**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Bugsy460 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 0:1, 1 points to CON
>Reason for Decision: See Comments
>Reason for Mod Action:
Two sentences don't do enough of an overview of a 3 round, roughly 20,000 character debate. The voter must go into a lot more detail than what is presented.
"To award any category, a voter must explicitly perform the following three steps:
1. Provide specific references to each side’s utilization within the said category.
2. Weigh the impacts against each other, including if any precluded others.
3. Explain the decision within the greater context of the debate."
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Bugsy460 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 0:4, 4 points to CON
>Reason for Decision: See Comments
>Reason for Mod Action:
There are two problems with this vote that should be resolved.
First, the voter needs to go into depth on why the conduct point was assigned.
All we get is an affirmation of what CON has stated in debate, but we must get more for the conduct point to be warranted:
"To award any category, a voter must explicitly perform the following three steps:
1. Provide specific references to each side’s utilization within the said category.
2. Weigh the impacts against each other, including if any precluded others.
3. Explain the decision within the greater context of the debate."
In sum, the voter must demonstrate that what PRO did warranted "a penalty for excessive abuse, such as extreme unsportsmanlike or outright toxic behavior which distracted from the topical debate..."
Next, we need more analysis on the contentions throughout the debate.
"To award any category, a voter must explicitly perform the following three steps:
1. Provide specific references to each side’s utilization within the said category.
2. Weigh the impacts against each other, including if any precluded others.
3. Explain the decision within the greater context of the debate."
While the voter sums up a singular argument from CON, he needs to go through in more detail to show why PRO's arguments and refutations of CON's argument ultimately don't hold up in his view.
I asked the other mods on the Discord for feedback, and I got one response essentially reflecting the same view:
"It seems insufficient to me. He doesn’t really cover Pro’s arguments in explaining why he awarded arguments, instead just accepting Con’s arguments without addressing all the counters given by Pro, relying on the statement that “philosophical and historical evidence” support its veracity, a statement which should require some engagement with arguments from both sides. The conduct point is also explained oddly, with the voter chiding Pro for trying to push BoP onto his opponent and engaging in pre-rebuttal."
Don't write yourself off yet. You have unlimited stamina, so even if I squeeze out a few victories you could catch up soon enough. I appreciate the compliment though. It helps that I've debated this topic multiple times now
Debating live is harder in every way. You have a limited time to think, you have the pressure causing your brain to fart during what little time you have, and you only have your previous knowledge and prepped materials to help you. You can't research your opponent's argument during the debate either. The biggest kicker is the limited speaking time though. It's the bane of my existence. If you're someone like me who likes to ramble and be meticulous instead of quick and concise, you'd hate it too until you got used to it.
That said, live debating has its own joys. The difficulty of it is what makes it a great sport
Yeah, one of us has a PhD in the subject and the other is a high schooler who only has surface level knowledge on the subject... You probs need somebody in the middle there lol.
Well that's a wrap. I'm gonna take a small break from debating just to recover some stamina. Looking forward to seeing what Whiteflame and others think of this one though.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Undefeatable // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3:0, 3 points to CON
>Reason for Decision: "I had previously misread Pro's 57% statistic, apologies to debaters. Pro's argument was complex and based upon an ideal reality, complemented by the idea that the 26% of women died anyways following the idea of "women and children first". Even though con didn't explicitly counter the argument that "people will die anyways", he makes the point that Pro arbitrarily uses bias and merely values people based on their sex. As pro failed to address this idea, it seems that women and children first have no basis, as a significant disproportionate amount of men will die. Nicely fought on both sides."
>Reason for Mod Action:
It has come to my attention that Undefeatable is re-allocating their voting points under the direct influence of Death23 in the comments. Normally I would allow people to revote as they see fit (hence me deleting Undefeatable's vote originally), but they MUST be doing so only under their own personal re-evaluation, not pressured to do so by impartial factions.
Let me be clear: It's OK for a debater to challenge the judge's decision in the comments, but under no circumstances should this cross the line into the debater influencing the voter to recast the vote in their favor. This renders Undefeatable's judgement based partially on post facto, and therefore outside, content.
Citing our Voting Policy:
"Any awarded point(s) must be based on the content presented inside the debate rounds. Content from the comment section, other votes, forums, your personal experience, etcetera, is ineligible for point allotments."
