 points to con for arguments and conduct.
RFD: Pro talked about how Con's morals came from his belief but never actually proved it. Throughout the debate Con showed that his morals and politics were very distinct but Pro simply ignored them, repeating again and again that Con was wrong with no actual sustenance.
Reason for mod action: First, 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. second 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.
Finally, the 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. Their voting privileges have been revoked until they have met these criteria. They should check their DM for more information.
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: Sporkicide // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: Pro
RFD: Con lost the moment he started behaving childishly and disrespecting his opponent.
Reason for mod action: First and foremost, this user is ineligible to vote. In order 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. This user has done none of those things and so this vote is removed.
Furthermore, this vote fails to meet the COC standards. 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.
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 rules say that one must vote for the side that did not concede or forfeit. In this case, while con forfeited a few rounds, it was less than 1/2 the rounds that would be required to vote on conduct alone. Since Pro conceded the resolution, a vote for con is the only correct vote.
This was borderline-ish as to whether or not this was a troll debate. I asked bsh his opinion and he ruled that it was not a troll debate due to the serious nature of the arguments.
Hey sorry for the delayed response. I'm not calling it a troll vote rather I am clarifying that this is not a troll debate. A troll debate is any (a) competition-style debate (e.g. rap battle, talent show, poetry competition), (b) debate primarily designed to be humorous or facetious or containing primarily humorous or facetious content, and (c) debate on a truism (e.g. "a bachelor is someone who is unmarried"). Votes on troll debates are not moderated. I am clarifying there that votes are moderated and this does not qualifty as a troll debate.
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: K_Michael // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 6 arguments to pro for arguments, sources, and conduct
RFD: owl is an incoherent term as Con says. I also award conduct on the basis of purposely creating a debate to trap ignorants. I would also like to note that I knew that obi meant belt before reading this debate, so I know you what you were doing.
And finally, I don't want the #1 on the leaderboard to lose a debate to the last place's alt.
Reason for mod action: The voter explains none of these points. Further, voting based on bias and not wanting someone to lose is not acceptable.
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: Removed
Points awarded: 2 points to pro for s/g and conduct
RFD: This debate was just a grammar lesson. The only arguments were about the grammar, and the instigator failed to understand or dispute.
Arguments tied. I won't outright reward the K with argument points, but there were no normal arguments to counter until the final round (at which point I discount them for not being a natural part of the debate).
Conduct for forfeiture.
Reason for mod action: The conduct is sufficient; however, the S/G is not. In order to award s/g, the voter must
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.
None of this was done in the RFD.
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: Pinkfreud08 // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 4 points to pro for s/g and arguments; 1 point to con for conduct
RFD: Conduct point:
- Countering Ragnar's poor conduct point since ff 1 round shouldn't be reason enough to award conduct points.
FF the majority of the rounds, however, should be.
I must also award pro the point for spelling and grammar since he/she's arguments at least were readable unlike Con's whom I couldn't read clearly.
Reason for mod action: Counter votes are removed. Further, forfeiting 1 round is sufficient reason to award conduct; however it would not be sufficient to award only conduct.
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: Debaticus // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 3 points to pro for spelling and sources
RFD: Cannot vote for arguments, because they were both very hard to understand. I personally could argue this debate on either side, and I would like to.
Reason for mod action: This account is ineligible to vote. They should check their DMs for more information.
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: Pinkfreud08 // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: Full 7 points to Con except for conduct, which they give to pro.
RFD: Countering Ramshutu's poor vote bomb as he makes no attempt to argue why Wrick It Ralphs vote was unjust in the first place,
Until he/she gives me a just reason to believe Ralphs vote was poor, my vote bomb will still stand.
Reason for mod action: Counter vote bombs are removed via our 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
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: K_Michael // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: Full 7 points to Con
RFD: Fetuses are indeed, an impractical replacement for paper money. Bulky and spoil easily.
Reason for mod action: This is not a troll debate, thus all points need to be explained. The voter should review the COC.
