**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Intelligence_06, SirAnonymous, // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 1:3; 3 points to CON.
>Reason for Decision: "Concession"
>Reason for Mod Action:
This debate has been deemed non-moderated. Therefore, no moderation action is appropriate for this vote.
Full Forfeitures, explicit concessions, subjective competitions, truisms, and comedy (even if facetious) are not eligible for moderation (barring certain exceptions).
Now, to address Safalcon's complaint in detail: "I believe I should have the edge on better sources as well. And I think that's pretty obvious from the debate."
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."
I would like to add that there are a few other potential exceptions, such as in a case where a side explicitly concedes and voters favor the conceding user in assigning arguments points. Or, a case where a FF debate is voted for in favor of the forfeiting user. 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.
As RationalWiki states:
“some assertions demand that the universe be screaming with supporting evidence, so when that evidence is not actually observed, it counts against it."
Occam’s razor is the principle that, of two explanations that account for all the facts, the simpler one is more likely to be correct.
So, if there is no evidence of a God (something I hope you agree is a big assertion that would likely have a lot of evidence pointing towards it if it were true), what is the more likely explanation under Occam's razor?
a. God exists and provides no evidence of his existence.
or
b. God does not exist.
I think the answer is clear. The question then becomes, is there evidence of God's existence?
Frankly, you were so close to winning arguments that if you had put a bit more effort into the R3 that would've done it. Keep that in mind for future debates
This is a comment notifying the respective parties that the debate deletion request is denied.
Here is the debate deletion policy found in Subsection B1: Content Deletion of the Moderation Extended Policies and Interpretations document:
"Debates may not be deleted, barring certain exceptions.
Exceptions to PA.A2.SB.SbB1.PI are limited to:
- Cases in which both debaters consent to a debate’s deletion
- Cases in which the debate, either in its text or title, contains personal attacks against another user
- Cases in which the debate constitutes spam or advertising
- Cases in which the debate, either in its text or title, contains doxxing, PM-exposing, or seriously threatening content
- Cases in which the debate was created by an account impersonating DART staff
- Cases in which the debate was created by a multi-account of a user banned at the time of the debate’s creation"
As this debate did not fall under any of these categories, the debate shall remain unless Seldiora consents to its deletion.
I agree. I was swamped with debates of my own so I couldn't vote myself... It's a shame, but it happens and can't be helped, we need more active voters
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: seldiora // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:1; 1 points to CON.
>Reason for Decision: "unfair certainly, but pro didn't prove the community was as lively or as well as DDO's peak. He did well trying to mention the first two years of DDO vs current DART though."
>Reason for Mod Action: Did not justify awarding arguments points.
To award argument points, the voter must:
(1) survey the main argument and counterargument 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 real handicap of this debate is the character count... I get you have a high debate workload rn, but I feel that this topic deserves to be a bit more fleshed out
I don't like to make bets early, but Seldiora is right on this one... you've neglected to really respond to that health argument so far There are some good responses for you to give, so it's not a matter of not having them.
This is an interesting one. You could maybe go the route I went with our "sharing all knowledge" debate, or you could try something totally unique. Good luck.
If PRO had titled the resolution something less exploitable maybe there would be a decent argument on both sides... But I think I know where this is headed.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: seldiora // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:1; 1 points to CON.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments
>Reason for Mod Action:
This vote fell under the definition of a "tied vote."
There are three types of tied votes:
(1) Ones which allot zero points. They have no meaningful impact on the debate outcome, and are thus only moderated if warranted for other reasons.
(2) Ones which cancel themselves out. While the category assignments may serve as feedback to the debaters, there is no still meaningful impact for moderation consider. These are in essence the same as the previous type.
(3) Votes which leave arguments tied, but assign other categories. While these need not meet the sufficiency standards for an argument vote, they must still evaluate arguments enough to justify no clear winner. There is however an exception for >=50% forfeitures allowing conduct only with no further explanation.
Further reading: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1718/moderation-and-tied-votes
As a vote falling under category 3, the voter just barely justified leaving the argument tied enough to where I'd call the vote borderline if they had properly justified a conduct violation.
That said, the voter did not do a very good job justifying the designation of conduct points.
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 voter neglected points 2 & 3.
TL;DR: If the voter wants to resubmit their vote, they should elaborate on points 2 & 3 of the conduct vote requirements.
VOTE PART 1:
Once again Oromagi tries a trickery semantic debate with many different interpretations, to be honest I don't know who won, because Oromagi tried to assert it a truism and prove there were exceptions to Con's cases, especially nitty gritty Catholic vs Christian picking. Con made some good points but honestly I'm not 100% convinced even with the mention of gender vs sex at the end that confuses believer vs true follower. It's a 50/50 to me. Conduct to con because this feels like Oromagi wanted some kind of easy win based on dictionary definition...