I am requesting Undefeatable withhold from voting any more on this debate, as the influence of the comments section will play a role in any future decisions he will have.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 0:1, 1 point to CON
>Reason for Decision: See Comments
>Reason for Mod Action:
Ragnar asked for me to review his decision and do as I see fit with it. In fact it seems he's changed his mind on this issue.
Upon my evaluation, this vote does not properly ground their conduct allocation.
Citing our own Voting Policy:
"Awarded as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, such as extreme unsportsmanlike or outright toxic behavior which distracted from the topical debate. Common examples are repeatedly using personal attacks instead of arguments, committing plagiarism or otherwise cheating.
The disrespect of even a single forfeiture necessitates this penalty unless there is reason to withhold it. Repeated forfeitures are grounds for casting conduct only votes without any consideration to arguments (continued in Forfeitures).
Invalid if: Both sides had similar types and/or magnitude of misbehavior, or it is too minor for a reasonable person to be significantly distracted from the topic. Further, a conduct penalty is not warranted for mere dislike of the topical contentions or weak argumentation."
The voter ignored a forfeit, instead assigning points against the non-forfeiting side. This would be fine if PRO's infraction was serious enough to be considered excessively abusive, outright toxic, or distracting from the topic. However, what PRO did wasn't a serious enough infraction (a rhetorical exaggeration at worse, a common one in the debate realm at that) to warrant conduct allocation against them even without the forfeit.
Ragnar now echoes this sentiment: " It might pass if con did not indicate a link between security and privacy (which would make pro have massively misrepresented con). However, ultimately I think I was wrong, due to the dangerous precedent if a single turn of phrase allowed not mere assignment of conduct, but to such a degree as to even override a forfeiture."
Argument: This was a frustrating debate to read, mostly due to what was not said in argument over what was said, and that critique is shared by both parties, Pro and Con. Since one cannot vote beyond what is actually said, I can only judge on the basis of the content present, and not what a voter might wish was there. Both parties left unused arguments on the table. I could possibly lean to Con because Pro did not link the Topic statement with what appears to be the definitive resolve in Description, as well as that Pro fails to define his terms in Description such that both parties have a set of "rules" at least by syntax. However, even though Con does offer a definition of "privacy" in R1 the subsequent arguments vary on adherence to that definition. Both parties dance around that definition, and neither adequately settle it to this voter's satisfaction. Tie vote.
Sources: Both parties offer adequate sources, and sources do justify arguments, but no argument plus sources sways either way relative to source material offered. Tie vote.
Legibility: adequate on both sides to understand their positional statements. Tie vote.
Conduct: Pro loses this point by the R4 claim that Con "essentially conceded" when no round's argument by Con had any statement that might be construed to agree with Pro's claim. Even if somehow, Con's statements in "Comments" might have alluded to the possibility of concession, and though another member effectively makes the accusation to Con, following a comment by Con [and this exchange is within the timing of Con's R3 posting], Con's comment says nothing of the sort. And, to be clear, the Comments section is outside the parameters of the debate, so any comment there, short of notation of sources, is irrelevant. Further, although Con forfeited R4, the single forfeiture does not figure into any decision against Con. Therefore, point to Con.
Soooooo I'm actually going to have to break ranks and agree that the conduct point wasn't really justified. Ragnar's judgement supersedes mine though. I'll probably vote myself if I get the chance.
Do I need to explain the difference between an arg overview with some selective feedback and an RFD section? The purpose of one is to summarize with some select feedback, the purpose of the other is to show my view of how the args mesh together overall relative to the framework.
Also me assuming that there is an inherent cost isn't bias, it's common fucking sense, and Tabula Rasa doesn't mean throwing out literally 1st grade level reasoning skills. You're also totally ignoring that this was one of CON's main points... So it's not like I'm inventing the notion on my own...
For the fucking record I didn't even notice that my point allotment would result in a tie nor do I really care if it does. The purpose of voting isn't to throw as many points as justifiably possible towards your favored candidate to outweigh other voters, it's to give an opinion on the debate absent consideration of anything except what transpired in the debate itself.