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: Removed
Points awarded: 6 points to pro fo spelling, grammar, and sources; 1 point to con for conduct
RFD: Counter vote bomb. With the exception of one point, as I do actually think Ragnar won this. The reason is specifically due to the entertaining way he pointed out the storage issues, issues with vending machines and the issues with various forms of inflation; pointing out that USF is a replacement and not simply a type of gold standard replacement effectively nullifies any economic benefits and outweighed the benefits suggested by pro.
Reason for mod action: Counter vote bombs are removed via the COC. This is not a troll debate.
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: Wrick-It-Ralph // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: Full 7 points to Con
RFD: I think I'm safe to assume that this is a troll debate. Even if I get counterbombed by ramshutu, I'll still be happy because then at least he's harassing someone else for a change :) (shameless plug for my debate)
While I find a good joke as entertaining as the next person. I don't really find jokes about fetuses to be funny in the least even when they're satirical. I vote con by virtue of his position being ever slightly more palatable than Pro's
Reason for mod action: This is borderline whether or not this is a troll debate, as such we are treating this as a non-troll debate given the serious nature of the arguments. Therefore, all points need to be explained per the COC.
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: This vote is sufficient
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: K_Michael // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 3 to pro for sources
RFD: I believe that the lost in translation argument by Pro is superior. The English-speaking voice actors won't necessarily carry the intended tone of voice.
Reason for mod action: This is not a troll debate and as such all votes are moderated. The arguments are not explained.
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.
The voter does none fo this.
The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Dr.Franklin // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 4 points to pro for arguments and sources; 2 points to con for sources.
RFD: Con forfeited and did not rebuttal points in last round. Yet con used a source
Reason for mod action: This debate is borderline as to whether or not this is a troll/non-troll debate. As such, the default is to moderate votes. That being said, the voter fails to meet the standards set by the COC. While the conduct point is sufficient, arguments and sources are not. In order to award arguments, the voter must 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. Sources are also not sufficient. Mere appeals to quantity are not sufficient to justify awarding sources point.
The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
If Con had stuck out his forfeit as an argument for "human-discernible context" I might have rewarded a very clever piece of evidence but Con apologizes first and never links the forfeit to argument so if there was any intention there, Con undermined.
Con's second argument, "Cui bono?" was soft, a question ably answered with IRL & relevant evidence in R1. I like the completeness of the Damage of Forfeits argument, essentially closing the cleverness threat.
Con's R3 falls flat. Yes, the description section is sometimes used as a tool to hedge the contender. If the confines are too narrow for success (I think I agree with Con that forcing Ralph to use RatMan's weak argument is narrow ground to walk) reject the debate, or if you didn't read carefully enough beforehand, K the best you can anyway (like I said, a full-frontal forfeit might have won over a few voters in this context). What does not work is forfeit
R1, argue R2, cry foul R3....but Con knows that which is why Con tosses some pineapples in at the end:
the better debater sometimes forfeits- fine
overriding- Con is arguing for and against automation
few ties- how does this link to human context?
no time saved- not bad, grammar hurts:
"Your preamble talks about voting fraud" It did? where?
penultimate round- con dismisses the disadvantage as commonplace. How does that recommend against point balancing the disadvantage?
Arguments to Pro
Tied on grammar in the name of proportionality, although Con at least once writes the opposite of intent: "So you solution is saving any time. " should be "your" "not saving,"
Sources to Pro: Pro's use of debates was effective and relevant.
Conduct to Pro: for Con's forfeit (even if Con had forfeited for effect, I would have deducted here)
Pro's got a simple plan for the benefit of all us here at DART. I like Pro's plan, I think it might save us from some bullshit. Con failed to introduce much doubt, with or without RM's approach.
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: oromagi // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 6 points to pro for arguments, sources, and conduct
RFD: See above
Reason for mod action: The source point is insufficient. In order to award sources, the voter must: (a) Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate; (b) Directly evaluate at least one source in particular cited in the debate and explain how it either bolstered or weakened the argument it was used to support; and (c) Must explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's
Mere appeals to quantity are not sufficient to justify awarding sources points. Since there is no comparing and contrasting with the source points, this vote is deemed insufficient.
