You really need to stop being so stubborn and self-examine . It's not that your ideas are bad. In fact, I'd be inclined to agree with some of them... It's the way you present them that needs work. Absolute statements and obvious hyperbole is a good way to create a BoP so gigantic for yourself you'll never be able to fulfill it. If you'd just operate within the formal debate framework properly, you'd be able to garner more respect from other users.
You would be well off to read the debate guide and terms list in the DebateArt forum: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346-about-dart-resources-for-new-members
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: zedvictor4// Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 2:4; 4 points to CON.
>Reason for Decision: "Another silly debate..... Whereby the underlying intention exceeds the constraints of the proposition, and so the intention is therefore cynical. The content of Pro's debate therefore, though extensive is excessive. Whereas Con simply addresses the issue directly. The cynicism of the intention gives Con the edge in terms conduct, though that is not to imply that Pro is disrespectful towards their opponent."
>Reason for Mod Action: So much is wrong with this one. Assigning sources with no justification... assigning conduct points while explicitly admitting PRO made no conduct errors... assigning argument points on what I would call gibberish...
In essence, this vote was just too murky and unintelligible. This can be avoided in future by just commenting on the core contention (and the main counterpoint or the lack thereof), listing a single source you found important (if voting sources), saying what conduct violation distracted you (if voting conduct)... You need not write a thesis but some minimal level of detail is required to verify knowledge of what you're grading.
Another note: opening with "Another silly debate" is an easy way to imply voter bias.
The wording of the resolution here makes CON's argument valid. I would've suggested PRO amend the resolution to be: "Being single as a human is more similar to being a dog than being a noble in terms of quality of life"
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Intelligence_06 // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 1:3; 3 points to CON.
>Reason for Decision: See Debate Tab
>Reason for Mod Action: While I completely disagree with their decision, users are allowed to assign points in any way they see fit as long as they adhere to DART voting guidelines. There are some exceptions, such as cases that are so blatantly unfair no rational person can approve of it, but otherwise our interpretive ability is severely handicapped.
Anyway, this vote met the bare minimum of voter requirements.
Debates with him do seem painful. In the end, you grab your W and your IQ eventually recovers, but was it worth it? I'm still asking myself those questions
Sure. I get there are contributions to society to consider. And if you want a debate solely on those impacts, that is one thing (Actually Seldiora, if you want to avoid a Kritik like mine, you should specify that her opinion is somehow not in the equation).
But there is a whole narrative around "women must join STEM, if you do not you're not fighting the patriarchy!" that I'm very against.
I am a formerly Christian turned agnostic (not athiest, as I haven't closed the door entirely on religion. My opinion about it is literally: "I don't know") So yeah... that does say a lot about backwardseden.
At this point I don't consider anything the media has to say about Trump remotely credible. Vice versa, I don't consider much Trump has to say at all credible.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ragnar // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 5:0; 5 points to PRO.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments/Debate Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
When the vote extension within the comments is accounted for, the vote is more than sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
I am unsure why this vote was reported, the only reason I can think of is disagreement in interpretation.
I am tired of repeating this, but it looks like I'll need to once again: users are allowed to assign points in any way they see fit as long as they adhere to DART voting guidelines.
To quote our Moderation Extended Policies and Interpretations:
"It is not moderation's job to judge the rightness or wrongness of the verdict reached. That means that interpretive differences (including what meanings can be deduced or inferred from the text) are not with the scope of reviewable content in a vote. There is one exception to this: the voter actually lying about or blatantly misstating (intentionally or not) what transpired in the debate such that no reasonable person, reading carefully, could reach the conclusion they reached."
Mods can step in to prevent decisions that are so blatantly unfair no rational person can approve of it, but otherwise our interpretive ability is severely handicapped.
it is not a characteristic of the phones themselves... only irresponsible drivers. The same problem could be true of any potential driving activity... If it's not paying attention, you probably shouldn't be doing it while driving.
Case & point.
You really need to stop being so stubborn and self-examine . It's not that your ideas are bad. In fact, I'd be inclined to agree with some of them... It's the way you present them that needs work. Absolute statements and obvious hyperbole is a good way to create a BoP so gigantic for yourself you'll never be able to fulfill it. If you'd just operate within the formal debate framework properly, you'd be able to garner more respect from other users.
You would be well off to read the debate guide and terms list in the DebateArt forum: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346-about-dart-resources-for-new-members
This was difficult to judge... I really don't like handing out ties. I RARELY do. Anyway, good job to both debaters.
"And these are the voters that haven't seen the documentary.
What a fraud."
Even if we had, it would've changed nothing. Your argument just stunk. Accept it and improve!
Life holds intrinsic value.
Nvm, I see Rag-man took care of it already!
Oh, oof. Didn't realize this had no votes
Not sure what you mean. Anyway, if the scope of the resolution were broader you probably would've won.
expect a vote from me tomorrow-ish. I have school but will be able to leave a vote midday I think
This really depends on the situation, whether the gov has a plan or not, etc.
