*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: WalterPhoenix // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 7 points to pro.
>Reason for Decision: Sorry, Debaticus but you didn't defend the other religions and straight up conceded saying atheism isn't bad. Instead, you chose to create this questionable "cult" idea out of nowhere which doesn't argue against atheism. So sorry mate good luck debating.
>Reason for Mod Action: Reason for Mod Action: This vote is not eligible to vote. In order to vote, an account must: (1) Read the site’s COC AND have completed 2 non-troll/non-FF debate OR have 100 forum posts.
Saying that, this does not qualify as a conceded debate, and thus the voter does not sufficiently assess any of the voting points awarded. The voter should review the voting requirements section of the code of conduct
As a result, this usage and analysis of sources within the debate by con was excellent and is very much worth the extra two points: sources to con tooz
Pro claims the servitude is voluntary - con points out that if someone is unable to withdraw consent, and stop something happening to them: it ceases to become voluntary and becomes forced. Pro has no good answer to this.
On the point of slavery, while I would have liked more detail - cons argument evokes an intuitive precept to me : that one cannot sell yourself into slavery. A point that con implicitly makes here with the argument from being forced. Pro ends up mostly dropping this case.
For pro to have a chance here; he must show validity in why a woman should not be able to withdraw consent; by referencing other examples where consent cannot be withdrawn easily (contracts, the draft, some forms of military service, etc). And tie this somehow to abortion.
As it stands cons case was mostly unchallenged.
Constitution: this was not a main point, it ended up pitting two constitutional points against each other; con pointing out the omission of the due process element was particularly relevant, and pro had no real answer to it.
In the above points pro won all of them, except for one draw: and for this reason I must award arguments to con.
Sources:
I normally steer clear of awarding source, unless there is a knock out source, and/or sources provided are used against someone.
The sources here were reasonable on both sides: with some exceptions.
Con tools pros source on abortion health risks and used it to substantially bolster his own case. There were other examples; relating to the definition of chatel, that also l were ceased upon by con to bolster his own case.
Cons source concerning the failure of abstinence education, and the fact that pregnancies are unintentional both helped bolster his rebuttal by showing the key claims of pro are less valid.
Point3
The value of life is subjective. This is probably pros worse point, I’m not sure what pro is really asking me to weigh here.
Pros contention doesn’t appear to clearly follow from the premise. I do not understand how one gets from allowing abortion to celebrating suicide.
Con argues that life is already subjective and the value and cost is different for each person. I found this the most confusing point from both sides, and I don’t think I quite understood either the harm pro was advancing, or really the inherent subjectivity of value con.
I would have liked pro to have explained how life has objective value with a framework: covering war, death penalty, manslaughter, etc - and for con to have done the same.
While this helps con by specifying that there is a burden of birth that shouldn’t be forced upon women, this point is otherwise unhelpful to both sides.
Health:
Con explains health risks of pregnancy. While I accept that this sets up valid reason to avoid pregnancy for women - The ectopic pregnancy point is too semantic for my liking; I feel this ectopic pregnancy example is covered by the intent of pros policy - if not by the specific wording.
Con shows abortion is generally safer than pregnancy. Con also negates pros main point that women should be aware of the issues before getting pregnant - clearly explaining that the pregnancy wasn’t intentional, and so wasn’t entered into with foreknowledge.
Pro argues that they know they could get pregnant by having sex - but as con points out, pros argument was that they knew the risks, a point that was clearly refuted by cons case.
Slavery.
This was cons best point. Con argues that a woman is a slave to the fetus if she is unable to chose to remove it.
Note: this was the best anti-abortion presentation I have seen thus far by pro (I have not assessed other in progress debates), but also the best pro abortion argument presented on this site by con imo. Well done to both, this was a great debate.
Point1:
Human
Pro argues an unborn child is human, and thus shouldn’t be aborted. Con highlights that this is not relevant: citing that simply having human cells doesn’t appear relevant, and prioritizing human life is not currently a priority for political administrations.
While I buy the potential relevance issue; the latter is a bit of an appeal to hypocrisy for me. While pro points this out, he omits the issue of relevance and doesn’t explain what aspect of human life warrants protection.
Con makes it a little bit more relevant here by explaining that simply being cells doesn’t give them rights - given that being alive and out of the womb aren’t given the same rights either.
On this point: pro has to give me a compelling reason why a non intelligent collection of cells, or fetus, warrants protection on the grounds that it is “human”, this is mostly asserted as true by pro, and whole cons rebuttal has its flaws: he highlighted this fact by showing this is not the current state of the world.
Point2
I actually changed my mind whilst reading this. Pro specifically stated that murder is the unlawful killing - con points out that as abortion is legal it cannot by definition be murder. While obtuse, con can only argue against the definitions provided, and I agree with his point here.
Had the definition not been “unlawful”, there could have been more meaningful discussion: the role of euthanasia, manslaughter, war, death penalty, etc already put nuance to the concept of killing.
As no such nuance was put forward by pro - abortion cannot by pros definition be considered murder..
It’s on my list - I have a huge backlog of votes. Once I’m down to debates that have > 3 days left I’ll take a look (or when this one is the next one up).
On top of this, it demonstrates the potential harm of criminals and malfeasants controlling government with this information.
In pros final round, it’s not too clear what his point actually is: he again doesn’t not address or even acknowledge cons main points and instead appears to make an argument related to anonymity.
Pro starts by stating the notion that there is potentially an issue or notion that super villains would remain anonymous. He also states that this is only a problem if you assume there wouldn’t be truly “good” superhero’s to fight them.
This is, literally, cons case. That there will be loyal, benevolent superhero’s to fight them. Blam: To try and argue the point pro shoots himself in the left foot.
Pro also argues that con is assuming anonymous supervillains will not be able to outfight or outsmart the good guys. This is again not pros contention - and worse, given that the anonymity is in party there to prevent individuals from going bad, pros argument gives the appearance of undermining pros own argument. Blam. Pro shoots himself in the right foot.
