Hi RM. this comment wasmt
directed at you : and given that you haven’t objected to anything I said, I’ll assume you have none.
I will take the time to point out that it is objectively false that I prey on new member the way you do. A total of 0 If my debates are bad faith arguments and semantic attempts to chance the resolution. The possible exceptions are some debates against Sparrow/Type1 - but everyone really gets a pass on those.
Just as an aside this isn’t really a Kritik. A Kritik is where an assumption in the resolution or the debate is challenged as harmful, or antithetical to debate. Normally for a kritik, the person making the kritik has burden of proof to show the harm in accepting the definition or assumption. This is not what’s happening here. RM is simply switching the definition from what was obvious and apparent - to one that wasn’t but was more favourable to him; he provides no argument as to why this definition is the most useful - only that it must be accepted - as RM has burden of proof to show this is what the debate should be about - and he didn’t provide it, this really should go to con across the board.
The main issue for the longevity of this site is to have new members and individuals being able to participate freely in debates, If the first thing that happens to new members, is they see people starting a debate, only to have an odd, and left field semantic argument that isn’t well justified and is not particularly pleasant - then it’s not going to be particularly fun - and was exactly why RM was asked not to participate in someone’s debate a few weeks ago - there’s really no genuine reason for them to stay on the site: you can understand if someone beats you, but beats you by arguing in bad faith is going to drive away new members and participants.
While sniping on troll debates, or the likes of Type1 with semantics is almost inherently valid given their Nature - when the debate is a legitimate debate about something, I will be holding unsupported semantic arguments like this as poor conduct, and will not accept one side unilaterally changing the terms of the debate by assertion without any justification or argument as was done here.
A.) that’s not what Anachronsitic means
B.) it’s clear what the debate meant
C.) what part of my RfD was misportraying what happened, or specifically unreasonable?
RM: if I was grudge voting id have given him sources too.
You solely argued a semantic variation of relevant that clearly wasn’t what the instigator intended - and you at no point made any effort to argue in good faith. I’ve voted down multiple multiple debates - including multiple debates of yours - where people do this, for similar reasons; it’s toxic for the other participant, and your asking me to accept a completely different definition than is obvious in the terms of debate for no good reason.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Debater445 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to pro for arguments and conduct. 2 points to con for sources
>Reason for Decision: Pro's arguments were better. Con did read the bible more thoroughly, and found more evidence, but Pro debunked it. Both had equal spelling and grammar. Con was far too rude and insulting, while Pro was as polite as possible, so of course he gets a point for best conduct.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter is not eligable to vote. A voter must have 2 completed non troll / non forfeit debates, or 100 forum comments and have read the code of conduct in order to vote.
That being said. The vote would also have been removed were this not the case as arguments, conduct S&G are insufficiently explained.
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.
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.
To award conduct points, the voter must (1) identify specific instances of misconduct, (2) explain how this misconduct was excessive, unfair, or in breach of the debate's rules, and (3) compare each debater's conduct.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Club // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to pro for sources and conduct.
>Reason for Decision: Lol
So, Dr.Franklin had better sources because he used multiple unlike Mr, BRoThERd Thomas
BrotherDThomas also stated that DF was "Satanic" in some way.
>Reason for Mod Action: The does not sufficiently explaining any of the key points awarded.
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.
To award conduct points, the voter must (1) identify specific instances of misconduct, (2) explain how this misconduct was excessive, unfair, or in breach of the debate's rules, and (3) compare each debater's conduct.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Teh_ChosenOne // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 6 points to pro for arguments, sources and conduct.
>Reason for Decision: Boopy seems to have the high ground
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter is not eligable to vote. A voter must have 2 complete non troll and non forfeit debates, or 100 forum comments in order to vote and must have read the code of conduct.
Saying this; the vote would also be insufficient, with the voter not sufficiently explaining any of the key points awarded.
The voter should familiarize themselves with the code of conduct here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: RotobagaLover // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 6 points to pro for arguments, sources and conduct. 1 point to con for S&G
>Reason for Decision: The battle was tough.
