Moderators of this website are taking this action that is not stipulated in the rules. Like whiteflame has conceded below, there is no rule or policy that stipulates making this debate "unrated." The moderators have admitted to using their personal feelings to make decisions which have no bearing on whether I am in line with the rules and regulations of this website.
There is no reason this debate should be labeled as spam other than moderator bias, so I want to revert this back to "rated." It is not my fault as to who accepts my debates nor do I care who does. Full forfeits occur regularly on this site, yet no one seems to care about them. Why is it until I stand to benefit from one? Simply because the moderators have this weird prejudgment against me as noted by several other competent users.
As long as there is no rule that labels this debate in any manner entailing ammendment, I want this debate to be changed to "rated."
Wait a second, these debates were made well in advance of him accepting them. Both were published on the 26th of October, so regardless of what my opponent does, I am not seeing the debateart.com rule or guideline that labels this as such. Can you state the debateart.com rule or guideline that renders this debate "spam" ?
As stated before, we have a moderator acting like an idiot here. I will re-state each proposition.
So, (1) I did not consent for this debate to be made unrated, (2) This is not a spam debate, it was made well in advance (3) the debate is already in the voting stage. Please change this debate back to rated. Moderators have no right to change any full forfeit debate to unrated otherwise they would do this consistently with every full forfeit. I know SupaDudz is stupid, so I was hoping you could help here, because it seems obvious that once again, moderators that just can't control their emotions are abusing their power.
We have a moderator acting like an idiot here. So, (1) I did not consent for this debate to be made unrated, (2) This is not a spam debate, it was made well in advance Please change this debate back to rated. Moderators have no right to change any full forfeit debate to unrated otherwise they would do this consistently.
I have no idea what you are talking about when you say "extend," means "I'll give you another chance to make your argument." Extend just means I am extending what I have said. Now unless you are mind-reading, this proposition is going to be incoherent.
But even if it did mean this, there is still no rule against this, so you would be wrong regardless of the truth value of that proposition. I don't understand how much clearer this could be.
First the proposition is not going to be true unless you claim to be doing some weird mind-reading thing, and second, even it it was, it isn't going to break any of the rules of the debate as I laid them out.
Okay, I see no reason to believe in P3. I did not tell pro anything, unless you can show me where I did? Also, even if we grant that I did, that still would not be against any of the rules, so you would be wrong in both cases.
I didn't ask pro anything, I don't understand the inference here, this makes no sense? What is the syllogism for that?
Also, what argument did pro make, I don't know what debate you are looking at? Do you think the words "no, no," are an argument? By that same logic me saying "Extend," would be an argument. If not, what is the symmetry breaker?
I don't understand why I would wait for troll votes to be removed as opposed to banning the trolls from voting preemptively? If I had a farm, I would build a pig pen, rather than wait for pigs to run wild and damage my property.
Intrinsically, I don't desire to gain a rating from this, I just want the distinction between this, and other potential cases of moderators altering debates after they have started. If there is none, this is a very bad thing to allow moderators to do, if there is one my aversion can be regarded as immaterial.
Wait a second...if a moderator can alter a debate after it has started, what is a symmetry breaker between this decision, and a moderator altering the character count, or the time for argument? This is a peculiar power to grant, and I don't see any reason why this change should have been permitted. Thus, I request it be reverted immediately.
I would not draw attention to him, I have come to find out that he thrives off it. That is to say, I am not interested in feeding the troll any longer. My interest only extends to debating, and if all I am going to get is dodges and incoherent rambles, even solely interacting becomes a waste of time.
Vici did not appear to be backing out, but seems to be stating that Barney would be too scared to even accept the challenge, so there is no point in wasting such time/giving him the attention. This is something I can generally agree with as someone Barney is scared of debating.
Unfortunately, I am down to 3 hours for this debate, as well as this collection of similar ones which all require extremely easy RFD's, with no votes. Are any of you able to vote here? (all links to similar debates are below)
I have 4 debates and 8 hours.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3755-you-pick-the-topic
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3756-you-pick-the-topic
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3762-you-pick-the-topic
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3754-you-pick-the-topic
I am in critical need of a vote at this point of time, can anyone please vote for these debates? They are extremely rudimentary decisions.
