Most judges allow debaters to ignore the ruleset at penalty of conduct point with the sole exception of a rule that says "Any breaking of these rules will result in an instant loss."
That said, if you did that, this debate would be even more contemptable in my view.
"Predetermining the BoP" was something CON could have disputed, but he did not. He accepted a debate with a BoP outlined in the description and did not dispute it in the arguments, which means he was fully consensual in that agreement.
There is no "unfairness" about something mutually agreed to, as long as neither party is being pressured by an outside factor.
Your argument itself is nonsensical and based on your own personal whim about what a debate should or shouldn't be. It is literally one of the most basic functions of debate to outline what you believe to be the BoP for you and your opponent to the judge. You're not just "interpreting things differently," you're challenging one of the well-established norms of debate.
I will also add that "the BoP is defined by the resolution" is false. BoP is defined by your POSITION & ROLE relative to the resolution (i.e. are you PRO or CON. Are you the one making the claim or the one challenging it?). This is again the implicit norm for debate, and challenging it in your vote is uncalled for.
Keep in mind, the statement "As long as it fits voter guidelines." (I will also add, that under context I was specifically talking about argument point allocation. If the voter had assigned conduct willy nilly, that would have been removed too)
According to the guidelines, docking conduct generally needs to be under the pretense of a brazen and obvious violation. I read this debate, there was nothing even approaching a violation of conduct.
Like seldiora quotes from the ext. moderation policies:
"Misconduct is excessive when it is extremely frequent and/or when it causes the debate to become incoherent or extremely toxic. In the case of awarding conduct points solely on the basis of forfeits, there is an exception to these steps: a debater may award conduct points solely for forfeited rounds, but only if one debater forfeited half or more of their rounds or if the voter also awards argument points (or explains their decision not to award argument points in a manner which meets the argument points voting standards)."
The whole point of debate is to try to corner your opponent. I will restate: "Docking conduct points for Oromagi cornering their opponent through debate framework is like telling a construction worker they can not use a hammer."
I can see you trying to throw the same vote back up with the same justification. You will not be able to do that unless you properly justify the conduct violation.
As a neutral bystander that also happens to be a voting mod, if Ragnar hadn't deleted your vote, I probably would've. We were discussing whether it was worth it to remove it, (your vote has been flagged for the past 3 days) but as for your vote being a violation of voting guidelines, that much is undisputable.
Docking conduct points for Oromagi cornering their opponent through debate framework is like telling a construction worker they can not use a hammer.
Sources: Unremarkable.
S&G: Unremarkable.
Conduct: Nearly went to PRO. "Tsk tsk tsk."
Argument: Vote cast for CON.
My RFD is just a SMIDGE too big to fit here - so here's a drop box link. If there are issues accessing it - or if there are issues with my RFD - please inform me.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: JRob // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:3; 3 points to CON.
>Reason for Decision: See DB link: https://www.dropbox.com/s/fk2jq69fvhagd7a/RFD%3B%20FoxRule%20vs%20DeFeet.docx?dl=0
>Reason for Mod Action:
This vote will have to be recast with a more "tabula rasa" approach for the RFD. While you do not have to throw out your common sense to judge arguments (for example you should not accept it if a debater defines a horse as a sports car), you should also not be injecting any of your own arguments into the RFD itself. You can give commentary on whether you think certain arguments are true or false (as you did liberally in other areas of your RFD), but that should not spill over into the reason for your decision.
Said another way, the judgement should be isolated to what is presented in the debate without outside ideas injected in, except in rare cases.
Here is an excerpt from the DART Mod blackbook:
"Outside content may be commented on, so long as it does not cross into being a determinant factor on the vote. Should the voter weigh things outside of what the debaters themselves presented inside the debate rounds, the vote is eligible for deletion (identified plagiarism is a notable exception)."
In this case, a large excerpt of your RFD violated this principle:
"By way of comparison – America undeniably has a problem with racism. The disease is there – its symptoms are present tenfold, in protesting minorities to inexplicable disproportionate incarceration all the way to a rich history of segregation and police brutality. No, the government doesn’t explicitly encourage it in law – but it’s there, and the fact that there’s still not enough done about it – as CON proves – is enough evidence to fulfill their BoP.