From this all: pro mainly made bold assertions, largely ignored the detail of pros case, and misrepresented cons position.
While con somewhat addressed pros point about needing to be accountable, this didn’t go far enough imo, however this was dropped by both side.
Pro drops too much here: con outlined key harms, why the law is unnecessary, and presented credible issues and threats that warranted rejection of the registration, notably the hydra issue and safety of friends and family.
Pro asserts that con is arguing that superhero’s deserve more anonymity (as con goes onto state - this is not the case - it’s equal anonymity), that rule should be “might is right” (this is not the case - cons case is that is more harmful to the world if governments have access to this information), and that those that would hold the information would be more sinister than benevolent (the case is that the information being accessible would likely be easy to exploit and damaging - and provides justification of its likelihood when referencing hydra)
Pro ignores the key hydra part, the issues of tech and he untrustworthiness of Government.
Con goes on to state his closing arguments. Pointing out he’s just asking for the same level of anonymity as other individuals.
Con used an excellent example of secret police being misused to take down a good super hero. This example is a brilliant example that harms pros premise of superhero’s being anonymous leading to them becoming evil.
Secondly, con references a lesser harm: that the potential for slow reaction, and bureaucracy impeding intervention. This is much more hypothetical and not referencing the specific act in question - but some future possibility. The imposition of a chain of command does seem to potentially have an impact, but con needs to be more specific here imo.
Thirdly, the potential dissemination of tech and powers on an unsuspecting world is raised by con. Again this is not well thrashed out, it is plausible, but the probability is not well assessed by con. The idea of hydra being part of the government raised does appear to implicitly increase the chances of this leading to harm on the population, but this is not well defined by con.
What con does at the end, is to challenge pros central asserted premise - that those on the fence would be pushed towards villainy.
Pros response again ignores every key point raised.
Con raised legitimate issues specific to superhero’s that necessitate anonymity. Con also raised legitimate concerns that not allowing anonymity will cause some to turn on the government. Cons point on hydra infiltration was wholly ignored by pro - who seemed to mostly assert that pros argument boils down to three misrepresentations.
In his opening round: pro doesn’t address any of these key points.
More importantly, pro doesn’t show what the explicit benefit of the plan really is.
Pro asserts that only evil super humans will make the most of anonymity. Pro doesn’t give any justification for this assertion, and given the marvel universe and specific examples of Batman, spider man - and others known in the marvel universe, it seems that pros assertion is contrary to obvious reality - as pros contention would still apply prior to the policy being discussed.
This primary argument is largely without warrant.
Pro makes a smaller point that everyone should be answerable to someone. This seems to be more valid, but pro spend almost 0 time justifying this, showing harmful possibilities, or how this act will resolve it. For example, if an avenger makes a bad decision, for what reason could they not held accountable for it?
Cons second round adds some more meat on the bones. Con references hydra infiltration. This is a major point that enhances cons point by adding potentiality to the harm he mentioned in R1. This has a major potential harm element.
This was an interesting debate. I can’t really judge the role playing aspect. Pro outlined that it kinda sorta was roleplay, but I felt it more important that the information in the debate topic.
The main points con bought forth was the danger faced by the super hero’s and family were their identities to be revealed.
Con states that the law is counter productive, as it turns superhero’s that don’t want to reveal their identities against the government by forcing them to flee/hide or make the government their enemy.
Con also states that the purpose is unnecessary, as the loss of life were primarily related to military action in the cause of defending the earth from major problems. This is primarily the least warranted part of cons argument, and I feel this could easily be attacked.
This argument sets up clear harms of the plan; and erodes the supposed benefit by showing the issue it’s trying to resolve isn’t valid.
Hey virt, as you have assumed full burden, and I’m basically refuting your position, would you have an issue with me referring directly to some of your points in the opening round to make this more of an orderly back and forth?
*******************************************************************
This is classified as a Full Forfeit debate as Con forfeits every round after round 1. While pro does not offer an argument after round 1, he does not forfeit every round. Full Forfeit debates are only moderated if the vote is for the forfeiting side
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: WalterPhoenix // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 3 points to con for arguments.
>Reason for Decision: Con really did a nice job convincing me that THESE ARE BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS.
>Reason for Mod Action: Reason for Mod Action: This vote is not eligible to vote. In order to vote, an account must: (1) Read the site’s COC AND have completed 2 non-troll/non-FF debate OR have 100 forum posts.
Saying that, the voter does not sufficiently assess arguments.
To award arguments, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments 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.
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: WaterPhoenix // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 7 points to con
>Reason for Decision: Man, you really gotta feel for these flat-earthers they're a prime example of people believing what they want. Sorry if this isn't a completely fair vote but mate if you took science class you'd know the earth is, according to the laws of physics, round.
>Reason for Mod Action: Reason for Mod Action: This vote is not eligible to vote. In order to vote, an account must: (1) Read the site’s COC AND have completed 2 non-troll/non-FF debate OR have 100 forum posts.
Saying that, the voter does not sufficiently assess any of the voting criteria. Please review the CoC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules for details on what constitutes a sufficient vote.
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Trent0405 // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: Tie
>Reason for Decision: I think some people are being tough on pro, he made good arguments and corrected many inaccuracies in Cons statements. I was even thinking about giving the reliable sources mark for Pro. Great debate and equally good arguments on both sides.
>Reason for Mod Action: Reason for Mod Action: This vote is not eligible to vote. In order to vote, an account must: (1) Read the site’s COC AND have completed 2 non-troll/non-FF debate OR have 100 forum posts.
*******************************************************************
There’s a few individuals that do more serious and structured debate; it maybe worthwhile PMing them for a direct challenge. There’s Blamonkey, Bsh1, Virtuoso, and Sempafortis who may potentially be interested.
Arguments:
A lot of Con’s arguments were just allegations, with no proof to back them up, such as the incident with the Korean analyst.
Con claimed that Trump is racist because he called Elizabeth Warren Pocahontas. Trump was obviously joking about her obsession with her Native American heritage, and that she was actually lying about it. Warren is not Native American.