Well at least its unrated, so if you lose it won't hurt you
If you wish, I can have the other moderators review the decision
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: zedvictor4// Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 2:4; 4 points to CON.
>Reason for Decision: "Another silly debate..... Whereby the underlying intention exceeds the constraints of the proposition, and so the intention is therefore cynical. The content of Pro's debate therefore, though extensive is excessive. Whereas Con simply addresses the issue directly. The cynicism of the intention gives Con the edge in terms conduct, though that is not to imply that Pro is disrespectful towards their opponent."
>Reason for Mod Action: So much is wrong with this one. Assigning sources with no justification... assigning conduct points while explicitly admitting PRO made no conduct errors... assigning argument points on what I would call gibberish...
In essence, this vote was just too murky and unintelligible. This can be avoided in future by just commenting on the core contention (and the main counterpoint or the lack thereof), listing a single source you found important (if voting sources), saying what conduct violation distracted you (if voting conduct)... You need not write a thesis but some minimal level of detail is required to verify knowledge of what you're grading.
Another note: opening with "Another silly debate" is an easy way to imply voter bias.
He's CON.
lately he's been on a roll
Thanks for your votes! I agree with Oromagi I should've pushed the trauma point a lot more.
The wording of the resolution here makes CON's argument valid. I would've suggested PRO amend the resolution to be: "Being single as a human is more similar to being a dog than being a noble in terms of quality of life"
+100
Meh, his own fault for wording it badly
Still... I'd like something with substance, not a last min rant lol
22 hours.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Intelligence_06 // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 1:3; 3 points to CON.
>Reason for Decision: See Debate Tab
>Reason for Mod Action: While I completely disagree with their decision, users are allowed to assign points in any way they see fit as long as they adhere to DART voting guidelines. There are some exceptions, such as cases that are so blatantly unfair no rational person can approve of it, but otherwise our interpretive ability is severely handicapped.
Anyway, this vote met the bare minimum of voter requirements.
Ha! You fool, I can simply act chary about words I pick to use. Wait, shit, I said the letter! Oh no, I said it four times!!! OH GOD, OH FUCK
Debates with him do seem painful. In the end, you grab your W and your IQ eventually recovers, but was it worth it? I'm still asking myself those questions
Sure. I get there are contributions to society to consider. And if you want a debate solely on those impacts, that is one thing (Actually Seldiora, if you want to avoid a Kritik like mine, you should specify that her opinion is somehow not in the equation).
But there is a whole narrative around "women must join STEM, if you do not you're not fighting the patriarchy!" that I'm very against.
*IQ lowers*
And then refuse to give an argument even if I waive and request it (this has happened). He has no concept of Burden of Proof.
I don't envy the voter who has to slog through this
I will likely be voting when all is said and done
I agree with Sum1. We need more active debaters on the site, especially ones that bring interesting topics
Why is this for you, me, a judge, or for society at large to decide? Why can't she decide want she wants to do for herself?
1 day left
IDK why this was ever thought to be a good topic, but as someone who as experienced both sides of the equation, I'll take it.
I am a formerly Christian turned agnostic (not athiest, as I haven't closed the door entirely on religion. My opinion about it is literally: "I don't know") So yeah... that does say a lot about backwardseden.
Nobody's hearing nothin!
Do not speak of that name here...
Welcome to the site!
Also, nice classic BQ topic.
At this point I don't consider anything the media has to say about Trump remotely credible. Vice versa, I don't consider much Trump has to say at all credible.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ragnar // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 5:0; 5 points to PRO.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments/Debate Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
When the vote extension within the comments is accounted for, the vote is more than sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
I am unsure why this vote was reported, the only reason I can think of is disagreement in interpretation.
I am tired of repeating this, but it looks like I'll need to once again: users are allowed to assign points in any way they see fit as long as they adhere to DART voting guidelines.
To quote our Moderation Extended Policies and Interpretations:
"It is not moderation's job to judge the rightness or wrongness of the verdict reached. That means that interpretive differences (including what meanings can be deduced or inferred from the text) are not with the scope of reviewable content in a vote. There is one exception to this: the voter actually lying about or blatantly misstating (intentionally or not) what transpired in the debate such that no reasonable person, reading carefully, could reach the conclusion they reached."
Mods can step in to prevent decisions that are so blatantly unfair no rational person can approve of it, but otherwise our interpretive ability is severely handicapped.
This will be fun. I like discussing languages
I'll vote on this at some point. Can't do it right now because my head is about to explode from writing that tournament argument
My brain is actually dead after writing that.
I had to do it to em
I'm starting to rethink voting
Somehow I predicted this
I don't think there is proof... But PRO will probably win anyway
3 new users, all in one 100 character debate... lol.
I'm guessing you are all part of the same debate team, and joined the site for practice?
Looks like Spongebob to me :P
Alright, I'm looking forward to a good debate
it is not a characteristic of the phones themselves... only irresponsible drivers. The same problem could be true of any potential driving activity... If it's not paying attention, you probably shouldn't be doing it while driving.