"It is not poor conduct for Pro to introduce new arguments in the last round unless explicitly stated otherwise. Con can respond to Pro's points. In fact, it is risky for Pro to introduce new arguments in the last round because they won't be able to reply to Con's rebuttal. But there is nothing on DART or even within formal debating that makes it poor conduct for Pro to introduce a new argument in the last around when Con has the opportunity to not only reply but give the last word."
Gugigor is correct. I gave PRO conduct points and penalized CON for the new args, not the other way around.
"I would actually argue that you can't really do that... unless Con specifically layed out how the harms compared to the benefits, which is why I ruled Con losing."
What do you mean? CON dedicated a subpoint to the idea and cross-applied this point to counter much of PRO's case.
CON never specified the costs but he showed that we can assume them to be significant through several lines of reasoning. PRO never specified just how great the educational benefits were and we have little indication of whether they are significant. CON also gave the counterplan of cheaper means of education (stealing some impacts from PRO)
"Yes, I am accusing you of intentional corrupt voting. No, I do not care if this is against the CoC to accuse in the comments. I will explain more later after the verdict on your vote is given."
Anndddd this is why I was reluctant to vote at all. I thought with such a close debate people would appreciate my vote but I was worried something like this would happen.
"as a voting mod, how the fuck do you justify not giving sources to Pro?"
They are optional points. I don't typically choose to award sources unless I felt that one debater did significantly more/better research than the other. And while we had one turn from PRO, that was mostly a consequence of debating skills, not better sourcing.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Fauxlaw // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 to CON
>Reason for Decision: See Vote Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The point allocation being contested here is the source points.
Citing Ragnar:
"Sources are optional and if awarded require a strong quality lead. Sources go to the side that better supported their case with relevant outside evidence and/or analysis thereof. If both sides have done their research due diligence, these points are usually tied.
A side with unreliable sources may be penalized, but the voter must specify why the sources were unreliable enough to diminish their own case (such as if the other side called attention to the flaws, thereby engaging with sources in a more effective manner with impacts to arguments; thereby flipping the source and harming the opposing argument)."
Despite the controversial reasoning, the voter justified his point allocations in this manner. Again: 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 the interpretive ability of moderation is severely handicapped.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: gugigor // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 2 to PRO
>Reason for Decision:
"Counter-voting fauxlaw in case Moderators do not get around to contesting his vote. (Remove this if his vote is found up to standard.)
Fauxlaw states: gave source to con saying: " Pro fails to provide a source to support the argument that video games in a K-12 educational nevironment are necessary by enforcement of law, which is a key factor in Pro's argument, needing scholastic justitification. The argument alone, offered by Pro, does not stand up to Con's R1 sourced rebuttal argument that if a law is required to enforce video game use, it looses its own standing as being "fun" without being a mandatory curriculum feature. Further, while Pro's sources explain the benefits of a video game curricula, Con's rebuttal sourcing demonstrates there is no convincing loss of educational mastery if video games are lacking in the curriculum, because students have availability of video games on their own time. Points to Con."
But con also gave no source that the video games would cost severe amounts of money, particularly in that it would be detrimental to poor schools, or detrimental to the government. So why does source points go to con?
In addition, Pro does not suggest this is a mandatory curriculum or addition at all. He just says there will be some kind of law implemented to help introduce these video games to schools. He doesn't outright say "they can choose to do it or not", but he seems to lean towards "do it because it's net beneficial". I don't buy Fauxlaw's framework around necessity at all."
>Reason for Mod Action:
Voting solely based on opinion towards other votes is prohibited.
If you have to ask, and if you have to nitpick, it is nuanced enough to not be "blatant lying." Accusing a debater of lying about the contents of their source should not be done lightly, and should only be done when the proposed discrepancy is largely unambiguous . Using semantics to twist meanings and fluff votes is something I was highly concerned with when helping draft that part of the voting policy, hence the qualifications that the lying must be "blatant" and that implicit warrants are not included. One thing I'd like to refine about the policy already is that we have not distinguished between unintentional discrepancies and intentional discrepancies, although I think they are both equally applicable to this policy (the only difference being that in the case of a clearly intentional discrepancy, a conduct penalty may also be appropriate, while in a case where it isn't clear that the debater intentionally lied, the voter should refrain from giving conduct penalties for that reason).