Con claimed that Trump was racist because he wanted to ban people based on religion.
Con also shifted the burden of proof on pro, stating that Pro has to present evidence to doubt his allegations about the Korean analyst.
Overall, Pro managed to debunk all of Con’s arguments except for “White supremacists are good people”.
Sources:
Con provided opinion articles and sources from biased news sites. He also only provided tweet sources when asked by Pro.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: TheAtheist // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 5 points to pro for sources and arguments
>Reason for Decision: see above.
>Reason for Mod Action: this vote is insufficient.
While pro covers the main arguments - he does not assess the counter arguments, or provide weighting these arguments against each other. Sources were also insufficiently explained.
To cast a sufficient vote in the choose winner system, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks: (a) survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate, (b) weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself), and (c) explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points. Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
For sources: To award sources points, the voter must (1) explain how the debaters' sources impacted the debate, (2) directly assess the strength/utility of at least one source in particular cited in the debate, and (3) explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: TheAtheist // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: Winner to pro
>Reason for Decision: Con never proved that a nuclear war would happen in the first place. Pro, on the other hand, proved that nuclear weapons are a deterrent to war, which means that nuclear weapons actually save lives. Con also forfeited a round, which is bad conduct and means he had no more arguments left.
>Reason for Mod Action: this vote is insufficient - the voter doesn’t appear to sufficiently assess the main arguments and points raised by both sides.
To cast a sufficient vote in the choose winner system, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks: (a) survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate, (b) weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself), and (c) explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points. Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
*******************************************************************
RM is mostly just paranoid: https://www.debateart.com/debates/697
Basically, RM has a tendency of going down side tracks, opinionated tangents and semantics rather than throwing himself head first into the arguments in good faith. I tend to not award debates for toxic behaviour, or arguing in bad faith.
In the old Nordic model debate he essentially ignored his opponents core point about legalized prostitution increasing human trafficking - claiming it wasn’t true based on no evidence- despite his opponent saying it was true, providing a source that shows it was true. Data trumps opinion, thus he lost. This is the same sort of error he makes in many debate
As a result of these types of issues, I award votes against him sometimes; and rather than trying to improve, he launches into accusatory tirades, personal attacks, etc (its not just me though - he does it with most people who are critical)
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Trent0405 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: win to pro
>Reason for Decision: Con never proved that a nuclear war would be feasible. As a result, many points he made can be made pointless. Also, when con said it wasn't nukes that prevented war between the USSR and America, he never said what the reason in which he believes the two largest superpowers didn't directly fight each other for half a century. Great debate though
>Reason for Mod Action: This vote is not eligible to vote. In order to vote, an account must: (1) Read the site’s COC AND have completed 2 non-troll/non-FF debate OR have 100 forum posts.
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: club // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: win to con.
>Reason for Decision: see vote.
>Reason for Mod Action: This vote is borderline and as such is deemed sufficient.
What is sufficient: the voter surveys pros main arguments, and appears to weight them.
What is insufficient: the voter only implicitly surveys cons points, and appears to reference them only once indirectly.
Why this vote is borderline: the voter spells out one side’s arguments were conceded, implying that they’re accepted without referring to them. While the voter could have done more to list the individual points, I feel that to make the vote sufficient the voter needs to merely list the arguments rather than add reasoning.
Just as a forewarning, while I very much appreciate the support and the vote of confidence; I’d personally recommend not antagonizing RM, unless you want to be dealing with tagging, and snide remarks aimed at you. :)
Bleach: great song, it has urgency, it conveys the need for inner strength and adversity, loved the choral aspect to it too! 9
Death parade: CCS, as good as Pokémon: 4
Naruto: CCS, but a little better than Pokémon this time. 5
One peice: CCS, a little bit better again for me. 6
Pain: amazing choral peice. I used to play homeworld a lot, and this brought back some memories of that! Conveys the pain and hurt, and is increasingly well composed: 10
Total:35.
Grand total: 170/250
Con:
Darker than black: this was a b side for an underworld track. Disjointed and harsh - but that was the point. This song was hard in the ears, but that was I’m sure the intent, and as such this ranks higher for me: 7
The world: could only find a live version (link didn’t work), which seemed very CCS, I don’t want to rate it higher than Pokémon as I’m not sure I got the right one: 4
Gundam wing: nice bouncing track, conveys a sense of danger and adventure, catchy in its own way to be honest! 8
Vegeta: this felt somewhat transcendent, moving to a higher level after success. Completion - but more to do. I liked this, but felt the Layering let it down: it felt it should build more: 7
Attack on titan: CCS, just above Pokémon : 5
Pro.
