This is a strange situation... I can revert it but only with the consent of both debate participants. K_Michael may not want his record to be unnecessarily damaged by an AI bot (hence why he intended the debate to be unrated from the outset), but if he does not mind, I can do as you requested.
I appreciate the votes! I'm with whiteflame in wishing there was more direct clash in the debate, but the approach CON took necessarily minimized that on my end.
I can remove it, although I would caution you not to use comments as the basis of your decision, since that discussion is all happening outside of the debate itself.
Here is your vote for reference:
"I expected slightly more from this but it seems rudimentary so I can be more brief. Con provided a definition of democracy, seemingly a commonplace one that perfectly encompasses the United States. Pro's argument appeared to be akin to the nirvana fallacy, and did not sufficiently combat the categories laid out by the contender. I get the impression that the US is an indirect democracy, and pro's notions of imperfection were not enough to disprove this."
No one's vote is being axed. No one reported Undefeatable's vote.
I am disputing what I see as bad takes on this debate because I think they are rooted in objectively incorrect interpretive frameworks. That's all. Undefeatable and/or Public Choice can do literally whatever they want with that information, or do absolutely nothing with it at all. I literally don't care. RM can give his takes too (insofar as he is not literally directing voters how to allocate points for the stated purpose of maximizing his own gain).
You have grossly mistaken my point. Let's acknowledge a distinction between doctrines which are ubiquitous and/or Orthodox, and those which are contested, shall we?
When I talk Orthodoxy, I'm talking things like God's sovereignty, human fallibility, the Trinity, and the Gospel account itself. Things which are essentially basic to Christianity.
Then there are the things which theologians debate over. Such as, the mechanics of salvation and/or predestination vs. free will.
I NEVER claimed compatibilism as the only doctrine of Orthodoxy, but I chose to argue it as the strongest position based on Scripture, which was something I fully intended to defend, except it was never seriously challenged, yet you of course assumed the role of "debater" instead of "voter," and forcefully crammed your own views into your vote (that I never sufficiently defended what was never contested).
I'm not going to advocate your vote's removal or anything, but for future reference, my fundamental problem is that you (not just you, I am noticing a trend in the voting here) imposed a burden of proof onto me (to substantiate basic, ubiquitous Orthodox doctrines -- things I would normally assume are fairly straightforward) that not even CON did. CON never challenged the vast majority of my argument on a Biblical basis. If he had, I would have presented more of the Bible in response.
Your job as the voter isn't to do CON's job for them and argue that I did not substantiate a common knowledge doctrine (I'm not claiming anything new or unusual. This isn't exactly rocket science, in the theological realm at least) enough. It's to examine whether CON actually put up a fight and made that argument themselves. They didn't. In debate, if you drop an argument, it stands unchallenged. It's not the voters job to take the place of the opponent and start fighting for them. That's demeaning to all parties involved.
You also (as well as the previous voter) ignored the resolution, ignored the burden analysis I did that CON outright dropped, and simply imposed your own interpretive framework in its stead.
I agree with RM, but I will add that you are outright false on many of your assessments.
For one, I referenced specific Scriptural passages explicitly 11 times within the first two rounds, and countless times implicitly by referring to broader, orthodox doctrine. You also outright omit literally 90% of the debate, which, if you would have read it, might have swayed your opinion.
I'm pretty confident I know what sort of ploy you were thinking of. It could work for Pro technically, although if I used it, it would obviously be done in bad faith. I might get voted down just for using it.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Bones // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 0:3, points to CON
>Reason for Decision: See Voting Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
This is a comedy debate. As such, it clearly falls into the category of non-moderated debates as defined below. Thus, no mod action is merited.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#non-moderated-debates
This debate has been reported. The debate topic, while potentially offensive, does not cross the line of constituting advocacy of terrorism, hate groups and/or violent extremism. Absent a desire from either party to delete said debate, it will remain. I urge users to remember that only CoC violations should be reported.
Regarding the report of #17... This comment requires no action. Please report only CoC infringements. There is no rule on DART against impolite comments.
"Key" arguments will be those that the voter must cover in order to fairly justify one winner over another. Now, moderation allows a pretty large amount of interpretive variation on the part of voters as to what is most important, and usually we play off of what the voter themselves say in this regard. To see this in practice, let's say the voter is voting on an abortion debate. PRO says: "the fetus is a part of the woman's body, which thus gives her the right to do with it as she sees fit." CON replies: "the fetus is not part of the woman's body because it is genetically independent of the woman." The voter votes for PRO on the basis of the first argument, but neglects to even mention CON's refutation. The voter here has chosen both of the arguments above as "key" arguments for themselves (since they both pertain to whether the fetus is or is not part of the woman's body), but they don't fairly cover these "key" arguments (or how PRO beats CON in that interaction). In this case we would delete the vote and ask the voter to please explain how PRO's argument interacts with CON's refutation.