VOTE PART 2:
full RFD:
Pro: Christianity is Christianity. People get to say their beliefs.
Con: Christians must truly serve Jesus and idolize him.
Pro: Even Bible some Christians rejected Jesus before being accepted, nobody adheres to Sunday law
Con: ""Christian," isn't informed by a temporal aspect. "
Pro: Betrayal was known beforehand and still prepared for, so sins don't stop them being Christian
Con: Catholics differ from Christian, the more strict definition is superior for "Christian", (I'm not personally convinced by the Sunday law exception with her experience)
Pro: religious liberty (where did it go? lol), says con dropped all cases
Con: " popular understanding does not necessarily inform truth." (why didn't you say this before?), the difference between sub-religions is important,
Pro: UnChristian people can call themselves Christian, Jesus's specific preaching too vague, other args dropped
Con: brings up "trans religion" similar to gender vs sex, prayer has precise meaning, and pro is too inconsistent
Overall I feel like this was a back and forth that was really painful to go through, it's very clear Oromagi was arguing over semantics. I'm not convinced either side won, but I'm pretty sure con got the conduct point since oromagi claimed he thought it was a truism
tempting.... But I'm preoccupied by the tourney atm
I.. uh.. what is this
To be fair it evens things out ig
Wanna switch? xD
Yes, and I suffer from a PRO-side bias, so this will be interesting
fair enough
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Intelligence_06, SirAnonymous, // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 1:3; 3 points to CON.
>Reason for Decision: "Concession"
>Reason for Mod Action:
This debate has been deemed non-moderated. Therefore, no moderation action is appropriate for this vote.
Full Forfeitures, explicit concessions, subjective competitions, truisms, and comedy (even if facetious) are not eligible for moderation (barring certain exceptions).
Now, to address Safalcon's complaint in detail: "I believe I should have the edge on better sources as well. And I think that's pretty obvious from the debate."
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."
I would like to add that there are a few other potential exceptions, such as in a case where a side explicitly concedes and voters favor the conceding user in assigning arguments points. Or, a case where a FF debate is voted for in favor of the forfeiting user. 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.
certainly
This is ready for voting now
Yeah np. I do not believe voting periods can be extended post-fact although that would be a nice feature
Ah, that makes sense
forfeit in 8 mins :(( you could've pulled through
As RationalWiki states:
“some assertions demand that the universe be screaming with supporting evidence, so when that evidence is not actually observed, it counts against it."
Occam’s razor is the principle that, of two explanations that account for all the facts, the simpler one is more likely to be correct.
So, if there is no evidence of a God (something I hope you agree is a big assertion that would likely have a lot of evidence pointing towards it if it were true), what is the more likely explanation under Occam's razor?
a. God exists and provides no evidence of his existence.
or
b. God does not exist.
I think the answer is clear. The question then becomes, is there evidence of God's existence?
Too bad it had to end, but a concession is good conduct nonetheless. Not sure who is judging so tagging you both.
Frankly, you were so close to winning arguments that if you had put a bit more effort into the R3 that would've done it. Keep that in mind for future debates
This is a comment notifying the respective parties that the debate deletion request is denied.
Here is the debate deletion policy found in Subsection B1: Content Deletion of the Moderation Extended Policies and Interpretations document:
"Debates may not be deleted, barring certain exceptions.
Exceptions to PA.A2.SB.SbB1.PI are limited to:
- Cases in which both debaters consent to a debate’s deletion
- Cases in which the debate, either in its text or title, contains personal attacks against another user
- Cases in which the debate constitutes spam or advertising
- Cases in which the debate, either in its text or title, contains doxxing, PM-exposing, or seriously threatening content
- Cases in which the debate was created by an account impersonating DART staff
- Cases in which the debate was created by a multi-account of a user banned at the time of the debate’s creation"
As this debate did not fall under any of these categories, the debate shall remain unless Seldiora consents to its deletion.
I agree. I was swamped with debates of my own so I couldn't vote myself... It's a shame, but it happens and can't be helped, we need more active voters
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: seldiora // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:1; 1 points to CON.
>Reason for Decision: "unfair certainly, but pro didn't prove the community was as lively or as well as DDO's peak. He did well trying to mention the first two years of DDO vs current DART though."
>Reason for Mod Action: Did not justify awarding arguments points.
To award argument points, the voter must:
(1) survey the main argument and counterargument 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.
That needs to be more clear I think
Welcome to the site
A 6 month vote period?? But... Why?
