Ultimately this is the same, just both debaters agreeing to a utilitarian framework (which I was using in my case to begin with). The resolution is actually quite balanced, you'll be fine
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: seldiora // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3:0 (3 points awarded to PRO)
>Reason for Decision:
"I scratch my head over this debate, especially how Con says illogical things downright don't exist, God can just create the vague definition of the words that refer to them. Con argues that "circular square" is similar to saying "asoierhoaeihr a...". But anyways. Con conceded that God's immaterial nature makes it so that he cannot move, he cannot lift anything, among many other actions. As there are things outside of God's power, Con basically gave away this debate. What a weird rebuttal."
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter said CON conceded the debate, without going over parameters for victory... the main content of the debate was over them, so ultimately, the voter did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
if you are becoming frustrated with the length of the debate and think things are going in circles, you can both agree to just give a brief summary of points for R5 and call it a day.
Let me use Ragnar's explanation, as it's pretty thorough:
"Conduct
Optional. One point
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 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.
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 for the topical contentions, or arguing weakly.
Further notes
Points neither awarded nor commented upon, are considered wholly ungraded. Generally this is fine, as is remarking on something but leaving it within the tied range even if leaning a certain way. However, exploitive withholding of any category overwhelmingly against your majority point awardee, is evidence of profuse bias, so is therefore subject to vote deletion (e.g., someone forfeits half the debate and receives a favorable argument vote unmitigated by conduct).
With the exception of arguments, certain things are naturally implied by their absence of remarks...
Such as: If only one side forfeited, the other side showing up warrants no comment as it is implied. If one side made an argument illegible, so long as the other side did ok, pointing out issues of just one side implies the other did not make the same mistakes.
It is necessary to explain all awarded points, but a mitigating point against your primary point recipient need not be as detailed for the vote to remain if not good, at least borderline.
A debate may have special rules specified within the description. These are not strictly enforced by moderation, but a voter may choose to abide. If a voter is choosing to and there was a challenge to said rules within the debate, some analysis of that challenge is highly suggested.
With regards to the subjective nature of voting, often arguments are exceedingly close. A good voter might change who they would determine the winner of that metric week to week if they reevaluated the debate. However, if awarding other points, it should be for a clear and decisive margin of victory."
First of all, they were discussing ETHICS, not MORALITY. Ethics is the set of principles on which a society bases their actions. Morality on the other hand is how individuals and groups actually act. A morally good action is one that acts according to the ethical principles. In the context of this debate the two words were uses interchangeably.
THE THEORIES:
Ethics need to propose two things: A. principles of how to act and B. reason, motivation or authority backing up the principles.
Pro arguably nailed point B, by actually providing a universal set of principles on which all humans should be able to agree. He successfully proved that ethics is about DUTY - a point which is shared by the Judeo Christian values on which human rights and western morality is based upon. When it comes to point A, con arguably put up a more flexible set of principles - effectively making it possible for individuals to make completely different deciccions and still be called morally good. However as Pro pointed out that ethical systems are to create coherence and an objective standard rather than being a mathematical equation. Con failed to explain in a sufficient manner what a "greater good" is as compared to a lesser good. Thus undermining his argument. Cons argument that Kantian ethics make impossible individual variation was succesfully rebuted by Pro - when he said that there is a difference between an action and a moral action. However Pro failed to explain what the difference what. The arguments from con definately felt more convincing at the time I read them, but I thought about it and the ultimate victor with regards to arguments was Pro. Well done both of you.
CONDUCT:
Pro got a slight advantage with both conduct and sources - however I will give only 1 point to Pro for this.
Basically, con used a lot of arguments that could be considered emmotionally charged or based on current morality.
For example, he criticised Kantian ethics for oppressing homosexuals. Regardless of whether or not that is true - this argument is based not on reasoning but emmotion. The only weight behind this argument is the emotion it carries - let me explain. Kantian ethics oppresses the minority "terrorists" - but that is not an argument against Kantian ethics. So the only reason why oppressing "homosexuals" actually makes a difference is that people have an emmotional and cultural connection to that minority.
AKA - Con says: kantian ethics would create a different culture than the one we live in now - so kantian ethics is unethical.
Regardless of wheter or not this (and similar cases) was intentional, they put Con's conduct slightly below Pros by appealing to emmotion.
CONCLUSION:
A slight advantage in conduct and a big advantage in arguments made me choose to vote for Pro.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Benjamin // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4:0 (4 points to PRO)
>Reason for Decision: See comments
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter did not properly justify the conduct point allotment. Appealing to emotion as a tactic is not excessive, unfair, or in breach of the debate's rules. Please revote while fulfilling the voting requirements.
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.