Although I liked Boopy's arguments better
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter is not eligable to vote. A voter must have 2 completes non troll and non forfeit debates, or 100 forum comments in order to vote and must have read the code of conduct.
Saying this; the vote would also be insufficient, with the voter not sufficiently explaining any of the key points awarded.
The voter should familiarize themselves with the code of conduct here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: ChristianDPriest // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 6 points to pro for arguments, sources and conduct. 1 point to con for S&G
>Reason for Decision: Speedrace had better grammar than Boopy
But overall Boopy has provided better arguments than Speedrace
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter is not eligable to vote. A voter must have 2 completes non troll and non forfeit debates, or 100 forum comments in order to vote and must have read the code of conduct.
Saying this; the vote would also be insufficient, with the voter not sufficiently explaining any of the key points awarded.
The voter should familiarize themselves with the code of conduct here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Virtuoso// Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 points to pro for conduct.
>Reason for Decision: See vote.
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient as per thesite policy.
*******************************************************************
We don’t have a list of “example votes”, it’s possible that would be a good idea.
One of the best voters on this site is Ragnar, one of his recent votes is here: https://www.debateart.com/debates/975?open_tab=votes&votes_page=1&vote_number=1
We also have a thread dedicated to resources and links especially for new members - one of them is a general voting
Guide which is fairly current.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: TheAthiest // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points to con for arguments, sources and conduct.
>Reason for Decision: Pro forfeited rounds.
You cannot PROVE that murder is wrong, because morals are subjective and you can’t prove an opinion.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter is not eligable to vote. A voter must have 2 completes non troll and non forfeit debates, or 100 forum comments in order to vote.
That being said. The vote would also have been removed were it not the case as arguments and S&G are insufficiently explained.
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.
To award S/G points, the voter must (1) give specific examples of S/G errors, (2) explain how these errors were excessive, and (3) compare each debaters' S/G.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Sigmaphil // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: win to con.
>Reason for Decision: My reason for my vote is clear. Con's position was thoroughly researched and defended with facts and theories supported by logic. Pro's arguments were defended with innuendo and pompous opinionated rhetoric devoid of facts.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter is not eligable to vote. A voter must have 2 completes non troll and non forfeit debates, or 100 forum comments in order to vote.
That being said. The vote would also have been removed were it not the case.
To award a win, 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.
What you just said, is mostly just a nonsensical rant that has no specifics, little detail, and appears (as with Dr.Franklin) to be mostly an attempt to try and suggest liberals are Fascists without actually going to the trouble of being able to specifically link them to or even specify any policies or positions that are inherently fascist.
Contrarily, this vitriolic angry bile that has basically been a staple of many on the right since Newt Gingrich and the culture wars is a reflection of what is most assuredly a fascist policy (and more broadly a generally authoritarian tactic) of pushing “the big lie”. The Republican right now is effectively the state party in 1984. Truth is irrelevant. Facts are irrelevant. Principles are irrelevant. The party is all.
Again, not Fascists. I have an incredibly strong suspicion that you have no clue what Fascism actually is other than it’s bad, and you want to tag the left with it.
While Anti-Fa are a thuggish left wing group, that is not on itself enough for them to call them fascists: which requires a much more specific set of criteria. While the political violence often typified some fascist groups, they fail to match multiple other key aspects of fascism.
So Nazis Zeig-heiling Trump don’t really count as fascists, because we all know fascists are really anyone who feels Society is better served by additional government managed programs organized to try and provide equality of opportunity its citizens?
Most “Fascists” do indeed affiliate with the Republicans, they classify themselves as part of the Alt-Right. Hence all the Nazi flags at the “unite the right” march, hence why at an Alt Right conference, they Nazi Saluted Donald Trumps Victory.
While you maybe preoccupied with insulting the left moreso than being either accurate or factual, at least we should be able to agree that actual Nazis are fascists?
Yes, most communists are Democrats, most Fascists - and the majority of White Nationalists are Republican.
