I need a vote for this debate, as well as this similar one (https://www.debateart.com/debates/3754-you-pick-the-topic). Also for anyone given that there are 16 hours left (please make an RFD that meets the standards so it is not removed after being mass reported)
In addition to Vici, here are some people who actually know what they are talking about in philosophy. They are good candidates to vote on this debate, so I am mentioning them in case they ever come around to.
Well, people keep reporting all the votes cast for me in this debate.
There are 30 minutes left as of now. I apologize for the sudden mention, this is just a last effort to get a vote for this to avoid a no-vote tie here.
I had a feeling more people would be challenging Oromagi once they realized he is not a particularly good debater. However, I will note that it takes a lot to get him to accept debates as opposed to dodging them (same with many top debaters here). My suggestion is to ignore any tangents and get straight to the point.
There is grudge voting going on here, as it seems. I now am in need of two votes, one of which being geared towards counter balancing instantiated incompetence.
I would appreciate it if you could assist.
Well, thanks for telling me in advance at least. I just don't understand the vote here, and it seems almost certainly to be an emotional outburst in response to previous events.
It appears that the current vote that established the conclusion of this debate simply constitutes a collection of nonsense. I am not sure what to do about it given that the debate has concluded, but I want an appreciation of this situation.
What type of vote is this? I suppose this is some form of retaliation for a recent defeat (https://www.debateart.com/debates/3775-the-majority-of-animal-agriculture-in-the-united-states-is-slavery-for-atoromagi) but this is very irritating to say the least.
We can see about who is or isn't winning the debate later, but it seems very obvious from my current point of view.
As for the latter, I will state openly that the moderator in question is not a good debater at least by the standard people view him with. I am, of course, very willing to debate him on many topics with the idea in mind to demonstrate this, however it does not seem like Barney is at all interested in debating me, and it frankly seems like he is hesitant to.
Well, it is a long story. Putting it simply, Barney was running away from a debate with me, so Vici baited him into debating this when Barney was in an emotional state.
Well, I am a bit appalled here. I don't understand why this could not have been left as is, a fair debate. I can understand wanting oromagi to win, and I have no problem with such on the face of it, but I tend to take issue when the phenomenon becomes taking actual moderation/voting action solely to ensure that this happens.
As a baseline, I tend to expect this from Barney, and some aspect of this could have been prevented (I should have made the rule that "Barney may not vote") so I may take slight indigence to that missed action.
As I understand, you will believe that your vote is a good reflection of the arguments presented in this debate. If that is the case, I will take it that you would have no problem with debating someone who may disagree with that system. Now that I am done with this debate, here is my proposition to you: (https://www.debateart.com/debates/3809-thbt-vote-4-is-an-insufficient-analysis-of-the-instigators-case).
First, I will state that I am not interested in any obfuscation here. I noticed you were already very hesitant to accept this animal agriculture debate. While satisfied that someone else I have been just as eager to debate took it, I am still very interested in debating you, and thankfully, you seem to have created a pertinent subject matter for an engagement. To this, I want a direct answer, not a dodge, not a tirade irrelevant my proposition. I don't want to be rude to you, but this specific expression is to control your previous behavior.
The rules prohibit anyone else from accepting this debate. It is either, yes, or no.
I am sure we can all agree that whiteflame exhibits incompetence regularly. This is honestly nothing surprising to me, I don't even understand why he is still a moderator. I am, regardless, satisfied that it was not enough to taint the outcome of this debate.
I really need a vote on this debate, this post purposed to get more eyes on it.
I also mentioned some of you hoping you would be able to vote. It is moving towards under a day remaining now.
Not sure why you just copied the text of Bone's vote...?
With or without it I would have won the debate, but I don't know why you would even logically think of doing that.
Indeed, this seems to have been orchestrated somehow.
(a) It seems that Barney removed his vote quietly and edited the source points, so his vote would not be removed alongside Rational Madman's. Peculiarly enough, this suggests that Barney knew his own vote did not meet the voting standards, and he cast it anyway which is interesting in its own right.
(b) SupaDudz only chose to review votes an hour before the debate ended, despite me having reported Barney's vote over 3 days ago. Why is that?
(c) SupaDudz did not even follow the typical format for vote removal. He did not mention anyone, he did not use the proper text format, and he did not even copy the text of RationalMadman's vote out. Not to mention, he deleted the vote quietly without even giving a reason, and then provided a rushed one after his tactic was pointed out. The goal here seems to have been to remove x vote without anyone knowing.