Naruto: great sense of foreboding! A good build up song,: 8
Hunter x hunter: the usage of the Mexican/Spanish style guitar implicitly makes me go for the vigilante outlaw feeling which it does very well; but the overall quality was just okay, it relies more on the relationship with the style than the music here: 7
My hero academia: about the same level as Pokémon for me: 4
Bleach: looooved this! Great sense of foreboding, that something bad was just around the corner, loved the layers to this song, and the unusual style! 9
Noragami: Cliché cartoon style (CCS), I’d rank this only jut above Pokémon : 5
Total: 33: running total: 135
Con
Full metal alchemist: this started out good and turned into a more CCS, it was mostly catchy, but I can’t rate it higher than the last FMA: 5
Medals box: amazing song! Conveys a me vs the world - and that world is coming for me. Loved the style a lot, loved the stark synth, loved the soft break and loved what appeared to be the bell backing track. Amazing somg: 10
Flow by colours: again, kind of CCS, I m going to score this lower than Pokémon due to use of what appeared to be 1985 Casio quality synth trumpets: 3
Death note: interesting song, a little tubular belly, but interesting: a nice sense of mystery to it! 8
One peice: nice feel to it, as of waiting for a major space battle to start! 8
Pro:
Bleach: not a fan. This is about the same as Pokémon for me: 4
Tokyo ghoul: this started soft, with a sense of sadness, then worked all the way to tragedy. I didn’t like the song a great deal, but could appreciate the emotion it was showing me: 7
Akami Ga Kill: this reminded me of the wheat from Gladiator and a bit of braveheart. It was conveying a combination of mystery, and duty: legit got my hair standing on end. Loved the rock transition - kinda reminds me of hunting of the snark! Best track so far: 10
One peice opening: again, this fits into the generic rocky cartoon theme cliche, it’s around the level of Pokémon for me: 4
Fairytale opening: again, a little less cliche, but still didn’t convey anything to me:5
Total: 30. Running total: 102
Con:
Sorairo days: Again, much like a cliche cartoon theme, better than Pokémon, and the pace does convey some sense of intensity more than some of the others: 6
Tank: Loved this! Every spy film/series has a theme that feels like this, not quite as catchy as the saint; but excellent! 9
Orochimarus theme: nice variations around Tocata and Fuge in D minor, conveys dread, terror and evil very nicely! 9
Sis puella Manila: interesting feel to this, quite a sense of wonder about it, likes the vocals and the soft feeling to this: 8
Genos theme: a lot of anger to this song, with an edge of not caring about consequences. Special place in my head for this style of EDM: 9
R2:
Death note: Tubular bells feel (that’s good). Liked when the guitar kicked in. Had a mystery / supernatural feel to it: 8
Bleach: very good emotional track, a little bit of sadness and sorrow; but a bit resolute too. 8
One piece: very adventure - but reminded me of one of the settlers themes when you uncovered a new part of the map containing the enemy:8
Narutu: not a big fan of this, it’s between Pokémon and FmA: 5.
Marvellous battle: conveys preparation for a battle really well, illicits feelings of the a team preparing or mcguyver! 9
Total 38: running total: 72
Con:
Asterisk: again, this felt a bit better than the Pokémon theme, but didn’t specifically convey much of a deeper feeling: 5
Inner universe: I liked this song, and there was a frantic energy to it, running out the clock: but I can’t quite put my finger in what I felt: 7
Cruel angels thesis: this one is a carton theme sounding theme song, but less cheesy feeling:6
My hero academia: this reminds me of the Carmaggedon sound track. Love this song, hard and conveys a sense of massive urgency and energy: 9
Mob psycho: thought this was the Seinfeld theme for the first few seconds. Less cheesy, but didn’t scream anything to me
Much like CAT a couple of songs ago - the break about half way through the song almost swayed me to go higher, but wasn’t enough: 6
This is entirely subjective. I’m going to assign points out of 10. Theme tunes are about feeling and conveying the nature of series. My favourite theme tune would probably be Star Trek Voyager, Mission Impossible and the A-team. While this is all anime, I think that vote criteria is still applicable. I don’t watch much anime, so I’m voting solely on how well the music conveys a theme or feeling to me - not on adherence to the anime.
Round1:
Pro:
Pokémon: Kids cartoon style theme. 4
Head in the clouds: seems pretty interesting, conveyed a feeling of oddness - interesting song: 7
Hunter x Hunter: movie score feeling to it, more dramatic: 7
Hunter x Hunter: more upbeat, had an exploration type feel up it, I actually really liked this one: 8!
Naruto: projected a “cool badass” feeling quality here: 8
R1: 34
Full metal alchemist: not a big fan of this song, it is better than the Pokémon theme, but didn’t really do it for me: 5
A song of storm and fire: I had to google this as the original link wasn’t working. Nice little song, still had a hint of a cartoon theme to it, but conveyed a nice sense of urgency: 7
Little busters: very teenage angst, I kinda like this one: 8
Sadness and sorrow: amazing track, fully portrays the emotion here. The transition from orchestra to lone piano was amaZing, I thought this was really good: 10
Made on the abyss. Starts off playfull, moves to the more adventitious: 8
Hi Marc: don’t be disheartened as this debate wasn’t by any means bad. I think part of it was that there was lots of scope in the resolution to go places you weren’t expecting (that’s actually often a good thing), and I think the hardest aspect of debate is how to try and maintain a debate when both sides disagree on the meaning of the resolution.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: PinkFreud08 // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 points to pro for conduct.
>Reason for Decision:I'd like to start off by thanking both opponents for this debate
POOR CONDUCT
Con Forfeited the majority of the rounds leaving the debate unfinished, that's poor conduct!
All other points tied, hardly a coherent debate due to the vast amount of Forfeits.
>Reason for Mod Action: This vote is sufficient. Voters may award only conduct points - without referencing arguments A in the case where one side forfeits half or more rounds. However, it is obviously encouraged for voters to assess arguments where possible.
“What is hilarious is that you think you have a single fucking shred of dominance or capability to fuck with me left after the site gains enough popularity such that you're just one of many voters.”
I think you meant:
“What is hilarious is that you think you will have left a single fucking shred of dominance or capability to fuck with me after the site gains enough popularity such that you're just one of many voters.”
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: WalterPhoenix // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 7 points to pro.
>Reason for Decision: Sorry, Debaticus but you didn't defend the other religions and straight up conceded saying atheism isn't bad. Instead, you chose to create this questionable "cult" idea out of nowhere which doesn't argue against atheism. So sorry mate good luck debating.
>Reason for Mod Action: Reason for Mod Action: This vote is not eligible to vote. In order to vote, an account must: (1) Read the site’s COC AND have completed 2 non-troll/non-FF debate OR have 100 forum posts.
Saying that, this does not qualify as a conceded debate, and thus the voter does not sufficiently assess any of the voting points awarded. The voter should review the voting requirements section of the code of conduct
*******************************************************************
As a result, this usage and analysis of sources within the debate by con was excellent and is very much worth the extra two points: sources to con tooz
Pro claims the servitude is voluntary - con points out that if someone is unable to withdraw consent, and stop something happening to them: it ceases to become voluntary and becomes forced. Pro has no good answer to this.