Anyway, for the first example, it isn't abundantly clear that the contents of PRO's source is in any conflict with PRO's claim at all. PRO in that scenario never claimed that other things weren't included in the virtual experience, only that video games certainly were. The literal title of the study includes video games by name. Even if a discrepancy were verified to be there, I believe it would be much too nitpicky of the voter to penalize PRO for this. It's not blatant, it's too nuanced and relies on semantic reasoning.
For the second, PRO never lied, he used an implied warrant.
"Note that this does not include implied warrants (For example, Debater A gives a statistic of rising temperatures and says “this source supports my argument that people will be eating more ice cream in the years to come”... The warrant here is implied, not explicitly stated. The voter should not use this as an excuse to say Debater A lied about the contents of the source)."
In this case, the warrant was that because it worked well with adult students, it would also work well in K-12 environments. This wasn't explicitly stated, but it's fairly obvious with the correlation he was trying to paint. Again, penalizing PRO would be too nitpicky on the part of the voter. Criticisms like this are the job of the debaters, not the voter.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Bugsy460 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 0:1, 1 points to CON
>Reason for Decision: See Comments
>Reason for Mod Action:
Two sentences don't do enough of an overview of a 3 round, roughly 20,000 character debate. The voter must go into a lot more detail than what is presented.
"To award any category, a voter must explicitly perform the following three steps:
1. Provide specific references to each side’s utilization within the said category.
2. Weigh the impacts against each other, including if any precluded others.
3. Explain the decision within the greater context of the debate."
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Bugsy460 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 0:4, 4 points to CON
>Reason for Decision: See Comments
>Reason for Mod Action:
There are two problems with this vote that should be resolved.
First, the voter needs to go into depth on why the conduct point was assigned.
All we get is an affirmation of what CON has stated in debate, but we must get more for the conduct point to be warranted:
"To award any category, a voter must explicitly perform the following three steps:
1. Provide specific references to each side’s utilization within the said category.
2. Weigh the impacts against each other, including if any precluded others.
3. Explain the decision within the greater context of the debate."
In sum, the voter must demonstrate that what PRO did warranted "a penalty for excessive abuse, such as extreme unsportsmanlike or outright toxic behavior which distracted from the topical debate..."
Next, we need more analysis on the contentions throughout the debate.
"To award any category, a voter must explicitly perform the following three steps:
1. Provide specific references to each side’s utilization within the said category.
2. Weigh the impacts against each other, including if any precluded others.
3. Explain the decision within the greater context of the debate."
While the voter sums up a singular argument from CON, he needs to go through in more detail to show why PRO's arguments and refutations of CON's argument ultimately don't hold up in his view.
I asked the other mods on the Discord for feedback, and I got one response essentially reflecting the same view:
"It seems insufficient to me. He doesn’t really cover Pro’s arguments in explaining why he awarded arguments, instead just accepting Con’s arguments without addressing all the counters given by Pro, relying on the statement that “philosophical and historical evidence” support its veracity, a statement which should require some engagement with arguments from both sides. The conduct point is also explained oddly, with the voter chiding Pro for trying to push BoP onto his opponent and engaging in pre-rebuttal."
That said, I'll still need to review his vote obviously
Bugsy460 is the new account of user Ancap460.
https://www.debateart.com/participants/Ancap460
Since we do not disregard his past simply because he moved to a new account, he meets the voting requirements.
Don't write yourself off yet. You have unlimited stamina, so even if I squeeze out a few victories you could catch up soon enough. I appreciate the compliment though. It helps that I've debated this topic multiple times now
Debating live is harder in every way. You have a limited time to think, you have the pressure causing your brain to fart during what little time you have, and you only have your previous knowledge and prepped materials to help you. You can't research your opponent's argument during the debate either. The biggest kicker is the limited speaking time though. It's the bane of my existence. If you're someone like me who likes to ramble and be meticulous instead of quick and concise, you'd hate it too until you got used to it.
That said, live debating has its own joys. The difficulty of it is what makes it a great sport
Yeah, one of us has a PhD in the subject and the other is a high schooler who only has surface level knowledge on the subject... You probs need somebody in the middle there lol.
vote bump.
hmmmm... i'm not sure I'm educated enough on this to vote, but I could try if no one else offers
Well that's a wrap. I'm gonna take a small break from debating just to recover some stamina. Looking forward to seeing what Whiteflame and others think of this one though.