The moderators are acting very strange here (outside of their usual incompetence) and I very much agree with RationalMadman based on these three propositions. I am a bit disappointed in that sort of conduct. Why not just make debates fair?
Most of the votes cast in my favor take considerations to logic and philosophy, and I for one see this as the only efficient way to judge debates. That being said, thanks to Bones, Undefeatable, and RationalMadman. There is a lot to say about some of the other particulars of this debate, but I will keep that to a little later.
I just wanted to note for clarity that the 99% statistic, it is stated in quote that "roughly 99 percent of animals in the US are raised on factory farms" (https://thehumaneleague.org/article/what-is-factory-farming) under the subheading "Factory farming facts and statistics" in the source.
Are either of you willing to vote on this debate and this duplication of it?
(https://www.debateart.com/debates/3615-we-ought-to-live-by-the-maxim-that-the-ends-justify-the-means)
I am running out of time unfortunately.
First, I saw that you (Bones) stated that he would be voting, so thanks for that. I just wanted to mention that there is only a week's time for voting, not very long. I know Ehyeh tends to vote more quickly on average.
Do you think you could vote on this debate, as well as its duplicate (https://www.debateart.com/debates/3615-we-ought-to-live-by-the-maxim-that-the-ends-justify-the-means) if you would please? I am just running out of time, and I can assure you the decisions are very simple.
I need a vote for this debate, as well as this similar one (https://www.debateart.com/debates/3754-you-pick-the-topic). Also for anyone given that there are 16 hours left (please make an RFD that meets the standards so it is not removed after being mass reported)
Vote needed here, 1 day left.
Vote needed here, 1 day left.
In addition to Vici, here are some people who actually know what they are talking about in philosophy. They are good candidates to vote on this debate, so I am mentioning them in case they ever come around to.
Well, people keep reporting all the votes cast for me in this debate.
There are 30 minutes left as of now. I apologize for the sudden mention, this is just a last effort to get a vote for this to avoid a no-vote tie here.
I had a feeling more people would be challenging Oromagi once they realized he is not a particularly good debater. However, I will note that it takes a lot to get him to accept debates as opposed to dodging them (same with many top debaters here). My suggestion is to ignore any tangents and get straight to the point.
I need a vote for this debate, so hopefully one of you will see this within 10 hours.
Can you possibly re-cast this vote, but with additional analysis to satisfy the moderators?
There is grudge voting going on here, as it seems. I now am in need of two votes, one of which being geared towards counter balancing instantiated incompetence.
I would appreciate it if you could assist.
Well, thanks for telling me in advance at least. I just don't understand the vote here, and it seems almost certainly to be an emotional outburst in response to previous events.
It appears that the current vote that established the conclusion of this debate simply constitutes a collection of nonsense. I am not sure what to do about it given that the debate has concluded, but I want an appreciation of this situation.
What type of vote is this? I suppose this is some form of retaliation for a recent defeat (https://www.debateart.com/debates/3775-the-majority-of-animal-agriculture-in-the-united-states-is-slavery-for-atoromagi) but this is very irritating to say the least.
10 hours remaining
Oh sorry, it seems as if your rank is too low to accept this debate. The instigator made it limited to "1501," and being new, you are at 1500.
I am sure you can accept, but as you can see, others have expressed interest in this.
I need a vote for this. 1 day left.
Thanks a lot, I was worried.
I really need a vote for this. There are 40 minutes left. Can anyone please vote on this debate?
I would say that some explanations are far more plausible or reasonable than others.
We can see about who is or isn't winning the debate later, but it seems very obvious from my current point of view.
As for the latter, I will state openly that the moderator in question is not a good debater at least by the standard people view him with. I am, of course, very willing to debate him on many topics with the idea in mind to demonstrate this, however it does not seem like Barney is at all interested in debating me, and it frankly seems like he is hesitant to.
Well, it is a long story. Putting it simply, Barney was running away from a debate with me, so Vici baited him into debating this when Barney was in an emotional state.
Can either of you cast a vote for this debate, if you have time? I have around two days left.
I have two days left for this, and it is a very straight forward decision.
I have two days left for this, and it is a very straight forward decision.
Votes needed.
Votes needed, 4 days left.