On the point of slavery, while I would have liked more detail - cons argument evokes an intuitive precept to me : that one cannot sell yourself into slavery. A point that con implicitly makes here with the argument from being forced. Pro ends up mostly dropping this case.
For pro to have a chance here; he must show validity in why a woman should not be able to withdraw consent; by referencing other examples where consent cannot be withdrawn easily (contracts, the draft, some forms of military service, etc). And tie this somehow to abortion.
As it stands cons case was mostly unchallenged.
Constitution: this was not a main point, it ended up pitting two constitutional points against each other; con pointing out the omission of the due process element was particularly relevant, and pro had no real answer to it.
In the above points pro won all of them, except for one draw: and for this reason I must award arguments to con.
Sources:
I normally steer clear of awarding source, unless there is a knock out source, and/or sources provided are used against someone.
The sources here were reasonable on both sides: with some exceptions.
Con tools pros source on abortion health risks and used it to substantially bolster his own case. There were other examples; relating to the definition of chatel, that also l were ceased upon by con to bolster his own case.
Cons source concerning the failure of abstinence education, and the fact that pregnancies are unintentional both helped bolster his rebuttal by showing the key claims of pro are less valid.
Point3
The value of life is subjective. This is probably pros worse point, I’m not sure what pro is really asking me to weigh here.
Pros contention doesn’t appear to clearly follow from the premise. I do not understand how one gets from allowing abortion to celebrating suicide.
Con argues that life is already subjective and the value and cost is different for each person. I found this the most confusing point from both sides, and I don’t think I quite understood either the harm pro was advancing, or really the inherent subjectivity of value con.
I would have liked pro to have explained how life has objective value with a framework: covering war, death penalty, manslaughter, etc - and for con to have done the same.
While this helps con by specifying that there is a burden of birth that shouldn’t be forced upon women, this point is otherwise unhelpful to both sides.
Health:
Con explains health risks of pregnancy. While I accept that this sets up valid reason to avoid pregnancy for women - The ectopic pregnancy point is too semantic for my liking; I feel this ectopic pregnancy example is covered by the intent of pros policy - if not by the specific wording.
Con shows abortion is generally safer than pregnancy. Con also negates pros main point that women should be aware of the issues before getting pregnant - clearly explaining that the pregnancy wasn’t intentional, and so wasn’t entered into with foreknowledge.
Pro argues that they know they could get pregnant by having sex - but as con points out, pros argument was that they knew the risks, a point that was clearly refuted by cons case.
Slavery.
This was cons best point. Con argues that a woman is a slave to the fetus if she is unable to chose to remove it.
Note: this was the best anti-abortion presentation I have seen thus far by pro (I have not assessed other in progress debates), but also the best pro abortion argument presented on this site by con imo. Well done to both, this was a great debate.
Point1:
Human
Pro argues an unborn child is human, and thus shouldn’t be aborted. Con highlights that this is not relevant: citing that simply having human cells doesn’t appear relevant, and prioritizing human life is not currently a priority for political administrations.
While I buy the potential relevance issue; the latter is a bit of an appeal to hypocrisy for me. While pro points this out, he omits the issue of relevance and doesn’t explain what aspect of human life warrants protection.
Con makes it a little bit more relevant here by explaining that simply being cells doesn’t give them rights - given that being alive and out of the womb aren’t given the same rights either.
On this point: pro has to give me a compelling reason why a non intelligent collection of cells, or fetus, warrants protection on the grounds that it is “human”, this is mostly asserted as true by pro, and whole cons rebuttal has its flaws: he highlighted this fact by showing this is not the current state of the world.
Point2
I actually changed my mind whilst reading this. Pro specifically stated that murder is the unlawful killing - con points out that as abortion is legal it cannot by definition be murder. While obtuse, con can only argue against the definitions provided, and I agree with his point here.
Had the definition not been “unlawful”, there could have been more meaningful discussion: the role of euthanasia, manslaughter, war, death penalty, etc already put nuance to the concept of killing.
As no such nuance was put forward by pro - abortion cannot by pros definition be considered murder..
Yeah, I miss a few here and there.
I had an RFD 2/3rds written too.
Ahh well, the curse of having a major release in a mega project!
Is it any more or less valid an assumption than the alternative of assuming that it’s possible for something to exist without being measured.
The debate is about likelihood: this specific argument decreases the possible number of Gods that could exist - that inherently decreases probability.
It’s on my list - I have a huge backlog of votes. Once I’m down to debates that have > 3 days left I’ll take a look (or when this one is the next one up).
On top of this, it demonstrates the potential harm of criminals and malfeasants controlling government with this information.
In pros final round, it’s not too clear what his point actually is: he again doesn’t not address or even acknowledge cons main points and instead appears to make an argument related to anonymity.
Pro starts by stating the notion that there is potentially an issue or notion that super villains would remain anonymous. He also states that this is only a problem if you assume there wouldn’t be truly “good” superhero’s to fight them.
This is, literally, cons case. That there will be loyal, benevolent superhero’s to fight them. Blam: To try and argue the point pro shoots himself in the left foot.
Pro also argues that con is assuming anonymous supervillains will not be able to outfight or outsmart the good guys. This is again not pros contention - and worse, given that the anonymity is in party there to prevent individuals from going bad, pros argument gives the appearance of undermining pros own argument. Blam. Pro shoots himself in the right foot.
From this all: pro mainly made bold assertions, largely ignored the detail of pros case, and misrepresented cons position.
While con somewhat addressed pros point about needing to be accountable, this didn’t go far enough imo, however this was dropped by both side.
Pro drops too much here: con outlined key harms, why the law is unnecessary, and presented credible issues and threats that warranted rejection of the registration, notably the hydra issue and safety of friends and family.
As a result, arguments go to con.
All other points tied.
