**************************************************
>Reported Vote: seldiora // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:3; 3 points to CON.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments
>Reason for Mod Action: This one is extremely tough to judge.
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. "
For Nikunj's first complaint, I think it is alright to say the Resolution is ambiguous. I think Nikunj may have a misunderstanding of what a resolution is. The resolution is the question that must be answered yes (PRO) or no (CON) to. There can be only one resolution, but here there is two:
a. RESOLVED: USA needs to tighten Gun laws (the one Dr. Franklin initially agreed to debate)
b. RESOLVED: Limit assualt rifles and other rifles to only gun ranges, delay the acquisition period for all firearms, and ban secondary firearm sales. Limit firearms purchase and sale to only stores. (The one Nikunj injected mid-debate.)
A good voter would default to the first and require Nikunj to prove that the US has a need for stricter gun laws.
Here is actually where Seldiora's vote falters. I think it unduly requires Nikunj to define what the "tightening" would be, instead of requiring him to prove that a tightening is required. This implies that the voter weighed the debate on a scale irrelevant to the debate. That said, this falls under the scope of interpretation... Something out of reach of moderation.
As for Nikunj's second complaint, it is valid. Seldiora, whether or not he meant to, makes his conclusion based on a misrepresentation of what transpired in the debate.
I will remove the vote for the second complaint. I can't remove it for the first, but I urge Seldiora to use a more fair interpretation if he wants to resubmit a vote.
"pro advocates for restricting guns due to amount of deaths caused as such, but glances over exactly what restrictions would be made in precise, seeming to mention assault rifles and more dangerous weapons being unallowed, but not entirely pushing for this position. Con points out that the policies in other locations may not be the perfect solution for US, especially trying to take back the weapons already given to all the people. His implication of criminals rarely actually using guns helps solidify his case in the end, and I'm not entirely convinced by pro's half ambiguous "tighten gun laws" without true justification upon exactly what should be implemented, as even foreign policies with UK and Swiss differ in details, as con seems to imply."
P1: If morality is objective, then we can expect virtually universal use of a standard set of moral principles.
P2: All humans use and appeal to this standard, if only subconsciously.
C1: Morality is objective.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: seldiora // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 1:0; 1 points to PRO.
>Reason for Decision: "forfeit last round"
>Reason for Mod Action: This vote... yikes
First, even if it were a good idea for this vote to be a solely conduct vote, it wouldn't hit the requirements at a measly 3 words.
"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."
That said, it isn't a good idea in this case. Voting solely on conduct is a good idea when there is horrendous conduct from one side in particular, overriding all other content in the debate. That was not the case in this debate (only a single forfeit from one side, which users such as Virtuoso have proven over and over mean very little when it comes to who "deserves" the win). This was a detailed debate with some good showings from both sides... that calls for some analysis. Even if the voter had hit all of the requirements to vote conduct, I feel that to maintain the quality of votes on the site I might have removed it anyway.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: seldiora // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:3; 3 points to PRO.
>Reason for Decision: See votes tab.
>Reason for Mod Action: While very underwhelming and much too vague, the vote barely hit enough of the basic requirements for the vote to be borderline. Borderline votes are ruled as sufficient.
"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."
This vote accomplishes the first two points well enough, but the 3rd point is missing.
Problem here is that there is an infinite combination of conversations to be had... And in some of them, mentioning a truism is bound to be helpful, especially when talking to someone who does not recognize said truism. This is impossible to win as CON, so I'll pass
As a judge my eyes would glaze over if the argument was over maybe 12k characters. 8k is a bit low, especially if we're talking about true competitive formal debate imo
Interesting debate. This is a pretty good example of how choosing good topics and putting high effort into your beginning argument pays off in the long run.
It's a paradox, similar to "This sentence is false."
If CON wins, then that means the resolution is true- Seldiora is a bad debater because he lost. So by you winning, PRO's argument is ironically proven!
At the same time, if PRO wins, that means that he is NOT a bad debater because he won... and in turn, he has proven you correct.
You had a very different approach to this topic than I did. Feel free to check out the link if you want to see what I argued with the same resolution... https://www.debateart.com/debates/1733-god-put-medicine-in-plants-for-every-single-disease-that-exist
Nooooooo
You responded in 30 minutes... Now that's speed
This was really fun to research
Do it
You should define "Separated" in this context... Not quite sure what you mean
It's the overall trend in question... Obviously I can't fixate on 10 year increments so don't worry about that lol
I will be taking this one, and do not fear, I will not be playing the almighty semantics card lol.
Good luck.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: seldiora // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:3; 3 points to CON.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments
>Reason for Mod Action: This one is extremely tough to judge.
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. "
For Nikunj's first complaint, I think it is alright to say the Resolution is ambiguous. I think Nikunj may have a misunderstanding of what a resolution is. The resolution is the question that must be answered yes (PRO) or no (CON) to. There can be only one resolution, but here there is two:
a. RESOLVED: USA needs to tighten Gun laws (the one Dr. Franklin initially agreed to debate)
b. RESOLVED: Limit assualt rifles and other rifles to only gun ranges, delay the acquisition period for all firearms, and ban secondary firearm sales. Limit firearms purchase and sale to only stores. (The one Nikunj injected mid-debate.)