I think, but that doesn't matter except for aesthetic imo
don't be that way. This is all in good fun.
I'll see what I can do
Ah, a man of culture.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMspqVbfQ1I
Thanks for the vote
Vote bump.
I believe this is what Ragnar meant by "Foregone Conclusions"
This is aimed at you, Undefeatable. You can have it removed if you wish.
Gugigor, future reference, just don't....
It's definitely a vote bomb. I'll take care of it soon.
Looks like I'll be doing this pretty last minute too.
Oh well
I'm a little over halfway through this.
"You're doing this last minute!"
Yeah, I know.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Undefeatable // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3:0, 3 points to CON
>Reason for Decision: "I had previously misread Pro's 57% statistic, apologies to debaters. Pro's argument was complex and based upon an ideal reality, complemented by the idea that the 26% of women died anyways following the idea of "women and children first". Even though con didn't explicitly counter the argument that "people will die anyways", he makes the point that Pro arbitrarily uses bias and merely values people based on their sex. As pro failed to address this idea, it seems that women and children first have no basis, as a significant disproportionate amount of men will die. Nicely fought on both sides."
>Reason for Mod Action:
It has come to my attention that Undefeatable is re-allocating their voting points under the direct influence of Death23 in the comments. Normally I would allow people to revote as they see fit (hence me deleting Undefeatable's vote originally), but they MUST be doing so only under their own personal re-evaluation, not pressured to do so by impartial factions.
Let me be clear: It's OK for a debater to challenge the judge's decision in the comments, but under no circumstances should this cross the line into the debater influencing the voter to recast the vote in their favor. This renders Undefeatable's judgement based partially on post facto, and therefore outside, content.
Citing our Voting Policy:
"Any awarded point(s) must be based on the content presented inside the debate rounds. Content from the comment section, other votes, forums, your personal experience, etcetera, is ineligible for point allotments."
I am requesting Undefeatable withhold from voting any more on this debate, as the influence of the comments section will play a role in any future decisions he will have.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 0:1, 1 point to CON
>Reason for Decision: See Comments
>Reason for Mod Action:
Ragnar asked for me to review his decision and do as I see fit with it. In fact it seems he's changed his mind on this issue.
Upon my evaluation, this vote does not properly ground their conduct allocation.
Citing our own Voting Policy:
"Awarded as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, such as extreme unsportsmanlike or outright toxic behavior which distracted from the topical debate. Common examples are repeatedly using personal attacks instead of arguments, committing plagiarism or otherwise cheating.
The disrespect of even a single forfeiture necessitates this penalty unless there is reason to withhold it. Repeated forfeitures are grounds for casting conduct only votes without any consideration to arguments (continued in Forfeitures).
Invalid if: Both sides had similar types and/or magnitude of misbehavior, or it is too minor for a reasonable person to be significantly distracted from the topic. Further, a conduct penalty is not warranted for mere dislike of the topical contentions or weak argumentation."
The voter ignored a forfeit, instead assigning points against the non-forfeiting side. This would be fine if PRO's infraction was serious enough to be considered excessively abusive, outright toxic, or distracting from the topic. However, what PRO did wasn't a serious enough infraction (a rhetorical exaggeration at worse, a common one in the debate realm at that) to warrant conduct allocation against them even without the forfeit.
Ragnar now echoes this sentiment: " It might pass if con did not indicate a link between security and privacy (which would make pro have massively misrepresented con). However, ultimately I think I was wrong, due to the dangerous precedent if a single turn of phrase allowed not mere assignment of conduct, but to such a degree as to even override a forfeiture."
Argument: This was a frustrating debate to read, mostly due to what was not said in argument over what was said, and that critique is shared by both parties, Pro and Con. Since one cannot vote beyond what is actually said, I can only judge on the basis of the content present, and not what a voter might wish was there. Both parties left unused arguments on the table. I could possibly lean to Con because Pro did not link the Topic statement with what appears to be the definitive resolve in Description, as well as that Pro fails to define his terms in Description such that both parties have a set of "rules" at least by syntax. However, even though Con does offer a definition of "privacy" in R1 the subsequent arguments vary on adherence to that definition. Both parties dance around that definition, and neither adequately settle it to this voter's satisfaction. Tie vote.