Pro asserts that con is arguing that superhero’s deserve more anonymity (as con goes onto state - this is not the case - it’s equal anonymity), that rule should be “might is right” (this is not the case - cons case is that is more harmful to the world if governments have access to this information), and that those that would hold the information would be more sinister than benevolent (the case is that the information being accessible would likely be easy to exploit and damaging - and provides justification of its likelihood when referencing hydra)
Pro ignores the key hydra part, the issues of tech and he untrustworthiness of Government.
Con goes on to state his closing arguments. Pointing out he’s just asking for the same level of anonymity as other individuals.
Con used an excellent example of secret police being misused to take down a good super hero. This example is a brilliant example that harms pros premise of superhero’s being anonymous leading to them becoming evil.
Secondly, con references a lesser harm: that the potential for slow reaction, and bureaucracy impeding intervention. This is much more hypothetical and not referencing the specific act in question - but some future possibility. The imposition of a chain of command does seem to potentially have an impact, but con needs to be more specific here imo.
Thirdly, the potential dissemination of tech and powers on an unsuspecting world is raised by con. Again this is not well thrashed out, it is plausible, but the probability is not well assessed by con. The idea of hydra being part of the government raised does appear to implicitly increase the chances of this leading to harm on the population, but this is not well defined by con.
What con does at the end, is to challenge pros central asserted premise - that those on the fence would be pushed towards villainy.
Pros response again ignores every key point raised.
Con raised legitimate issues specific to superhero’s that necessitate anonymity. Con also raised legitimate concerns that not allowing anonymity will cause some to turn on the government. Cons point on hydra infiltration was wholly ignored by pro - who seemed to mostly assert that pros argument boils down to three misrepresentations.
In his opening round: pro doesn’t address any of these key points.
More importantly, pro doesn’t show what the explicit benefit of the plan really is.
Pro asserts that only evil super humans will make the most of anonymity. Pro doesn’t give any justification for this assertion, and given the marvel universe and specific examples of Batman, spider man - and others known in the marvel universe, it seems that pros assertion is contrary to obvious reality - as pros contention would still apply prior to the policy being discussed.
This primary argument is largely without warrant.
Pro makes a smaller point that everyone should be answerable to someone. This seems to be more valid, but pro spend almost 0 time justifying this, showing harmful possibilities, or how this act will resolve it. For example, if an avenger makes a bad decision, for what reason could they not held accountable for it?
Cons second round adds some more meat on the bones. Con references hydra infiltration. This is a major point that enhances cons point by adding potentiality to the harm he mentioned in R1. This has a major potential harm element.
This was an interesting debate. I can’t really judge the role playing aspect. Pro outlined that it kinda sorta was roleplay, but I felt it more important that the information in the debate topic.
The main points con bought forth was the danger faced by the super hero’s and family were their identities to be revealed.
Con states that the law is counter productive, as it turns superhero’s that don’t want to reveal their identities against the government by forcing them to flee/hide or make the government their enemy.
Con also states that the purpose is unnecessary, as the loss of life were primarily related to military action in the cause of defending the earth from major problems. This is primarily the least warranted part of cons argument, and I feel this could easily be attacked.
This argument sets up clear harms of the plan; and erodes the supposed benefit by showing the issue it’s trying to resolve isn’t valid.
I do not know. Remember, I am only a vote moderator - my authority doesn’t extend outside of this area.
It’s a shame wisdom of ages is banned, I think BDT would get on like a house on fire
Hey virt, as you have assumed full burden, and I’m basically refuting your position, would you have an issue with me referring directly to some of your points in the opening round to make this more of an orderly back and forth?
The asterisks are to denote this is a formal moderators decision.
So be aware, I would not recommend using them in a debate like that as it can make it seem your a moderator :)
*******************************************************************
This is classified as a Full Forfeit debate as Con forfeits every round after round 1. While pro does not offer an argument after round 1, he does not forfeit every round. Full Forfeit debates are only moderated if the vote is for the forfeiting side
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: WalterPhoenix // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 3 points to con for arguments.
>Reason for Decision: Con really did a nice job convincing me that THESE ARE BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS.
>Reason for Mod Action: Reason for Mod Action: This vote is not eligible to vote. In order to vote, an account must: (1) Read the site’s COC AND have completed 2 non-troll/non-FF debate OR have 100 forum posts.
Saying that, the voter does not sufficiently assess arguments.
To award arguments, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments 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.
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: WaterPhoenix // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 7 points to con
>Reason for Decision: Man, you really gotta feel for these flat-earthers they're a prime example of people believing what they want. Sorry if this isn't a completely fair vote but mate if you took science class you'd know the earth is, according to the laws of physics, round.
>Reason for Mod Action: Reason for Mod Action: This vote is not eligible to vote. In order to vote, an account must: (1) Read the site’s COC AND have completed 2 non-troll/non-FF debate OR have 100 forum posts.
Saying that, the voter does not sufficiently assess any of the voting criteria. Please review the CoC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules for details on what constitutes a sufficient vote.
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Trent0405 // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: Tie
>Reason for Decision: I think some people are being tough on pro, he made good arguments and corrected many inaccuracies in Cons statements. I was even thinking about giving the reliable sources mark for Pro. Great debate and equally good arguments on both sides.
>Reason for Mod Action: Reason for Mod Action: This vote is not eligible to vote. In order to vote, an account must: (1) Read the site’s COC AND have completed 2 non-troll/non-FF debate OR have 100 forum posts.
*******************************************************************
There’s a few individuals that do more serious and structured debate; it maybe worthwhile PMing them for a direct challenge. There’s Blamonkey, Bsh1, Virtuoso, and Sempafortis who may potentially be interested.
RFD:
Arguments:
A lot of Con’s arguments were just allegations, with no proof to back them up, such as the incident with the Korean analyst.
Con claimed that Trump is racist because he called Elizabeth Warren Pocahontas. Trump was obviously joking about her obsession with her Native American heritage, and that she was actually lying about it. Warren is not Native American.
Con claimed that Trump was racist because he wanted to ban people based on religion.
Con also shifted the burden of proof on pro, stating that Pro has to present evidence to doubt his allegations about the Korean analyst.