I was informed that this was logically possible within the site, however, the moderator who revealed this information to me what whiteflame, and considering how incompetent he is, it is not unexpected that he would display ignorance of what will and will not be upheld on this platform.
And there could be underlying reasons people vote to protect Oromagi and Barney as well. They could be personal, or more so emotional. For instance, ther may be voters who are not willing to do anything that may introduce the risk of upsetting them because that is clearly one of the worst things that could happen. The fact of the matter is, it is a peculiar issue. Because of this, all of my subsequent debates will have rules that bar certain people from voting. These rules will be purposed towards preventing the expressions of incompetent people from influencing the outcome of a given debate. Some examples of people who I would, as a general rule, note to ban from voting are Barney, Oromagi, FLRW, Shila, etc. all of which are trolls who lack understanding of basic logic.
Votes needed, please. Only a week's time is allowed.
Please vote, there is just a week.
vote needed
You should vote here, given that an incompetent person cast a vote against me.
Moderators of this website are taking this action that is not stipulated in the rules. Like whiteflame has conceded below, there is no rule or policy that stipulates making this debate "unrated." The moderators have admitted to using their personal feelings to make decisions which have no bearing on whether I am in line with the rules and regulations of this website.
There is no reason this debate should be labeled as spam other than moderator bias, so I want to revert this back to "rated." It is not my fault as to who accepts my debates nor do I care who does. Full forfeits occur regularly on this site, yet no one seems to care about them. Why is it until I stand to benefit from one? Simply because the moderators have this weird prejudgment against me as noted by several other competent users.
As long as there is no rule that labels this debate in any manner entailing ammendment, I want this debate to be changed to "rated."
Wait a second, these debates were made well in advance of him accepting them. Both were published on the 26th of October, so regardless of what my opponent does, I am not seeing the debateart.com rule or guideline that labels this as such. Can you state the debateart.com rule or guideline that renders this debate "spam" ?
I am not sure I am following you here precisely. What is the "spam" of this debate?
As stated before, we have a moderator acting like an idiot here. I will re-state each proposition.
So, (1) I did not consent for this debate to be made unrated, (2) This is not a spam debate, it was made well in advance (3) the debate is already in the voting stage. Please change this debate back to rated. Moderators have no right to change any full forfeit debate to unrated otherwise they would do this consistently with every full forfeit. I know SupaDudz is stupid, so I was hoping you could help here, because it seems obvious that once again, moderators that just can't control their emotions are abusing their power.
We have a moderator acting like an idiot here. So, (1) I did not consent for this debate to be made unrated, (2) This is not a spam debate, it was made well in advance Please change this debate back to rated. Moderators have no right to change any full forfeit debate to unrated otherwise they would do this consistently.
I did not give permission for this debate to be changed to "unrated." Please change it back immediately.
I did not give permission for this debate to be changed to "unrated." Please change it back immediately.
I believe he accepted the first one and forgot about it, hence his final round. So he accepted the second one to make his argument.
I have no idea what you are talking about when you say "extend," means "I'll give you another chance to make your argument." Extend just means I am extending what I have said. Now unless you are mind-reading, this proposition is going to be incoherent.
But even if it did mean this, there is still no rule against this, so you would be wrong regardless of the truth value of that proposition. I don't understand how much clearer this could be.
First the proposition is not going to be true unless you claim to be doing some weird mind-reading thing, and second, even it it was, it isn't going to break any of the rules of the debate as I laid them out.
Okay, I see no reason to believe in P3. I did not tell pro anything, unless you can show me where I did? Also, even if we grant that I did, that still would not be against any of the rules, so you would be wrong in both cases.
I didn't ask pro anything, I don't understand the inference here, this makes no sense? What is the syllogism for that?
Also, what argument did pro make, I don't know what debate you are looking at? Do you think the words "no, no," are an argument? By that same logic me saying "Extend," would be an argument. If not, what is the symmetry breaker?