Well, I am a bit appalled here. I don't understand why this could not have been left as is, a fair debate. I can understand wanting oromagi to win, and I have no problem with such on the face of it, but I tend to take issue when the phenomenon becomes taking actual moderation/voting action solely to ensure that this happens.
As a baseline, I tend to expect this from Barney, and some aspect of this could have been prevented (I should have made the rule that "Barney may not vote") so I may take slight indigence to that missed action.
Can you vote on this, do you think?
As I understand, you will believe that your vote is a good reflection of the arguments presented in this debate. If that is the case, I will take it that you would have no problem with debating someone who may disagree with that system. Now that I am done with this debate, here is my proposition to you: (https://www.debateart.com/debates/3809-thbt-vote-4-is-an-insufficient-analysis-of-the-instigators-case).
First, I will state that I am not interested in any obfuscation here. I noticed you were already very hesitant to accept this animal agriculture debate. While satisfied that someone else I have been just as eager to debate took it, I am still very interested in debating you, and thankfully, you seem to have created a pertinent subject matter for an engagement. To this, I want a direct answer, not a dodge, not a tirade irrelevant my proposition. I don't want to be rude to you, but this specific expression is to control your previous behavior.
The rules prohibit anyone else from accepting this debate. It is either, yes, or no.
I am sure we can all agree that whiteflame exhibits incompetence regularly. This is honestly nothing surprising to me, I don't even understand why he is still a moderator. I am, regardless, satisfied that it was not enough to taint the outcome of this debate.
I really need a vote on this debate, this post purposed to get more eyes on it.
I also mentioned some of you hoping you would be able to vote. It is moving towards under a day remaining now.
Not sure why you just copied the text of Bone's vote...?
With or without it I would have won the debate, but I don't know why you would even logically think of doing that.
No need, I have seen enough at this moment.
Maybe I am on to something you don't see. What is your perspective here?
Indeed, this seems to have been orchestrated somehow.
(a) It seems that Barney removed his vote quietly and edited the source points, so his vote would not be removed alongside Rational Madman's. Peculiarly enough, this suggests that Barney knew his own vote did not meet the voting standards, and he cast it anyway which is interesting in its own right.
(b) SupaDudz only chose to review votes an hour before the debate ended, despite me having reported Barney's vote over 3 days ago. Why is that?
(c) SupaDudz did not even follow the typical format for vote removal. He did not mention anyone, he did not use the proper text format, and he did not even copy the text of RationalMadman's vote out. Not to mention, he deleted the vote quietly without even giving a reason, and then provided a rushed one after his tactic was pointed out. The goal here seems to have been to remove x vote without anyone knowing.
The moderators are acting very strange here (outside of their usual incompetence) and I very much agree with RationalMadman based on these three propositions. I am a bit disappointed in that sort of conduct. Why not just make debates fair?
You both did really well here.
I have one day left for this, I really need a vote here.
Just over two days left, I need a vote on this.
Most of the votes cast in my favor take considerations to logic and philosophy, and I for one see this as the only efficient way to judge debates. That being said, thanks to Bones, Undefeatable, and RationalMadman. There is a lot to say about some of the other particulars of this debate, but I will keep that to a little later.
RationalMadman...I unblocked you weeks ago? [edit] Actually, never-mind, I seem to have forgotten or something.
I would like for more people to vote on this debate given that there is approaching two days left.
I do very much appreciate this vote.
I just wanted to note for clarity that the 99% statistic, it is stated in quote that "roughly 99 percent of animals in the US are raised on factory farms" (https://thehumaneleague.org/article/what-is-factory-farming) under the subheading "Factory farming facts and statistics" in the source.
Maybe this can be re-done with Ehyeh's main account, with this one deleted, because all that is necessary is a copy/paste of arguments.
Votes are indeed needed here.
Are either of you willing to vote on this debate and this duplication of it?
(https://www.debateart.com/debates/3615-we-ought-to-live-by-the-maxim-that-the-ends-justify-the-means)
I am running out of time unfortunately.
Just remove her voting permissions.
First, I saw that you (Bones) stated that he would be voting, so thanks for that. I just wanted to mention that there is only a week's time for voting, not very long. I know Ehyeh tends to vote more quickly on average.
Do you think you could vote on this debate, as well as its duplicate (https://www.debateart.com/debates/3615-we-ought-to-live-by-the-maxim-that-the-ends-justify-the-means) if you would please? I am just running out of time, and I can assure you the decisions are very simple.
Please remove this vote.
Please remove this vote.