Overall, Pro managed to debunk all of Con’s arguments except for “White supremacists are good people”.
Sources:
Con provided opinion articles and sources from biased news sites. He also only provided tweet sources when asked by Pro.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: TheAtheist // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 5 points to pro for sources and arguments
>Reason for Decision: see above.
>Reason for Mod Action: this vote is insufficient.
While pro covers the main arguments - he does not assess the counter arguments, or provide weighting these arguments against each other. Sources were also insufficiently explained.
To cast a sufficient vote in the choose winner system, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks: (a) survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate, (b) weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself), and (c) explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points. Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
For sources: To award sources points, the voter must (1) explain how the debaters' sources impacted the debate, (2) directly assess the strength/utility of at least one source in particular cited in the debate, and (3) explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's.
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: TheAtheist // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: Winner to pro
>Reason for Decision: Con never proved that a nuclear war would happen in the first place. Pro, on the other hand, proved that nuclear weapons are a deterrent to war, which means that nuclear weapons actually save lives. Con also forfeited a round, which is bad conduct and means he had no more arguments left.
>Reason for Mod Action: this vote is insufficient - the voter doesn’t appear to sufficiently assess the main arguments and points raised by both sides.
To cast a sufficient vote in the choose winner system, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks: (a) survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate, (b) weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself), and (c) explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points. Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
*******************************************************************
See what I mean?
RM is mostly just paranoid: https://www.debateart.com/debates/697
Basically, RM has a tendency of going down side tracks, opinionated tangents and semantics rather than throwing himself head first into the arguments in good faith. I tend to not award debates for toxic behaviour, or arguing in bad faith.
In the old Nordic model debate he essentially ignored his opponents core point about legalized prostitution increasing human trafficking - claiming it wasn’t true based on no evidence- despite his opponent saying it was true, providing a source that shows it was true. Data trumps opinion, thus he lost. This is the same sort of error he makes in many debate
As a result of these types of issues, I award votes against him sometimes; and rather than trying to improve, he launches into accusatory tirades, personal attacks, etc (its not just me though - he does it with most people who are critical)
Thanks for voting, I appreciate The time it must have taken.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Trent0405 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: win to pro
>Reason for Decision: Con never proved that a nuclear war would be feasible. As a result, many points he made can be made pointless. Also, when con said it wasn't nukes that prevented war between the USSR and America, he never said what the reason in which he believes the two largest superpowers didn't directly fight each other for half a century. Great debate though
>Reason for Mod Action: This vote is not eligible to vote. In order to vote, an account must: (1) Read the site’s COC AND have completed 2 non-troll/non-FF debate OR have 100 forum posts.
*******************************************************************
It’s on my list.
Only an hour or so left
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: club // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: win to con.
>Reason for Decision: see vote.
>Reason for Mod Action: This vote is borderline and as such is deemed sufficient.
What is sufficient: the voter surveys pros main arguments, and appears to weight them.
What is insufficient: the voter only implicitly surveys cons points, and appears to reference them only once indirectly.
Why this vote is borderline: the voter spells out one side’s arguments were conceded, implying that they’re accepted without referring to them. While the voter could have done more to list the individual points, I feel that to make the vote sufficient the voter needs to merely list the arguments rather than add reasoning.
*******************************************************************
Just as a forewarning, while I very much appreciate the support and the vote of confidence; I’d personally recommend not antagonizing RM, unless you want to be dealing with tagging, and snide remarks aimed at you. :)
Wheeeeaaattttoooonnn
“The only kind of debate that Ramshutu can win is one where his opponent is shit or emotionally worked up.”
Sometimes when they’re both: https://www.debateart.com/debates/697
If took me most of today, listening to them whilst working from home on my noise cancelling earphones. There were some great songs on both sides,
R5: pro
Bleach: great song, it has urgency, it conveys the need for inner strength and adversity, loved the choral aspect to it too! 9
Death parade: CCS, as good as Pokémon: 4
Naruto: CCS, but a little better than Pokémon this time. 5
One peice: CCS, a little bit better again for me. 6
Pain: amazing choral peice. I used to play homeworld a lot, and this brought back some memories of that! Conveys the pain and hurt, and is increasingly well composed: 10
Total:35.
Grand total: 170/250
Con:
Darker than black: this was a b side for an underworld track. Disjointed and harsh - but that was the point. This song was hard in the ears, but that was I’m sure the intent, and as such this ranks higher for me: 7
The world: could only find a live version (link didn’t work), which seemed very CCS, I don’t want to rate it higher than Pokémon as I’m not sure I got the right one: 4
Gundam wing: nice bouncing track, conveys a sense of danger and adventure, catchy in its own way to be honest! 8
Vegeta: this felt somewhat transcendent, moving to a higher level after success. Completion - but more to do. I liked this, but felt the Layering let it down: it felt it should build more: 7
Attack on titan: CCS, just above Pokémon : 5
Total: 31:
Grand total: 176/250
Round 4
Pro.