How did I possibly break the rules by my conduct in round 4? What is the argument for that?
I don't understand why I would wait for troll votes to be removed as opposed to banning the trolls from voting preemptively? If I had a farm, I would build a pig pen, rather than wait for pigs to run wild and damage my property.
I have no idea why you take such concern with me banning trolls from voting on my debates. I would have though we would agree on this.
I can make Bop shared
Intrinsically, I don't desire to gain a rating from this, I just want the distinction between this, and other potential cases of moderators altering debates after they have started. If there is none, this is a very bad thing to allow moderators to do, if there is one my aversion can be regarded as immaterial.
(mentioning only competent moderators) please change the debate back to "rated."
Wait a second...if a moderator can alter a debate after it has started, what is a symmetry breaker between this decision, and a moderator altering the character count, or the time for argument? This is a peculiar power to grant, and I don't see any reason why this change should have been permitted. Thus, I request it be reverted immediately.
Given that this debate seems to be going nowhere, there may be utility in its replication.
I would not draw attention to him, I have come to find out that he thrives off it. That is to say, I am not interested in feeding the troll any longer. My interest only extends to debating, and if all I am going to get is dodges and incoherent rambles, even solely interacting becomes a waste of time.
Vici did not appear to be backing out, but seems to be stating that Barney would be too scared to even accept the challenge, so there is no point in wasting such time/giving him the attention. This is something I can generally agree with as someone Barney is scared of debating.
Just forfeit/pass all the rounds already. I struggle to understand why you are wasting my time.
This is the last debate I need votes for.
Okay, so let me see exactly what the claims here are.
C1 "You had to prove reading should not be made illegal"
This is wrong, Mall holds the burden of proof.
Do you agree with this correction (yes/no)?
I don't understand why you are doing this, you know what you wrote here makes no sense.
Thanks for voting on this debate.
Two hours left, please vote.
2 hours left. Please vote.
2 hours left. Please vote.
2 hours left. Please vote.
Down to 3 hours.
Unfortunately, I am down to 3 hours for this debate, as well as this collection of similar ones which all require extremely easy RFD's, with no votes. Are any of you able to vote here? (all links to similar debates are below)
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3742-you-pick-the-topic
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3744-you-pick-the-topic
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3757-you-pick-the-topic
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3758-you-pick-the-topic
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3760-you-pick-the-topic
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3761-you-pick-the-topic
I just wanted to move this up given that I currently have 5 hours left.
I really need a vote for this debate. 12 hours left.
Any vote would be appreciated for this debate.
12 hours left with no votes.
Votes needed here.
Noting for time purposes, 12 hours, no votes.
Voted needed here.
8 hours left, and no votes. Please, if you are to vote, make sure your vote meets the voting policy standards. It does not take much.
8 hours left at this time.
I have 4 debates and 8 hours.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3755-you-pick-the-topic
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3756-you-pick-the-topic
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3762-you-pick-the-topic
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3754-you-pick-the-topic
I am in critical need of a vote at this point of time, can anyone please vote for these debates? They are extremely rudimentary decisions.
I was informed that this was logically possible within the site, however, the moderator who revealed this information to me what whiteflame, and considering how incompetent he is, it is not unexpected that he would display ignorance of what will and will not be upheld on this platform.
Well, I was being sarcastic if not apparent.
And there could be underlying reasons people vote to protect Oromagi and Barney as well. They could be personal, or more so emotional. For instance, ther may be voters who are not willing to do anything that may introduce the risk of upsetting them because that is clearly one of the worst things that could happen. The fact of the matter is, it is a peculiar issue. Because of this, all of my subsequent debates will have rules that bar certain people from voting. These rules will be purposed towards preventing the expressions of incompetent people from influencing the outcome of a given debate. Some examples of people who I would, as a general rule, note to ban from voting are Barney, Oromagi, FLRW, Shila, etc. all of which are trolls who lack understanding of basic logic.
Votes are still needed.