What you’re doing, is pretending that “Fascism” means big government that’s not what Fascism means. Liberalism, again, also doesn’t really mean big government.
Fascism, is an authoritarian political system categorized by overt militarism, appeal to racial purity and Scapegoating of racial groups in order to promote internal unity. It relies on part on corporatism - the big german companies made out like bandits, and inherent military strength. Fascists authoritarian governments do tend to be big, but not all big governments are fascists.
It seems like so many other conservatives you don’t really have an argument, or specific facts, your more interested in hurling tropes and insults. Perhaps you should read up on how the German people were indoctrinated through systems of Propoganda. There are some stark parallels with what is going on with the right wing fake news machine.
The Republican Party isn’t Fascist, but all fascists are republicans.
You really should google what fascism means, because it seems you just want to define it as “anything that the Democrats Do” rather than what if actually means.
I listed key properties of fascism - and how the Republican Party follows them, those are much more
Commensurate with what Fascism actually entails.
Your opponent said it wasn’t written down in the constitution - this is accurate. You didn’t refute that point; even though I know (given the constitution) that it doesn’t matter. As I don’t bring my knowledge of the constitution to the debtate - his argument was dropped by you, and as you didn’t refute
It - a TR judge must accept it as true.
Your point was unrefuted, but was also terrible - stating that because other unrelated things are accepted - this can be considered too. This is a terrible point that I came close to rejecting on the grounds of inherent warrant - and that if I accept your argument I can’t tell if the resolution is affirmed or not, as most of your argument seemed tangential.
I offered my specific critique of the legal aspects - in order to potentially help you grow as a debater, and realize more reasonable angles of attack.
A.) That’s not really true - Fascists were primarily corporatists. The Nazis specifically put socialist in the name of the party for Pr reasons to steal support from actual socialists. Indeed - Facsism was historically a right wing response to organized left wing labour movements - including socialism.
B.) Today, Neo- Nazis, white nationalists, Authoritarians, are all mostly Republican. Overt Militarilism, Nationalistic displays of patriotism and the upholding of patriotic symbols to almost a religious extent, again - all Republicans. Implicit dog whistles of racial purity with loaded language such as “breeding”, the whiteness of the country, and pressing the danger of changing racial demographics - also mainly Republicans. Even Democracy - right now, you have republicans controlled elections purging voters, trying to make it harder forpeople to vote, excessively GerryMandering their areas, and raising the alarm about fictitious voter fraud in order to generate public support (in person voter fraud is non existent - trump lies about it, the texas SoS recently resigned after being caught lying about it, Kansas voter fraud guy lied about it repeatedly... again, mostly republican.
But hey, don’t let a snazzy quote get in the way of facts
I spent a lot of time working in India, and working with a lot of Indian engineer, aside from learning not to trust anyone who says “it’s not too hot, don’t worry”,I was actually interested by much of their responses to colonialism. While I don’t want to list the details as it will help cons case; I’ve heard some argue the legacy of colonialism isn’t all bad, and isn’t net bad - they made some pretty decent cases to it.
I’m not sure that you’re entirely getting the nuance here.
To win Pro must affirm the resolution, con must negate (with burden on pro).
The resolution is a product of what is written in the title, description, and based upon the definition used by both sides.
Because both sides were arguing on implicitly different definitions - as I explained - they’re effectively arguing different resolutions. Neither of which appear to be the sensible interpretation of the debate description.
As no one really justifies why their version of the resolution is correct - and both stray from the resolution specified - I could easily arbitrarily chose either side as the winner and so chose neither.
To affirm the resolution - does pro merely have to show one minor, trivial aspect to affirm? Or does he have to affirm by proving, in detail, that homosexuality is worse than being heterosexual/white/black etc.
Both sides argue past each other on this front, and don’t bother to establish which is the correct way to view an affirmation of the resolution. While I could have gone straight for Tiwaz, on the grounds that his interpretation is close to the definitions; he subtly undermines that point himself, but not enough for me to take pros side.
So how do I know what consistutes the resolution being affirmed? I don’t know: both sides argue their own view, and don’t really do anything to show their position is correct over the others.