TL; DR: Yes, 100% non-conformance is a “pipe dream”, and yes, it’s hard to find it written in black and white that there is disproportionate treatment of black and white – but a government that sits relatively idle whilst 13% of its citizens experience an extremely disproportionate level of incarceration and health issues is a government that operates on a racist system. It is systemically racist. If it were a different group experiencing these issues – one that didn’t have an extensive history of being discriminated against, then there might be another cause to be considered.
But: If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and swims like a duck – it’s certainly not a flamingo. Doesn’t matter what the name tag says, and doesn’t matter that it was told to be a chicken."
You can say why or why not you didn't buy PRO's definition through the lens of the arguments CON presented, but you can not make a fully fledged argument of your own.
This section is more representative of what you should have left it at:
"your definition of “systemic” does not specify written legislature – merely that ‘systemic’ means that “something is done according to a system or method”. For instance, in your example – a ‘systemic disease’ as your debate seems to imply, would refer to a genetic disorder – where the genes are responsible for ‘writing’ the rules. If the body is diseased regardless of the written rules – as in a viral or bacterial infection – then it’s still – by this very definition – systemic – affecting the whole system."
I suggest you remove your own argumentation from the RFD and revote.
The clear difference is that it was arguable, because it is not a given that God has broken his own law (i.e. the same reason that it would be arguable to say God murders in the sense that he breaks the moral law). To remove any sort of qualification of "just" or "lawful" is to remove any sort of debatability the resolution possesses. Anyway, I will keep it at that to avoid giving CON his argument for free.
I will preface this with the fact that I'm not a Christian.
Your definition is dishonest.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder
": the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought"
By simply making your BoP "God has killed" you create a truism. No Christian argues that God does not kill, as that would be undebatable... they only argue that the killing is just/lawful. That position is debatable for both sides.
But you know this, as you say: "If I add the word "unjust"', a religious person may argue that God cannot act unjustly and that all the murders were justified as God is Omnibenevolent."
By shutting out all avenues of debate for the opposing side, you have chosen a cowardly and dishonest route for debate. That's what is wrong with your definition.
Well, thanks, but I'm not sure it's better per se actually. One thing that bothers me is I forgot to include that Mall said himself the solution must eliminate "all racism," but I'll just include that in R2. Plus, it is implied by my refutations and the language used anyways.
Believe it or not, Sir and I literally came up with the same argument at around the same time. His argument here is pretty much a carbon copy of what I was going to argue
1. I say something in the forums
2. I get 200 notifications of people disagreeing with that thing I said
3. My eyes glaze over and I just go back to bed
With debates it's different.. Not sure why but I have so much more motivation to actually compete intellectually in a formal debate setting. Maybe it's the 1 on 1, structured aspect.
The whole point of the debate is that these issues are subjective and well, debatable... You attacking a set of points in the forums does not mean that they can't be argued and won against you. No argument is bulletproof...my arguments are no exception, but neither were your refutations. Maybe that would be more obvious if I actually put a decent amount of effort in defending myself on the forums... But I typically don't because I'm lazy.
the gall of this dude.
That was a tough RFD to render. This was very close. I apologize if I mixed up PRO and CON by the end there... my brain is fried
Midway through, vote coming soon
Just skimming, looks like it could go either way... I'll have to look at this more in depth.
I will be voting over the weekend.
Ok, duly noted
Do you intend to concede or not?
""If you refuse to rescind your definition, I forfeit."
"And this is where I’m calling it quits."
Most judges allow debaters to ignore the ruleset at penalty of conduct point with the sole exception of a rule that says "Any breaking of these rules will result in an instant loss."
That said, if you did that, this debate would be even more contemptable in my view.
"Predetermining the BoP" was something CON could have disputed, but he did not. He accepted a debate with a BoP outlined in the description and did not dispute it in the arguments, which means he was fully consensual in that agreement.
There is no "unfairness" about something mutually agreed to, as long as neither party is being pressured by an outside factor.
Your argument itself is nonsensical and based on your own personal whim about what a debate should or shouldn't be. It is literally one of the most basic functions of debate to outline what you believe to be the BoP for you and your opponent to the judge. You're not just "interpreting things differently," you're challenging one of the well-established norms of debate.