The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
I see multiple paths to victory con without running a K. That being said if I was to debate this as con, the most direct way to K the resolution is to argue that rights don’t exist.
You did nothing wrong. Someone reported your vote and I determined that it did not need to be removed. Anytime someone reports a vote, I will tag the person who gets reported and will give them an explanation for any mod decision that I make.
Mod note: Since this is a troll debate, votes are not moderated. Pink's vote thus is allowed to stand.
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: WolframMagic // Mod Action: Not Removed
Points awarded: 4 points to pro for arguments and conduct
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.
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: {username} // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 5 points to con for arguments
RFD: See ramshutu's vote
Reason for mod action: First and foremost, the voter is illegible 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. When they have done these things, they will regain the eligibility to vote. Finally, it is never acceptable to plagiarize someone else's vote. The voter should see their DMs 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: oromagi, Death23, Ramshutu // Mod Action: Not Removed
Reason for mod action: These votes were found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
*******************************************************************
A Song of Ice and Fire and Lord of the Rings. Ultimately though, this is a trap debate as he will hatch on to the **In my opinion** part of the resolution.
Thank you for inviting me to judge!
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: K_Michael // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 5 points to con for arguments and sources.
RFD: If Ramshutu can prove it, then he can teach RM to prove it. Since Pro never refuted the ability of Con's methods of proof, they are considered valid.
Arguments to Con.
I believe having any sources at all compared to Pro's zero constitutes a win. Sources to Con.
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. Second 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. Since the vote failed to do these things, the 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
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Pinkfreud08 // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: Full 7 points to pro
RFD: I would like to thank both opponents for this debate.
POOR CONDUCT
Con has ff the majority of the rounds of the debate which is poor conduct
I ask the other voters to consider this when voting on conduct as well.
Reason for mod action: Although con forfeited half the rounds, it is not enough to award full 7 points to pro. Conduct is sufficiently explained, though they need to justify the remaining points.
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: Removed
Points awarded: 4 points to con for arguments and conduct.
RFD: Pro talked about how Con's morals came from his belief but never actually proved it. Throughout the debate Con showed that his morals and politics were very distinct but Pro simply ignored them, repeating again and again that Con was wrong with no actual sustenance.
Reason for mod action: First, 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. second 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.
Finally, the 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. Their voting privileges have been revoked until they have met these criteria. They should check their DM for more information.
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
*******************************************************************
Please vote if you can!
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Sporkicide // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: Pro
RFD: Con lost the moment he started behaving childishly and disrespecting his opponent.
Reason for mod action: First and foremost, this user is ineligible to vote. In order 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. This user has done none of those things and so this vote is removed.
Furthermore, this vote fails to meet the COC standards. 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.
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
*******************************************************************
Lol i haven’t listened to it. It looks like it’s acoustic
I suppose. I’ll leave that for the judges to decide
What song is it? Feel free to submit it anyways
Great debate guys!
I laughed way too hard at that RFD
The rules say that one must vote for the side that did not concede or forfeit. In this case, while con forfeited a few rounds, it was less than 1/2 the rounds that would be required to vote on conduct alone. Since Pro conceded the resolution, a vote for con is the only correct vote.
You can revote with your original RFD as I took this debate seriously when it should have been taken as a troll debate.
Sure if I have time. Let me finish up some dinner and I'll hopefully cast a vote.
This was borderline-ish as to whether or not this was a troll debate. I asked bsh his opinion and he ruled that it was not a troll debate due to the serious nature of the arguments.
Hey sorry for the delayed response. I'm not calling it a troll vote rather I am clarifying that this is not a troll debate. A troll debate is any (a) competition-style debate (e.g. rap battle, talent show, poetry competition), (b) debate primarily designed to be humorous or facetious or containing primarily humorous or facetious content, and (c) debate on a truism (e.g. "a bachelor is someone who is unmarried"). Votes on troll debates are not moderated. I am clarifying there that votes are moderated and this does not qualifty as a troll debate.