Naruto: great sense of foreboding! A good build up song,: 8
Hunter x hunter: the usage of the Mexican/Spanish style guitar implicitly makes me go for the vigilante outlaw feeling which it does very well; but the overall quality was just okay, it relies more on the relationship with the style than the music here: 7
My hero academia: about the same level as Pokémon for me: 4
Bleach: looooved this! Great sense of foreboding, that something bad was just around the corner, loved the layers to this song, and the unusual style! 9
Noragami: Cliché cartoon style (CCS), I’d rank this only jut above Pokémon : 5
Total: 33: running total: 135
Con
Full metal alchemist: this started out good and turned into a more CCS, it was mostly catchy, but I can’t rate it higher than the last FMA: 5
Medals box: amazing song! Conveys a me vs the world - and that world is coming for me. Loved the style a lot, loved the stark synth, loved the soft break and loved what appeared to be the bell backing track. Amazing somg: 10
Flow by colours: again, kind of CCS, I m going to score this lower than Pokémon due to use of what appeared to be 1985 Casio quality synth trumpets: 3
Death note: interesting song, a little tubular belly, but interesting: a nice sense of mystery to it! 8
One peice: nice feel to it, as of waiting for a major space battle to start! 8
Total: 34 running total: 145
Round 3:
Pro:
Bleach: not a fan. This is about the same as Pokémon for me: 4
Tokyo ghoul: this started soft, with a sense of sadness, then worked all the way to tragedy. I didn’t like the song a great deal, but could appreciate the emotion it was showing me: 7
Akami Ga Kill: this reminded me of the wheat from Gladiator and a bit of braveheart. It was conveying a combination of mystery, and duty: legit got my hair standing on end. Loved the rock transition - kinda reminds me of hunting of the snark! Best track so far: 10
One peice opening: again, this fits into the generic rocky cartoon theme cliche, it’s around the level of Pokémon for me: 4
Fairytale opening: again, a little less cliche, but still didn’t convey anything to me:5
Total: 30. Running total: 102
Con:
Sorairo days: Again, much like a cliche cartoon theme, better than Pokémon, and the pace does convey some sense of intensity more than some of the others: 6
Tank: Loved this! Every spy film/series has a theme that feels like this, not quite as catchy as the saint; but excellent! 9
Orochimarus theme: nice variations around Tocata and Fuge in D minor, conveys dread, terror and evil very nicely! 9
Sis puella Manila: interesting feel to this, quite a sense of wonder about it, likes the vocals and the soft feeling to this: 8
Genos theme: a lot of anger to this song, with an edge of not caring about consequences. Special place in my head for this style of EDM: 9
Total: 41. Running total: 111
R2:
Death note: Tubular bells feel (that’s good). Liked when the guitar kicked in. Had a mystery / supernatural feel to it: 8
Bleach: very good emotional track, a little bit of sadness and sorrow; but a bit resolute too. 8
One piece: very adventure - but reminded me of one of the settlers themes when you uncovered a new part of the map containing the enemy:8
Narutu: not a big fan of this, it’s between Pokémon and FmA: 5.
Marvellous battle: conveys preparation for a battle really well, illicits feelings of the a team preparing or mcguyver! 9
Total 38: running total: 72
Con:
Asterisk: again, this felt a bit better than the Pokémon theme, but didn’t specifically convey much of a deeper feeling: 5
Inner universe: I liked this song, and there was a frantic energy to it, running out the clock: but I can’t quite put my finger in what I felt: 7
Cruel angels thesis: this one is a carton theme sounding theme song, but less cheesy feeling:6
My hero academia: this reminds me of the Carmaggedon sound track. Love this song, hard and conveys a sense of massive urgency and energy: 9
Mob psycho: thought this was the Seinfeld theme for the first few seconds. Less cheesy, but didn’t scream anything to me
Much like CAT a couple of songs ago - the break about half way through the song almost swayed me to go higher, but wasn’t enough: 6
Total: 33 running total : 71
Voting method.
This is entirely subjective. I’m going to assign points out of 10. Theme tunes are about feeling and conveying the nature of series. My favourite theme tune would probably be Star Trek Voyager, Mission Impossible and the A-team. While this is all anime, I think that vote criteria is still applicable. I don’t watch much anime, so I’m voting solely on how well the music conveys a theme or feeling to me - not on adherence to the anime.
Round1:
Pro:
Pokémon: Kids cartoon style theme. 4
Head in the clouds: seems pretty interesting, conveyed a feeling of oddness - interesting song: 7
Hunter x Hunter: movie score feeling to it, more dramatic: 7
Hunter x Hunter: more upbeat, had an exploration type feel up it, I actually really liked this one: 8!
Naruto: projected a “cool badass” feeling quality here: 8
R1: 34
Full metal alchemist: not a big fan of this song, it is better than the Pokémon theme, but didn’t really do it for me: 5
A song of storm and fire: I had to google this as the original link wasn’t working. Nice little song, still had a hint of a cartoon theme to it, but conveyed a nice sense of urgency: 7
Little busters: very teenage angst, I kinda like this one: 8
Sadness and sorrow: amazing track, fully portrays the emotion here. The transition from orchestra to lone piano was amaZing, I thought this was really good: 10
Made on the abyss. Starts off playfull, moves to the more adventitious: 8
Total: 38
Hi Marc: don’t be disheartened as this debate wasn’t by any means bad. I think part of it was that there was lots of scope in the resolution to go places you weren’t expecting (that’s actually often a good thing), and I think the hardest aspect of debate is how to try and maintain a debate when both sides disagree on the meaning of the resolution.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I’m seeing that you’re logging on, are you planning on continuing?
Unrated means it will not earn you Ranking points
Oh yeah, your right! Though you meant “doubles it unnecessarily”
Yeah 50, minutes. Still a long ass time
5 per rounds - 10 rounds - 2 participants.
Even if each are 1 minute long that’s 1hr and 40 minutes.
Next time be aware of the time impact on voters. This is probably why there’s no decent votes so far. I will be getting to this shortly.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: PinkFreud08 // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 points to pro for conduct.
>Reason for Decision:I'd like to start off by thanking both opponents for this debate
POOR CONDUCT
Con Forfeited the majority of the rounds leaving the debate unfinished, that's poor conduct!
All other points tied, hardly a coherent debate due to the vast amount of Forfeits.
>Reason for Mod Action: This vote is sufficient. Voters may award only conduct points - without referencing arguments A in the case where one side forfeits half or more rounds. However, it is obviously encouraged for voters to assess arguments where possible.
*******************************************************************
“What is hilarious is that you think you have a single fucking shred of dominance or capability to fuck with me left after the site gains enough popularity such that you're just one of many voters.”
I think you meant:
“What is hilarious is that you think you will have left a single fucking shred of dominance or capability to fuck with me after the site gains enough popularity such that you're just one of many voters.”
Again, RM: my comment wasn’t really directed at you.
While your apoplexy is hilarious, it’s misplaced.