Sources: Both parties offer adequate sources, and sources do justify arguments, but no argument plus sources sways either way relative to source material offered. Tie vote.
Legibility: adequate on both sides to understand their positional statements. Tie vote.
Conduct: Pro loses this point by the R4 claim that Con "essentially conceded" when no round's argument by Con had any statement that might be construed to agree with Pro's claim. Even if somehow, Con's statements in "Comments" might have alluded to the possibility of concession, and though another member effectively makes the accusation to Con, following a comment by Con [and this exchange is within the timing of Con's R3 posting], Con's comment says nothing of the sort. And, to be clear, the Comments section is outside the parameters of the debate, so any comment there, short of notation of sources, is irrelevant. Further, although Con forfeited R4, the single forfeiture does not figure into any decision against Con. Therefore, point to Con.
Undefeatable's vote has been deleted per their own request.
Soooooo I'm actually going to have to break ranks and agree that the conduct point wasn't really justified. Ragnar's judgement supersedes mine though. I'll probably vote myself if I get the chance.
Allow me some time and I'll get back to you on it
Bringer's vote is fine, especially since as Ragnar said, he reserves throwing extra points at people.
Good debate. Sort of glad the voting hysteria is over with though lol
Do I need to explain the difference between an arg overview with some selective feedback and an RFD section? The purpose of one is to summarize with some select feedback, the purpose of the other is to show my view of how the args mesh together overall relative to the framework.
Also me assuming that there is an inherent cost isn't bias, it's common fucking sense, and Tabula Rasa doesn't mean throwing out literally 1st grade level reasoning skills. You're also totally ignoring that this was one of CON's main points... So it's not like I'm inventing the notion on my own...
clearly you can't read very well
For the fucking record I didn't even notice that my point allotment would result in a tie nor do I really care if it does. The purpose of voting isn't to throw as many points as justifiably possible towards your favored candidate to outweigh other voters, it's to give an opinion on the debate absent consideration of anything except what transpired in the debate itself.
No, more like I want them to review the vote like they would any other voter so I can prove to you people that it more than holds up to standard.
He did, so I reported myself on your behalf and shared the vote to Ragnar and Blamonkey directly.
As I told Undefeatable, please don't ask voters to alter their votes based on other people.
"It is not poor conduct for Pro to introduce new arguments in the last round unless explicitly stated otherwise. Con can respond to Pro's points. In fact, it is risky for Pro to introduce new arguments in the last round because they won't be able to reply to Con's rebuttal. But there is nothing on DART or even within formal debating that makes it poor conduct for Pro to introduce a new argument in the last around when Con has the opportunity to not only reply but give the last word."
Gugigor is correct. I gave PRO conduct points and penalized CON for the new args, not the other way around.
"I would actually argue that you can't really do that... unless Con specifically layed out how the harms compared to the benefits, which is why I ruled Con losing."
What do you mean? CON dedicated a subpoint to the idea and cross-applied this point to counter much of PRO's case.
CON never specified the costs but he showed that we can assume them to be significant through several lines of reasoning. PRO never specified just how great the educational benefits were and we have little indication of whether they are significant. CON also gave the counterplan of cheaper means of education (stealing some impacts from PRO)
RM never reported my vote so I'm reporting it myself. The rest of the mods can rule my vote however they deem fit.
"Yes, I am accusing you of intentional corrupt voting. No, I do not care if this is against the CoC to accuse in the comments. I will explain more later after the verdict on your vote is given."
Anndddd this is why I was reluctant to vote at all. I thought with such a close debate people would appreciate my vote but I was worried something like this would happen.
"as a voting mod, how the fuck do you justify not giving sources to Pro?"
They are optional points. I don't typically choose to award sources unless I felt that one debater did significantly more/better research than the other. And while we had one turn from PRO, that was mostly a consequence of debating skills, not better sourcing.
CON lost most of his point by the end, but the one point he had that really mattered (cost) stood.
PRO never got down and dirty and told us why exactly the educational benefit would outweigh this cost, only that there WAS one.