I will also add that "the BoP is defined by the resolution" is false. BoP is defined by your POSITION & ROLE relative to the resolution (i.e. are you PRO or CON. Are you the one making the claim or the one challenging it?). This is again the implicit norm for debate, and challenging it in your vote is uncalled for.
Keep in mind, the statement "As long as it fits voter guidelines." (I will also add, that under context I was specifically talking about argument point allocation. If the voter had assigned conduct willy nilly, that would have been removed too)
According to the guidelines, docking conduct generally needs to be under the pretense of a brazen and obvious violation. I read this debate, there was nothing even approaching a violation of conduct.
Like seldiora quotes from the ext. moderation policies:
"Misconduct is excessive when it is extremely frequent and/or when it causes the debate to become incoherent or extremely toxic. In the case of awarding conduct points solely on the basis of forfeits, there is an exception to these steps: a debater may award conduct points solely for forfeited rounds, but only if one debater forfeited half or more of their rounds or if the voter also awards argument points (or explains their decision not to award argument points in a manner which meets the argument points voting standards)."
The whole point of debate is to try to corner your opponent. I will restate: "Docking conduct points for Oromagi cornering their opponent through debate framework is like telling a construction worker they can not use a hammer."
Merely waiting for Ragnar's go-ahead, but he did it before me.
I can see you trying to throw the same vote back up with the same justification. You will not be able to do that unless you properly justify the conduct violation.
As a neutral bystander that also happens to be a voting mod, if Ragnar hadn't deleted your vote, I probably would've. We were discussing whether it was worth it to remove it, (your vote has been flagged for the past 3 days) but as for your vote being a violation of voting guidelines, that much is undisputable.
Docking conduct points for Oromagi cornering their opponent through debate framework is like telling a construction worker they can not use a hammer.
Nah, Seldiora decided one person should vote per debate to reduce the chances of tie.
lol oop
which one of us was supposed to vote on this one again?
It's an extremely common blunder for new voters, but it's an easy fix.
JROB RFD:
Sources: Unremarkable.
S&G: Unremarkable.
Conduct: Nearly went to PRO. "Tsk tsk tsk."
Argument: Vote cast for CON.
My RFD is just a SMIDGE too big to fit here - so here's a drop box link. If there are issues accessing it - or if there are issues with my RFD - please inform me.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/fk2jq69fvhagd7a/RFD%3B%20FoxRule%20vs%20DeFeet.docx?dl=0
Best of luck with the other voters.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: JRob // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:3; 3 points to CON.
>Reason for Decision: See DB link: https://www.dropbox.com/s/fk2jq69fvhagd7a/RFD%3B%20FoxRule%20vs%20DeFeet.docx?dl=0
>Reason for Mod Action:
This vote will have to be recast with a more "tabula rasa" approach for the RFD. While you do not have to throw out your common sense to judge arguments (for example you should not accept it if a debater defines a horse as a sports car), you should also not be injecting any of your own arguments into the RFD itself. You can give commentary on whether you think certain arguments are true or false (as you did liberally in other areas of your RFD), but that should not spill over into the reason for your decision.
Said another way, the judgement should be isolated to what is presented in the debate without outside ideas injected in, except in rare cases.
Here is an excerpt from the DART Mod blackbook:
"Outside content may be commented on, so long as it does not cross into being a determinant factor on the vote. Should the voter weigh things outside of what the debaters themselves presented inside the debate rounds, the vote is eligible for deletion (identified plagiarism is a notable exception)."
In this case, a large excerpt of your RFD violated this principle:
"By way of comparison – America undeniably has a problem with racism. The disease is there – its symptoms are present tenfold, in protesting minorities to inexplicable disproportionate incarceration all the way to a rich history of segregation and police brutality. No, the government doesn’t explicitly encourage it in law – but it’s there, and the fact that there’s still not enough done about it – as CON proves – is enough evidence to fulfill their BoP.
TL; DR: Yes, 100% non-conformance is a “pipe dream”, and yes, it’s hard to find it written in black and white that there is disproportionate treatment of black and white – but a government that sits relatively idle whilst 13% of its citizens experience an extremely disproportionate level of incarceration and health issues is a government that operates on a racist system. It is systemically racist. If it were a different group experiencing these issues – one that didn’t have an extensive history of being discriminated against, then there might be another cause to be considered.
But: If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and swims like a duck – it’s certainly not a flamingo. Doesn’t matter what the name tag says, and doesn’t matter that it was told to be a chicken."