A good voter would default to the first and require Nikunj to prove that the US has a need for stricter gun laws.
Here is actually where Seldiora's vote falters. I think it unduly requires Nikunj to define what the "tightening" would be, instead of requiring him to prove that a tightening is required. This implies that the voter weighed the debate on a scale irrelevant to the debate. That said, this falls under the scope of interpretation... Something out of reach of moderation.
As for Nikunj's second complaint, it is valid. Seldiora, whether or not he meant to, makes his conclusion based on a misrepresentation of what transpired in the debate.
I will remove the vote for the second complaint. I can't remove it for the first, but I urge Seldiora to use a more fair interpretation if he wants to resubmit a vote.
"pro advocates for restricting guns due to amount of deaths caused as such, but glances over exactly what restrictions would be made in precise, seeming to mention assault rifles and more dangerous weapons being unallowed, but not entirely pushing for this position. Con points out that the policies in other locations may not be the perfect solution for US, especially trying to take back the weapons already given to all the people. His implication of criminals rarely actually using guns helps solidify his case in the end, and I'm not entirely convinced by pro's half ambiguous "tighten gun laws" without true justification upon exactly what should be implemented, as even foreign policies with UK and Swiss differ in details, as con seems to imply."
CS Lewis has defended against most refutations of P2 persuasively. Anyway, the point I am making is that arguments abound for both PRO and CON.
Good topic.
Intuition.
P1: If morality is objective, then we can expect virtually universal use of a standard set of moral principles.
P2: All humans use and appeal to this standard, if only subconsciously.
C1: Morality is objective.
You write very detailed arguments for a newcomer. I suspect you will do well on this platform. Welcome
Good job to both sides. I respect the fact that no one forfeited.
Laaaaazyy
I'm sure you could come back from the forfeit
Agreed again.
True crossed classic
I figured it was something like that. Hope things calm down for you
Basically illuminati
Good luck. I just now realized how quickly I accepted, sorry if you couldn't add details
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: seldiora // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 1:0; 1 points to PRO.
>Reason for Decision: "forfeit last round"
>Reason for Mod Action: This vote... yikes
First, even if it were a good idea for this vote to be a solely conduct vote, it wouldn't hit the requirements at a measly 3 words.
"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."
That said, it isn't a good idea in this case. Voting solely on conduct is a good idea when there is horrendous conduct from one side in particular, overriding all other content in the debate. That was not the case in this debate (only a single forfeit from one side, which users such as Virtuoso have proven over and over mean very little when it comes to who "deserves" the win). This was a detailed debate with some good showings from both sides... that calls for some analysis. Even if the voter had hit all of the requirements to vote conduct, I feel that to maintain the quality of votes on the site I might have removed it anyway.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: seldiora // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:3; 3 points to PRO.
>Reason for Decision: See votes tab.
>Reason for Mod Action: While very underwhelming and much too vague, the vote barely hit enough of the basic requirements for the vote to be borderline. Borderline votes are ruled as sufficient.
"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."
This vote accomplishes the first two points well enough, but the 3rd point is missing.
I fully agree. Feel free to look at my debate with RM for some extra evidence/arguments on this topic
To clarify, obviously the end result was a loss for you, but it was a lot closer than people predicted because you defied expectations
Not necessarily. You pulled an upset first round... The same could easily happen here. Plus, both users have beat eachother in the past.
"I said, truisms should still be stated even if it is common sense to all sides, Introducing no new ideas to any."
Didn't catch this. I just skimmed the debate
"Please Stop babbling. If you think you are good enough for this then accept it. If you think you are not then leave this alone. Please I said."
You are becoming needlessly aggressive.
Problem here is that there is an infinite combination of conversations to be had... And in some of them, mentioning a truism is bound to be helpful, especially when talking to someone who does not recognize said truism. This is impossible to win as CON, so I'll pass
Don't get your comment. The update is relatively new.
Nice one!
Don't forget
Don't forget
Good reply, Supa. I can see this will be a proper debate
Why are you like this
Same, I rarely go above 10K
Amend my previous statement to 20k characters
As a judge my eyes would glaze over if the argument was over maybe 12k characters. 8k is a bit low, especially if we're talking about true competitive formal debate imo
That said... Yeah Supa is going to have to come guns blazing
Let's not discount Supa yet... With a 30k character limit and the sudden competitive drive who knows what he will come out swinging with
Interesting debate. This is a pretty good example of how choosing good topics and putting high effort into your beginning argument pays off in the long run.
By far the most impressive constructive I've seen from you. Good job
It's a paradox, similar to "This sentence is false."
If CON wins, then that means the resolution is true- Seldiora is a bad debater because he lost. So by you winning, PRO's argument is ironically proven!
At the same time, if PRO wins, that means that he is NOT a bad debater because he won... and in turn, he has proven you correct.
You've created a paradox!
Anyway, welcome to the site.
Intel takes everything very literally, he doesn't joke very often. I've gotten used to it
Will be watching this one closely. Good luck to both contenders!
You had a very different approach to this topic than I did. Feel free to check out the link if you want to see what I argued with the same resolution... https://www.debateart.com/debates/1733-god-put-medicine-in-plants-for-every-single-disease-that-exist
To each their own, I guess
If we're talking about sheer contribution to hip hop? Eminem easily wins dude.