Good job to both debaters. Hopefully my vote was satisfactory
No, you can't vote on other people's behalf. That's not a good precedent to set. I voted instead.
Please don't ask voters to alter their votes based on other votes.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Fauxlaw // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 to CON
>Reason for Decision: See Vote Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The point allocation being contested here is the source points.
Citing Ragnar:
"Sources are optional and if awarded require a strong quality lead. Sources go to the side that better supported their case with relevant outside evidence and/or analysis thereof. If both sides have done their research due diligence, these points are usually tied.
A side with unreliable sources may be penalized, but the voter must specify why the sources were unreliable enough to diminish their own case (such as if the other side called attention to the flaws, thereby engaging with sources in a more effective manner with impacts to arguments; thereby flipping the source and harming the opposing argument)."
Despite the controversial reasoning, the voter justified his point allocations in this manner. Again: 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 the interpretive ability of moderation is severely handicapped.
Fauxlaw's vote is being reviewed. I would appreciate if voters stopped with the trigger-happy countervoting.
Thanks.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: gugigor // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 2 to PRO
>Reason for Decision:
"Counter-voting fauxlaw in case Moderators do not get around to contesting his vote. (Remove this if his vote is found up to standard.)
Fauxlaw states: gave source to con saying: " Pro fails to provide a source to support the argument that video games in a K-12 educational nevironment are necessary by enforcement of law, which is a key factor in Pro's argument, needing scholastic justitification. The argument alone, offered by Pro, does not stand up to Con's R1 sourced rebuttal argument that if a law is required to enforce video game use, it looses its own standing as being "fun" without being a mandatory curriculum feature. Further, while Pro's sources explain the benefits of a video game curricula, Con's rebuttal sourcing demonstrates there is no convincing loss of educational mastery if video games are lacking in the curriculum, because students have availability of video games on their own time. Points to Con."
But con also gave no source that the video games would cost severe amounts of money, particularly in that it would be detrimental to poor schools, or detrimental to the government. So why does source points go to con?
In addition, Pro does not suggest this is a mandatory curriculum or addition at all. He just says there will be some kind of law implemented to help introduce these video games to schools. He doesn't outright say "they can choose to do it or not", but he seems to lean towards "do it because it's net beneficial". I don't buy Fauxlaw's framework around necessity at all."
>Reason for Mod Action:
Voting solely based on opinion towards other votes is prohibited.
You realize you can specify what "new point" you meant and revote, right?
Gugigor's vote has been deleted at his own private request.
If you have to ask, and if you have to nitpick, it is nuanced enough to not be "blatant lying." Accusing a debater of lying about the contents of their source should not be done lightly, and should only be done when the proposed discrepancy is largely unambiguous . Using semantics to twist meanings and fluff votes is something I was highly concerned with when helping draft that part of the voting policy, hence the qualifications that the lying must be "blatant" and that implicit warrants are not included. One thing I'd like to refine about the policy already is that we have not distinguished between unintentional discrepancies and intentional discrepancies, although I think they are both equally applicable to this policy (the only difference being that in the case of a clearly intentional discrepancy, a conduct penalty may also be appropriate, while in a case where it isn't clear that the debater intentionally lied, the voter should refrain from giving conduct penalties for that reason).
Anyway, for the first example, it isn't abundantly clear that the contents of PRO's source is in any conflict with PRO's claim at all. PRO in that scenario never claimed that other things weren't included in the virtual experience, only that video games certainly were. The literal title of the study includes video games by name. Even if a discrepancy were verified to be there, I believe it would be much too nitpicky of the voter to penalize PRO for this. It's not blatant, it's too nuanced and relies on semantic reasoning.
For the second, PRO never lied, he used an implied warrant.
"Note that this does not include implied warrants (For example, Debater A gives a statistic of rising temperatures and says “this source supports my argument that people will be eating more ice cream in the years to come”... The warrant here is implied, not explicitly stated. The voter should not use this as an excuse to say Debater A lied about the contents of the source)."
In this case, the warrant was that because it worked well with adult students, it would also work well in K-12 environments. This wasn't explicitly stated, but it's fairly obvious with the correlation he was trying to paint. Again, penalizing PRO would be too nitpicky on the part of the voter. Criticisms like this are the job of the debaters, not the voter.
Hope this answers your questions