I don't know any debater that doesn't want votes on their debates, so it's definitely not that we don't like you voting. We just need more detailed commentary from you than some vague sentences... Ultimately you've got to hit the targets I set out for you here:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2643/comment-links/34219
You need not write a thesis but some minimal level of detail is required to verify knowledge of what you're grading.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Reece101 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:2 (2 points to CON)
>Reason for Decision:
"Which participant provided more convincing arguments?
Both Pro and Con didn’t fully flush out their premises. They weren’t getting to the root of their arguments.
Which participant provided the most reliable sources?
Neither provided sources. Not necessarily a bad thing in this context.
Which participant had better spelling and grammar?
Although I don’t put emphasis on spelling/grammar, I found a few large mistakes with Pro’s wording.
Which participant had better conduct?
Many of Pro’s replies were underhanded towards Con and the spectators."
>Reason for Mod Action:
Collectively 9,000 words of argument can not be rendered a tie in one vague sentence.
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
For the S&G point allotment, the voter needs to specify the mistakes PRO made, and justify their allotment of points according to voter guidelines.
To award S/G points, the voter must:
(1) give specific examples of S/G errors,
(2) explain how these errors were excessive, and
(3) compare each debaters' S/G.
Additionally, the conduct point was not properly justified at all.
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.
Honestly not really, in large part I think it would be a rehash of the debate we already had except for whatever new strategy you've got. If you want to debate a different topic though I'm down. I'll just leave this one open to whoever else wants to try their hand
No problem. It'll be a challenge to get through as I'm pretty unfamiliar with the topic, though. I'm through the first few rounds but it's slow going. Will have it up tomorrow I believe, but it'll be rather close to the vote period end date.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Jasmine // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:3 (3 points to CON)
>Reason for Decision:
"I'm ok with this vote being deleted, but please do not take away my voting rights. 😣🥺
Con's arguments were like an eye opener. 👀 It would be so much harder to recount the votes as well as have voter fraud. I am kind of confused on how there could be electoral fraud if there are 538 votes and I'm assuming everyone of them has to vote. 🤔🤨
Also how can a vote increase national security??? I genuinely don't get the correlation.
😛"
>Reason for Mod Action:
In essence, this vote was just too vague... 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.
Remember that to award arguments, you 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.
NOTE: Full Forfeitures, explicit concessions, subjective competitions, truisms, and comedy (even if facetious) are not eligible for moderation (barring certain exceptions).
As PRO's args clearly fall under "Comedy," the votes on this debate are not eligible for moderation.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: seldiora // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:1 (1 points to CON)
>Reason for Decision:
"This debate is hard to vote on. Pro successfully finds multiple sources that show homosexuality is not based upon choice, while ignoring Con's interesting claim on how the pope decided that the action was sinful and lustful in itself -- acting upon homosexuality. I buy both. I buy the idea that sexual preference is not a moral decision, but the only way to actually display homosexuality is to engage within it, with romantic acts, which is consciously decided and can be moral and immoral. As such, "homosexuality" is muddled down, leading me to tie the arguments. Conduct to Con for Pro's hidden argument and the fact that he never made any arguments for immorality prove that he never wanted to argue for "homosexuality is wrong" but rather that the desire or attraction could not be within the moral sphere."
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter did not properly justify the assignment of the conduct point.
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 did #1, but #2 & #3 didn't happen (although I'm not sure that he could effectively argue #2).
Thanks to Undefeatable for the great debate, and a big thanks to Whiteflame for the great vote. Just read through that monster and got some key takeaways from it to improve my argumentation. Gotta say, I kind of wish we had a bigger character count.... but I think I agree with Whiteflame that my lack of breathing room was at least partially due to my incessant habit of overkilling certain arguments where possible and under-refuting the more important ones.
I think I speak for both of us when I say I appreciate your thoroughness... This debate probably comes down to voter interpretation, so it's definitely reassuring to see such a detailed RFD. Of course, I'm grateful to have an RFD at all.
that's typical of RM's voting on this particular topic
Definitely not. But then again, no one is
If you win you should be, Undefeatable is talented.
You could do that but there's some rebuttals that may dismantle that claim. I won't give away any arguments however
Ultimately this is the same, just both debaters agreeing to a utilitarian framework (which I was using in my case to begin with). The resolution is actually quite balanced, you'll be fine
nah, I agree with you
Heads up: I will probably not be publishing my R1 until next weekend due to my debate with Speedrace on Thursday
fine w/ me. Offensive & Defensive contentions are both welcome.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: seldiora // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3:0 (3 points awarded to PRO)
>Reason for Decision:
"I scratch my head over this debate, especially how Con says illogical things downright don't exist, God can just create the vague definition of the words that refer to them. Con argues that "circular square" is similar to saying "asoierhoaeihr a...". But anyways. Con conceded that God's immaterial nature makes it so that he cannot move, he cannot lift anything, among many other actions. As there are things outside of God's power, Con basically gave away this debate. What a weird rebuttal."