Arguments coming soon. Sorry for the delay
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: K_Michael // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 6 arguments to pro for arguments, sources, and conduct
RFD: owl is an incoherent term as Con says. I also award conduct on the basis of purposely creating a debate to trap ignorants. I would also like to note that I knew that obi meant belt before reading this debate, so I know you what you were doing.
And finally, I don't want the #1 on the leaderboard to lose a debate to the last place's alt.
Reason for mod action: The voter explains none of these points. Further, voting based on bias and not wanting someone to lose is not acceptable.
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: Removed
Points awarded: 2 points to pro for s/g and conduct
RFD: This debate was just a grammar lesson. The only arguments were about the grammar, and the instigator failed to understand or dispute.
Arguments tied. I won't outright reward the K with argument points, but there were no normal arguments to counter until the final round (at which point I discount them for not being a natural part of the debate).
Conduct for forfeiture.
Reason for mod action: The conduct is sufficient; however, the S/G is not. In order to award s/g, the voter must
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.
None of this was done in the RFD.
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: Pinkfreud08 // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 4 points to pro for s/g and arguments; 1 point to con for conduct
RFD: Conduct point:
- Countering Ragnar's poor conduct point since ff 1 round shouldn't be reason enough to award conduct points.
FF the majority of the rounds, however, should be.
I must also award pro the point for spelling and grammar since he/she's arguments at least were readable unlike Con's whom I couldn't read clearly.
Reason for mod action: Counter votes are removed. Further, forfeiting 1 round is sufficient reason to award conduct; however it would not be sufficient to award only conduct.
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: Debaticus // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 3 points to pro for spelling and sources
RFD: Cannot vote for arguments, because they were both very hard to understand. I personally could argue this debate on either side, and I would like to.
Reason for mod action: This account is ineligible to vote. They should check their DMs for more information.
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
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
IMPORTANT MOD NOTE: The counter bombs will NOT count against you. In the future, please use the report button.
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Pinkfreud08 // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: Full 7 points to Con except for conduct, which they give to pro.
RFD: Countering Ramshutu's poor vote bomb as he makes no attempt to argue why Wrick It Ralphs vote was unjust in the first place,
Until he/she gives me a just reason to believe Ralphs vote was poor, my vote bomb will still stand.
Reason for mod action: Counter vote bombs are removed via our 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
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: K_Michael // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: Full 7 points to Con
RFD: Fetuses are indeed, an impractical replacement for paper money. Bulky and spoil easily.
Reason for mod action: This is not a troll debate, thus all points need to be explained. The voter should review the COC.
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: Removed
Points awarded: 6 points to pro fo spelling, grammar, and sources; 1 point to con for conduct
RFD: Counter vote bomb. With the exception of one point, as I do actually think Ragnar won this. The reason is specifically due to the entertaining way he pointed out the storage issues, issues with vending machines and the issues with various forms of inflation; pointing out that USF is a replacement and not simply a type of gold standard replacement effectively nullifies any economic benefits and outweighed the benefits suggested by pro.
Reason for mod action: Counter vote bombs are removed via the COC. This is not a troll debate.
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: Wrick-It-Ralph // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: Full 7 points to Con
RFD: I think I'm safe to assume that this is a troll debate. Even if I get counterbombed by ramshutu, I'll still be happy because then at least he's harassing someone else for a change :) (shameless plug for my debate)
While I find a good joke as entertaining as the next person. I don't really find jokes about fetuses to be funny in the least even when they're satirical. I vote con by virtue of his position being ever slightly more palatable than Pro's
Reason for mod action: This is borderline whether or not this is a troll debate, as such we are treating this as a non-troll debate given the serious nature of the arguments. Therefore, all points need to be explained per the COC.
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
*******************************************************************
bsh is ultimately the one who makes that decision, not me. That being said, bsh is super lenient on people and gives them multiple chances
He has been given a lengthy ban.