This is not to say "key" argument interpretations are left entirely up to the voter, though. There are (many) times when voters jump to one side or the other while ignoring broad swaths of important content that must be mentioned in order to justify one side fulfilling/dismantling the resolution. In these cases, moderation will point out that the voter cherry-picked and/or refused to address content integral to the debate and ask for revisions to be made.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ragnar // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 0:5, points to CON
>Reason for Decision: See Voting Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
Another vote where I'm not certain why it was reported. All standards are met. Maybe the sources point could have been beefed up more, but I can't justifiably nitpick anything in particular.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Undefeatable // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: Winner to CON
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
I'm not certain why this vote was reported, a cursory reading showed a clear analysis of both PRO and CON's arguments with justifications regarding how those arguments interacted. All standards seem to be met and/or exceeded. Any nitpicking from me over the conclusions drawn would be an overstep of my role as a moderator.
I don't think you're really understanding what our standards are. You don't have to cover every detail, but you must show how KEY arguments interacted with each other. You must justify why one argument trumped another in your book (using only what was presented in the debate), otherwise voting becomes a simple argument popularity contest and the entire point of formal debate is undermined.
Thanks! It won't last for long unfortunately... Ragnar is about to beat Mairj23 in a debate, so he'll pass me up again. Good to finally reach this milestone though.
The Bible isn't a moral system. It can be the BASIS for a moral system, but it isn't one in of itself. The purpose of the Bible isn't to give an exhaustive moral rulebook, it's to outline the redemptive arc of humanity's history.
Just gonna say what WF said: it's difficult to compare live and writing. I feel that this debate was more difficult in the sense of raw effort I had to put into it, but that's just because a live debate takes about 45 mins and you're done lol
Regardless of my opinion, it's up to K_Michael's discretion.
This is a strange situation... I can revert it but only with the consent of both debate participants. K_Michael may not want his record to be unnecessarily damaged by an AI bot (hence why he intended the debate to be unrated from the outset), but if he does not mind, I can do as you requested.
Yikes. less than 2 days left.
Friendly reminder we have less than a week left. Tagging you two because you both showed interest in voting
I appreciate the votes! I'm with whiteflame in wishing there was more direct clash in the debate, but the approach CON took necessarily minimized that on my end.
I can remove it, although I would caution you not to use comments as the basis of your decision, since that discussion is all happening outside of the debate itself.
Here is your vote for reference:
"I expected slightly more from this but it seems rudimentary so I can be more brief. Con provided a definition of democracy, seemingly a commonplace one that perfectly encompasses the United States. Pro's argument appeared to be akin to the nirvana fallacy, and did not sufficiently combat the categories laid out by the contender. I get the impression that the US is an indirect democracy, and pro's notions of imperfection were not enough to disprove this."
Define "unacceptable"
I mean, if they thought your case was more convincing, so be it, I just disagree with their interpretations quite a bit.
No one's vote is being axed. No one reported Undefeatable's vote.
I am disputing what I see as bad takes on this debate because I think they are rooted in objectively incorrect interpretive frameworks. That's all. Undefeatable and/or Public Choice can do literally whatever they want with that information, or do absolutely nothing with it at all. I literally don't care. RM can give his takes too (insofar as he is not literally directing voters how to allocate points for the stated purpose of maximizing his own gain).
The drama is unnecessary.
During my fall break, that is something I could do. Let's plan on it.
You have grossly mistaken my point. Let's acknowledge a distinction between doctrines which are ubiquitous and/or Orthodox, and those which are contested, shall we?
When I talk Orthodoxy, I'm talking things like God's sovereignty, human fallibility, the Trinity, and the Gospel account itself. Things which are essentially basic to Christianity.
Then there are the things which theologians debate over. Such as, the mechanics of salvation and/or predestination vs. free will.
I NEVER claimed compatibilism as the only doctrine of Orthodoxy, but I chose to argue it as the strongest position based on Scripture, which was something I fully intended to defend, except it was never seriously challenged, yet you of course assumed the role of "debater" instead of "voter," and forcefully crammed your own views into your vote (that I never sufficiently defended what was never contested).
I'm not going to advocate your vote's removal or anything, but for future reference, my fundamental problem is that you (not just you, I am noticing a trend in the voting here) imposed a burden of proof onto me (to substantiate basic, ubiquitous Orthodox doctrines -- things I would normally assume are fairly straightforward) that not even CON did. CON never challenged the vast majority of my argument on a Biblical basis. If he had, I would have presented more of the Bible in response.
Your job as the voter isn't to do CON's job for them and argue that I did not substantiate a common knowledge doctrine (I'm not claiming anything new or unusual. This isn't exactly rocket science, in the theological realm at least) enough. It's to examine whether CON actually put up a fight and made that argument themselves. They didn't. In debate, if you drop an argument, it stands unchallenged. It's not the voters job to take the place of the opponent and start fighting for them. That's demeaning to all parties involved.
You also (as well as the previous voter) ignored the resolution, ignored the burden analysis I did that CON outright dropped, and simply imposed your own interpretive framework in its stead.
No offense, but if "God is beyond us" is all you got from my case and responses, you only took about 20% of my rounds into account for your calculus.
Thanks for the vote. I have a lot of problems with it, but the effort is appreciated.