You can say why or why not you didn't buy PRO's definition through the lens of the arguments CON presented, but you can not make a fully fledged argument of your own.
This section is more representative of what you should have left it at:
"your definition of “systemic” does not specify written legislature – merely that ‘systemic’ means that “something is done according to a system or method”. For instance, in your example – a ‘systemic disease’ as your debate seems to imply, would refer to a genetic disorder – where the genes are responsible for ‘writing’ the rules. If the body is diseased regardless of the written rules – as in a viral or bacterial infection – then it’s still – by this very definition – systemic – affecting the whole system."
I suggest you remove your own argumentation from the RFD and revote.
The clear difference is that it was arguable, because it is not a given that God has broken his own law (i.e. the same reason that it would be arguable to say God murders in the sense that he breaks the moral law). To remove any sort of qualification of "just" or "lawful" is to remove any sort of debatability the resolution possesses. Anyway, I will keep it at that to avoid giving CON his argument for free.
Does not impact my point in the slightest. As for them believing God has not killed... well, we will see.
I will preface this with the fact that I'm not a Christian.
Your definition is dishonest.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder
": the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought"
By simply making your BoP "God has killed" you create a truism. No Christian argues that God does not kill, as that would be undebatable... they only argue that the killing is just/lawful. That position is debatable for both sides.
But you know this, as you say: "If I add the word "unjust"', a religious person may argue that God cannot act unjustly and that all the murders were justified as God is Omnibenevolent."
By shutting out all avenues of debate for the opposing side, you have chosen a cowardly and dishonest route for debate. That's what is wrong with your definition.
I see two avenues for debate here.
1. The contender challenges whether God exists to create anything at all.
2. The contender challenges using a biblical ex nihilo framework.
I will be voting this weekend, given that the stakes are pretty high.
Technically seldiora is allowed to change his opinion on the debate and revote... but it seems a bit scummy to me.
NOTE: Per Seldiora's request, his vote has been deleted.
I'll try to leave a vote
First debate on DART, FF on both sides. Oh the irony
Well, thanks, but I'm not sure it's better per se actually. One thing that bothers me is I forgot to include that Mall said himself the solution must eliminate "all racism," but I'll just include that in R2. Plus, it is implied by my refutations and the language used anyways.
Great minds think alike
Believe it or not, Sir and I literally came up with the same argument at around the same time. His argument here is pretty much a carbon copy of what I was going to argue
Damn it, you beat me to it. But I'll make my constructive better >:)
duly noted
I disagree with this but don't feel like taking it. I would opt for traditional contraceptives over both abortion and sterilization.
My laziness basically goes in a 3 step process:
1. I say something in the forums
2. I get 200 notifications of people disagreeing with that thing I said
3. My eyes glaze over and I just go back to bed
With debates it's different.. Not sure why but I have so much more motivation to actually compete intellectually in a formal debate setting. Maybe it's the 1 on 1, structured aspect.
The whole point of the debate is that these issues are subjective and well, debatable... You attacking a set of points in the forums does not mean that they can't be argued and won against you. No argument is bulletproof...my arguments are no exception, but neither were your refutations. Maybe that would be more obvious if I actually put a decent amount of effort in defending myself on the forums... But I typically don't because I'm lazy.
Ah, you'll have to let me know... I thought I was original ;-;
My argument is going to be a bad joke, so let's see if it works...
Welcome to the site!
I look forward to the debate
"misterchris is on the leaderboard. he argued for some YEC stuff before"
Yes, I have. Although, my official position on the issue is: "Leaning old Earth, but honestly who knows."
As for the broader issue of whether a God exists, I tend to lean yes, but truly I am agnostic.
Some good points tho
Ohhh there was so much missed potential
I might have to make this debate myself
PRO has the much easier side. Don't screw this one up, Seldiora
Fully agree. you could basically boil down the fingerprint thing as special pleading as well.
oh crap, could've used a reminder before this came out as a tie
That conclusion doesn't follow from the premises you gave (I point this out as someone opposed to the notion of transgenderism)
Considering the point of business is to fulfill a demand... I guess I agree with Mall here.
Yeah this is reaching "fundamental worldview" territory.
Oh definitely, other sites tend to be unusable in comparison