10 hours left
I see you went with the former. Nice
There is no resolution here. What exactly is PRO trying to prove? And what is CON disproving?
I... Uh... I mean I guess so?
It's not just the presidents themselves that might affect safety... It's people's responses to them.
That was unexpected but fair considering the ping-storm you're receiving over it
THBT: The FLOOR is FLOOR
Bump for votes
Without a doubt one of the deepest and most thought-provoking intellectual discussions on the platform thus far.
A pornhub citation... and man look at that P2! "Hot man on man sex continues!"
Hall of Fame worthy indeed. >insert lenny face<
I think there are problems with replacing all energy with alternative sources for certain. I'm just talking from a debate judging perspective
The real handicap of this debate is the character count... I get you have a high debate workload rn, but I feel that this topic deserves to be a bit more fleshed out
I don't like to make bets early, but Seldiora is right on this one... you've neglected to really respond to that health argument so far There are some good responses for you to give, so it's not a matter of not having them.
This is an interesting one. You could maybe go the route I went with our "sharing all knowledge" debate, or you could try something totally unique. Good luck.
PRO is going to have to make up a lot of ground here.
Called it. Dopamine time!
Combining systems is impossible when they contradict each other.
If PRO had titled the resolution something less exploitable maybe there would be a decent argument on both sides... But I think I know where this is headed.
This one is proof that length =/= better argument
Vox is typically fine for factual sourcing as long as it isn't something to do with Trump, racism, sexism, or just SJW culture in general
I agree on this one.
You'll have to swing hard if you want to make up the ground final round.
Welp, that wasn't much of a fight. Then again, the way PRO defined "satisfactory" really works against them here.
Problems aside, your votes are improving. Keep up the progress
You'll probably lose this one because of that DDO point, but I really like this platform too.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: seldiora // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:1; 1 points to CON.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments
>Reason for Mod Action:
This vote fell under the definition of a "tied vote."
There are three types of tied votes:
(1) Ones which allot zero points. They have no meaningful impact on the debate outcome, and are thus only moderated if warranted for other reasons.
(2) Ones which cancel themselves out. While the category assignments may serve as feedback to the debaters, there is no still meaningful impact for moderation consider. These are in essence the same as the previous type.
(3) Votes which leave arguments tied, but assign other categories. While these need not meet the sufficiency standards for an argument vote, they must still evaluate arguments enough to justify no clear winner. There is however an exception for >=50% forfeitures allowing conduct only with no further explanation.
Further reading: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1718/moderation-and-tied-votes
As a vote falling under category 3, the voter just barely justified leaving the argument tied enough to where I'd call the vote borderline if they had properly justified a conduct violation.
That said, the voter did not do a very good job justifying the designation of conduct points.
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 voter neglected points 2 & 3.
TL;DR: If the voter wants to resubmit their vote, they should elaborate on points 2 & 3 of the conduct vote requirements.
VOTE PART 1:
Once again Oromagi tries a trickery semantic debate with many different interpretations, to be honest I don't know who won, because Oromagi tried to assert it a truism and prove there were exceptions to Con's cases, especially nitty gritty Catholic vs Christian picking. Con made some good points but honestly I'm not 100% convinced even with the mention of gender vs sex at the end that confuses believer vs true follower. It's a 50/50 to me. Conduct to con because this feels like Oromagi wanted some kind of easy win based on dictionary definition...
VOTE PART 2:
full RFD:
Pro: Christianity is Christianity. People get to say their beliefs.
Con: Christians must truly serve Jesus and idolize him.
Pro: Even Bible some Christians rejected Jesus before being accepted, nobody adheres to Sunday law
Con: ""Christian," isn't informed by a temporal aspect. "
Pro: Betrayal was known beforehand and still prepared for, so sins don't stop them being Christian
Con: Catholics differ from Christian, the more strict definition is superior for "Christian", (I'm not personally convinced by the Sunday law exception with her experience)
Pro: religious liberty (where did it go? lol), says con dropped all cases
Con: " popular understanding does not necessarily inform truth." (why didn't you say this before?), the difference between sub-religions is important,
Pro: UnChristian people can call themselves Christian, Jesus's specific preaching too vague, other args dropped
Con: brings up "trans religion" similar to gender vs sex, prayer has precise meaning, and pro is too inconsistent
Overall I feel like this was a back and forth that was really painful to go through, it's very clear Oromagi was arguing over semantics. I'm not convinced either side won, but I'm pretty sure con got the conduct point since oromagi claimed he thought it was a truism
Wasn't planning to. BTW,I know how to be objective when it becomes time to vote thanks to my PFD experience, so don't worry about that.
:O
>:(
This is shaping up to be pretty even. Ya'll better not forfeit!