Thank you!
Thanks for being willing to vote. Looking forward to your take!
I agree with RM, but I will add that you are outright false on many of your assessments.
For one, I referenced specific Scriptural passages explicitly 11 times within the first two rounds, and countless times implicitly by referring to broader, orthodox doctrine. You also outright omit literally 90% of the debate, which, if you would have read it, might have swayed your opinion.
I agree fully. In this case, work played a large part in my delay, but I also wanted time to think of my response.
I have not forgotten about this. Writing a rebuttal today, although I will be unable to post it until late tonight.
I was in Honduras for a week, so I have been very occupied lately
I have not forgotten about this debate. My constructive is almost finished.
I'm pretty confident I know what sort of ploy you were thinking of. It could work for Pro technically, although if I used it, it would obviously be done in bad faith. I might get voted down just for using it.
Did not expect such a swift acceptance. Looking forward to the debate
Guess you borrowed my setup... that's fine, I'll be a while. College is about to slap me in the face this next week. Not sure what to expect time-wise
Thanks!
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Bones // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 0:3, points to CON
>Reason for Decision: See Voting Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
This is a comedy debate. As such, it clearly falls into the category of non-moderated debates as defined below. Thus, no mod action is merited.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#non-moderated-debates
***
Being a joke debate, this debate is not eligible for normal moderation.
***
***
Being a joke debate, this debate is not eligible for normal moderation.
***
***
This debate has been reported. The debate topic, while potentially offensive, does not cross the line of constituting advocacy of terrorism, hate groups and/or violent extremism. Absent a desire from either party to delete said debate, it will remain. I urge users to remember that only CoC violations should be reported.
***
***
Regarding the report of #17... This comment requires no action. Please report only CoC infringements. There is no rule on DART against impolite comments.
***
I would be more interested if I didn't know I'd have to slog through 30k characters worth each round... Make it more like 15k and I may bite
There are a few dimensions to this.
"Key" arguments will be those that the voter must cover in order to fairly justify one winner over another. Now, moderation allows a pretty large amount of interpretive variation on the part of voters as to what is most important, and usually we play off of what the voter themselves say in this regard. To see this in practice, let's say the voter is voting on an abortion debate. PRO says: "the fetus is a part of the woman's body, which thus gives her the right to do with it as she sees fit." CON replies: "the fetus is not part of the woman's body because it is genetically independent of the woman." The voter votes for PRO on the basis of the first argument, but neglects to even mention CON's refutation. The voter here has chosen both of the arguments above as "key" arguments for themselves (since they both pertain to whether the fetus is or is not part of the woman's body), but they don't fairly cover these "key" arguments (or how PRO beats CON in that interaction). In this case we would delete the vote and ask the voter to please explain how PRO's argument interacts with CON's refutation.
This is not to say "key" argument interpretations are left entirely up to the voter, though. There are (many) times when voters jump to one side or the other while ignoring broad swaths of important content that must be mentioned in order to justify one side fulfilling/dismantling the resolution. In these cases, moderation will point out that the voter cherry-picked and/or refused to address content integral to the debate and ask for revisions to be made.
annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd forfeit incoming
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ragnar // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 0:5, points to CON
>Reason for Decision: See Voting Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
Another vote where I'm not certain why it was reported. All standards are met. Maybe the sources point could have been beefed up more, but I can't justifiably nitpick anything in particular.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Undefeatable // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: Winner to CON
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
I'm not certain why this vote was reported, a cursory reading showed a clear analysis of both PRO and CON's arguments with justifications regarding how those arguments interacted. All standards seem to be met and/or exceeded. Any nitpicking from me over the conclusions drawn would be an overstep of my role as a moderator.
I don't think you're really understanding what our standards are. You don't have to cover every detail, but you must show how KEY arguments interacted with each other. You must justify why one argument trumped another in your book (using only what was presented in the debate), otherwise voting becomes a simple argument popularity contest and the entire point of formal debate is undermined.
It's a bit too time & character restrictive for me. I need a bit more space to flesh out my ideas with this topic.
This entirely depends on how you categorize "simple minded" and what your metrics are to measure whether someone is or isn't such.
Please clarify what exactly is being debated here.
It really depends on the severity of the "rigging" and who was doing it
Thanks! It won't last for long unfortunately... Ragnar is about to beat Mairj23 in a debate, so he'll pass me up again. Good to finally reach this milestone though.
I'll see, but don't expect anything too detailed, I'd have to be concise
The Bible isn't a moral system. It can be the BASIS for a moral system, but it isn't one in of itself. The purpose of the Bible isn't to give an exhaustive moral rulebook, it's to outline the redemptive arc of humanity's history.
Just gonna say what WF said: it's difficult to compare live and writing. I feel that this debate was more difficult in the sense of raw effort I had to put into it, but that's just because a live debate takes about 45 mins and you're done lol
Hate to agree with RM, but Yahoo users will flock to Quora and probably pass us by.
bumperino
There is a large BoP here. As much as I'm tempted I'm swamped for time though.
Thanks for the vote
vote bump
vote bump