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter said CON conceded the debate, without going over parameters for victory... the main content of the debate was over them, so ultimately, the voter did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
you're on.
if you are becoming frustrated with the length of the debate and think things are going in circles, you can both agree to just give a brief summary of points for R5 and call it a day.
I was very close to tying my vote as well... Close debate indeed
Let me use Ragnar's explanation, as it's pretty thorough:
"Conduct
Optional. One point
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 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.
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 for the topical contentions, or arguing weakly.
Further notes
Points neither awarded nor commented upon, are considered wholly ungraded. Generally this is fine, as is remarking on something but leaving it within the tied range even if leaning a certain way. However, exploitive withholding of any category overwhelmingly against your majority point awardee, is evidence of profuse bias, so is therefore subject to vote deletion (e.g., someone forfeits half the debate and receives a favorable argument vote unmitigated by conduct).
With the exception of arguments, certain things are naturally implied by their absence of remarks...
Such as: If only one side forfeited, the other side showing up warrants no comment as it is implied. If one side made an argument illegible, so long as the other side did ok, pointing out issues of just one side implies the other did not make the same mistakes.
It is necessary to explain all awarded points, but a mitigating point against your primary point recipient need not be as detailed for the vote to remain if not good, at least borderline.
A debate may have special rules specified within the description. These are not strictly enforced by moderation, but a voter may choose to abide. If a voter is choosing to and there was a challenge to said rules within the debate, some analysis of that challenge is highly suggested.
With regards to the subjective nature of voting, often arguments are exceedingly close. A good voter might change who they would determine the winner of that metric week to week if they reevaluated the debate. However, if awarding other points, it should be for a clear and decisive margin of victory."
It's fine, just something to keep in mind for future votes
If you want to revote, you have about an hour and a half left to do so.
First of all, they were discussing ETHICS, not MORALITY. Ethics is the set of principles on which a society bases their actions. Morality on the other hand is how individuals and groups actually act. A morally good action is one that acts according to the ethical principles. In the context of this debate the two words were uses interchangeably.
THE THEORIES:
Ethics need to propose two things: A. principles of how to act and B. reason, motivation or authority backing up the principles.
Pro arguably nailed point B, by actually providing a universal set of principles on which all humans should be able to agree. He successfully proved that ethics is about DUTY - a point which is shared by the Judeo Christian values on which human rights and western morality is based upon. When it comes to point A, con arguably put up a more flexible set of principles - effectively making it possible for individuals to make completely different deciccions and still be called morally good. However as Pro pointed out that ethical systems are to create coherence and an objective standard rather than being a mathematical equation. Con failed to explain in a sufficient manner what a "greater good" is as compared to a lesser good. Thus undermining his argument. Cons argument that Kantian ethics make impossible individual variation was succesfully rebuted by Pro - when he said that there is a difference between an action and a moral action. However Pro failed to explain what the difference what. The arguments from con definately felt more convincing at the time I read them, but I thought about it and the ultimate victor with regards to arguments was Pro. Well done both of you.
CONDUCT:
Pro got a slight advantage with both conduct and sources - however I will give only 1 point to Pro for this.
Basically, con used a lot of arguments that could be considered emmotionally charged or based on current morality.
For example, he criticised Kantian ethics for oppressing homosexuals. Regardless of whether or not that is true - this argument is based not on reasoning but emmotion. The only weight behind this argument is the emotion it carries - let me explain. Kantian ethics oppresses the minority "terrorists" - but that is not an argument against Kantian ethics. So the only reason why oppressing "homosexuals" actually makes a difference is that people have an emmotional and cultural connection to that minority.
AKA - Con says: kantian ethics would create a different culture than the one we live in now - so kantian ethics is unethical.
Regardless of wheter or not this (and similar cases) was intentional, they put Con's conduct slightly below Pros by appealing to emmotion.
CONCLUSION:
A slight advantage in conduct and a big advantage in arguments made me choose to vote for Pro.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Benjamin // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4:0 (4 points to PRO)
>Reason for Decision: See comments
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter did not properly justify the conduct point allotment. Appealing to emotion as a tactic is not excessive, unfair, or in breach of the debate's rules. Please revote while fulfilling the voting requirements.
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.
Well... you'll see. I have several args in mind
I don't know any debater that doesn't want votes on their debates, so it's definitely not that we don't like you voting. We just need more detailed commentary from you than some vague sentences... Ultimately you've got to hit the targets I set out for you here:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2643/comment-links/34219
You need not write a thesis but some minimal level of detail is required to verify knowledge of what you're grading.
Hope you find it helpful. Sometimes simplicity is your friend yknow
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Reece101 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:2 (2 points to CON)
>Reason for Decision:
"Which participant provided more convincing arguments?