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Ramshutu // Mod Action: Not Removed
Reason for mod action: This vote is sufficient
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Ramshutu // Mod Action: Not Removed
Reason for mod action: This vote is sufficient
*******************************************************************
Exactly what I was thinking!
Thanks. The question is whether or not I should run a k
Removing your vote to fix vote.
Mod note:
This is a FF debate. Votes such as Ramshutu's will not be moderated unless they vote for the forfeiting side
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: K_Michael // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 3 to pro for sources
RFD: I believe that the lost in translation argument by Pro is superior. The English-speaking voice actors won't necessarily carry the intended tone of voice.
Reason for mod action: This is not a troll debate and as such all votes are moderated. The arguments are not explained.
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.
The voter does none fo this.
The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Dr.Franklin // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 4 points to pro for arguments and sources; 2 points to con for sources.
RFD: Con forfeited and did not rebuttal points in last round. Yet con used a source
Reason for mod action: This debate is borderline as to whether or not this is a troll/non-troll debate. As such, the default is to moderate votes. That being said, the voter fails to meet the standards set by the COC. While the conduct point is sufficient, arguments and sources are not. In order to award arguments, the voter must 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. Sources are also not sufficient. Mere appeals to quantity are not sufficient to justify awarding sources point.
The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
*******************************************************************
If Con had stuck out his forfeit as an argument for "human-discernible context" I might have rewarded a very clever piece of evidence but Con apologizes first and never links the forfeit to argument so if there was any intention there, Con undermined.
Con's second argument, "Cui bono?" was soft, a question ably answered with IRL & relevant evidence in R1. I like the completeness of the Damage of Forfeits argument, essentially closing the cleverness threat.
Con's R3 falls flat. Yes, the description section is sometimes used as a tool to hedge the contender. If the confines are too narrow for success (I think I agree with Con that forcing Ralph to use RatMan's weak argument is narrow ground to walk) reject the debate, or if you didn't read carefully enough beforehand, K the best you can anyway (like I said, a full-frontal forfeit might have won over a few voters in this context). What does not work is forfeit
R1, argue R2, cry foul R3....but Con knows that which is why Con tosses some pineapples in at the end:
the better debater sometimes forfeits- fine
overriding- Con is arguing for and against automation
few ties- how does this link to human context?
no time saved- not bad, grammar hurts:
"Your preamble talks about voting fraud" It did? where?
penultimate round- con dismisses the disadvantage as commonplace. How does that recommend against point balancing the disadvantage?
Arguments to Pro
Tied on grammar in the name of proportionality, although Con at least once writes the opposite of intent: "So you solution is saving any time. " should be "your" "not saving,"
Sources to Pro: Pro's use of debates was effective and relevant.
Conduct to Pro: for Con's forfeit (even if Con had forfeited for effect, I would have deducted here)
Pro's got a simple plan for the benefit of all us here at DART. I like Pro's plan, I think it might save us from some bullshit. Con failed to introduce much doubt, with or without RM's approach.
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: oromagi // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 6 points to pro for arguments, sources, and conduct
RFD: See above
Reason for mod action: The source point is insufficient. In order to award sources, the voter must: (a) Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate; (b) Directly evaluate at least one source in particular cited in the debate and explain how it either bolstered or weakened the argument it was used to support; and (c) Must explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's
Mere appeals to quantity are not sufficient to justify awarding sources points. Since there is no comparing and contrasting with the source points, this vote is deemed insufficient.
The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
*******************************************************************
I see multiple paths to victory con without running a K. That being said if I was to debate this as con, the most direct way to K the resolution is to argue that rights don’t exist.
No. I’ll explain why after work.
I laughed way too hard at that comment.
Not a problem. I always try to make the best RFD I can.
We are still looking into that. On another note, what do you think of my RFD overall?
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: RationalMadman // Mod Action: Not Removed
Points awarded: Con
Reason for mod action: This vote is sufficient.
*******************************************************************