Both Pro and Con didn’t fully flush out their premises. They weren’t getting to the root of their arguments.
Which participant provided the most reliable sources?
Neither provided sources. Not necessarily a bad thing in this context.
Which participant had better spelling and grammar?
Although I don’t put emphasis on spelling/grammar, I found a few large mistakes with Pro’s wording.
Which participant had better conduct?
Many of Pro’s replies were underhanded towards Con and the spectators."
>Reason for Mod Action:
Collectively 9,000 words of argument can not be rendered a tie in one vague sentence.
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
For the S&G point allotment, the voter needs to specify the mistakes PRO made, and justify their allotment of points according to voter guidelines.
To award S/G points, the voter must:
(1) give specific examples of S/G errors,
(2) explain how these errors were excessive, and
(3) compare each debaters' S/G.
Additionally, the conduct point was not properly justified at all.
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.
No problem. It was a tough debate to get through but I'm glad I was able to render the decision
maybe, although I think he would have a different take on the rebuttals
I think you might be interested in trying this one
Honestly not really, in large part I think it would be a rehash of the debate we already had except for whatever new strategy you've got. If you want to debate a different topic though I'm down. I'll just leave this one open to whoever else wants to try their hand
No problem. It'll be a challenge to get through as I'm pretty unfamiliar with the topic, though. I'm through the first few rounds but it's slow going. Will have it up tomorrow I believe, but it'll be rather close to the vote period end date.
Thanks, starting on it now.
Ping me at around 6 PM EST just in case I forget to get started on this
not sure about other people, but I've been so occupied with finals I've had 0 time for debating ;-;
this is long, I'll see if I can get to it.
Discussing this with mods. Will get back to you on this soon.
You COULD use it that way, but there are some clear differences I think in context.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Jasmine // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:3 (3 points to CON)
>Reason for Decision:
"I'm ok with this vote being deleted, but please do not take away my voting rights. 😣🥺
Con's arguments were like an eye opener. 👀 It would be so much harder to recount the votes as well as have voter fraud. I am kind of confused on how there could be electoral fraud if there are 538 votes and I'm assuming everyone of them has to vote. 🤔🤨
Also how can a vote increase national security??? I genuinely don't get the correlation.
😛"
>Reason for Mod Action:
In essence, this vote was just too vague... 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.
Remember that to award arguments, you 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.
"I only deal with facts/evidence, so please leave your emotions at the door."
The irony of this statement
Halfway through my vote on this thing. Will get it finished tomorrow
Good thing I'm working on a vote. Looks like I'll be the tie breaker ultimately
shhhhh don't spoil anything!
I'll see what I can do
NOTE: Full Forfeitures, explicit concessions, subjective competitions, truisms, and comedy (even if facetious) are not eligible for moderation (barring certain exceptions).
As PRO's args clearly fall under "Comedy," the votes on this debate are not eligible for moderation.
Ah, you rethought your banning. OK then
free win ig, unless Seldiora unbans himself, in which case I have an argument to make.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: seldiora // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:1 (1 points to CON)
>Reason for Decision:
"This debate is hard to vote on. Pro successfully finds multiple sources that show homosexuality is not based upon choice, while ignoring Con's interesting claim on how the pope decided that the action was sinful and lustful in itself -- acting upon homosexuality. I buy both. I buy the idea that sexual preference is not a moral decision, but the only way to actually display homosexuality is to engage within it, with romantic acts, which is consciously decided and can be moral and immoral. As such, "homosexuality" is muddled down, leading me to tie the arguments. Conduct to Con for Pro's hidden argument and the fact that he never made any arguments for immorality prove that he never wanted to argue for "homosexuality is wrong" but rather that the desire or attraction could not be within the moral sphere."
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter did not properly justify the assignment of the conduct point.
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 did #1, but #2 & #3 didn't happen (although I'm not sure that he could effectively argue #2).
tempted to use this resolution and argue that Trump has drank from a straw publicly, and thus technically sucks.
I mean, if Trump has ever drank from a straw, you can affirm.
Make args a week and you got a debate
I've stopped taking Mall's debates out of principle... something about low-hanging fruit.
Thanks to Undefeatable for the great debate, and a big thanks to Whiteflame for the great vote. Just read through that monster and got some key takeaways from it to improve my argumentation. Gotta say, I kind of wish we had a bigger character count.... but I think I agree with Whiteflame that my lack of breathing room was at least partially due to my incessant habit of overkilling certain arguments where possible and under-refuting the more important ones.
Yikes, a FF. This shouldn't be a tie.
I think I speak for both of us when I say I appreciate your thoroughness... This debate probably comes down to voter interpretation, so it's definitely reassuring to see such a detailed RFD. Of course, I'm grateful to have an RFD at all.
Do you think you'll give a vote?