If your argument is that you didn’t read the description: I won’t overturn. That’s your fault not your opponents.
If your argument is that the rules and description can arbitrarily be ignored by either side: I won’t overturn. That’s not fair on your opponent.
I will only overturn if a reasonable interpretation of the title and description is unfair to one side.
“In terms of the resolution, pro/con could go either way, the phrasing of the resolution could work either way.
“Moral Codes Cannot Exist In and Of Themselves Without God”
Con could mean “they cannot” or “that sentence is false” “
In this case, the title could possibly go both ways, the debate as a whole appears 100% absolutely and totally unambiguously clear as to what your position should be prior to your acceptance. This means you have to make a very good argument to convince me that you were “confused” into accepting the wrong side of the debate, or that cons failure to specify both sides unambiguously caused you to think you were accepting a different side.
Your argument wasn’t any of these things - but was instead demanding that I simply ignore the description of the debate and focus on an interpretation that was preferrential to you and detrimental to con - for no good apparent reason.
I’m not going to do that in a billion years because it is inherently unfair to one side that made no mistake or error. Overturning the description is solely about whether the description is unfair to one side and should be to redress the unfairness.
You appeared to argue that it should be overturned to MAKE it unfair to one side because you saw a perceived way of arguing that the setup was incorrect and wanted to capitalize on that to score a cheap win.
By all means, share quotes matching the criteria below, I am interested in being fair and want to make sure that I have not missed where you have argued one of the key points.
In terms of the resolution, pro/con could go either way, the phrasing of the resolution could work either way.
“Moral Codes Cannot Exist In and Of Themselves Without God”
Con could mean “they cannot” or “that sentence is false”
Normally, the debate description clarified exactly - and I don’t think anyone could reasonably interpret your position as you did. And by all means if you argued that it’s not reasonable to interpretat it any other way, please quote it here.
If the resolution was “Moral codes depend on God”, and he was con arguing that moral codes depend on God, you would have a case.
In reality you give the impression that you looked at the debate, didn’t want to argue the topic at hand, but instead found some semantic way to argue against your opponent, despite it clearly not being a reasonable interpretation of what he meant.
This one is tricky: but I will clarify. I think the use of “value” here maybe a bit confusing.
Both sides are interpreting the resolution as the definition to mean two independent things. For Pro - it is exclusively that there is some harm visited upon society by homosexuals. For Con: this resolution appears to be “homosexuality is directly and on balance no more harmful to society than any other group”. Of course this is my paraphrasing of the way both presented their arguments.
I think both sides proved their side of that resolution based on that specific value condition they interpreted.
Few people actively spell out their interpretation of the resolution and argue in support of it over the other. Meaning voters are often left to chose which of the two argued resolutions they prefer in this situationsr. Often one is a bit more intuive, or the definitions more specific - but in this case I can’t take cons side as the resolution doesn’t include his aspects, and I can’t take pros side as I don’t think “any harm whatsoever” is the default interpretation of “harmful to society”.
As I can’t chose which resolution is more accurate - both sides argue that their interpretation is the one that should be followed, but unless I missed something, neither explained why in a way that allows me to say “you know, that interpretation makes more sense”
My criteria for overturning for the debate description is:
1.) The one wishing the description overturned has burden of proof.
2.) As the debate rules are accepted by both sides, for me to overturn it, you must do one or more of the following:
- Show how the rules inherently prevent a debate by making it impossible or difficult for one side to lose.
- Show how the rules as being interpreted by one side match the specific semantics - but not the reasonable interpretation of the definitions/rules such that one sides approach to the debate rules is not how any reasonable person would have envisaged them whilst accepting them.
- Show how the rules and description appear to have been a trap - subtle description changes from the title mean it is reasonable for the contender to think he was taking one position, but I’m actuality an easily missed semantic difference in the description means the instigator forces the contender to take another.
I may well have missed something subtle: if you can quote me the part where you provided a solid argument to support the above, I will remove my vote and devote for you.
What I saw from yourself - was you objecting to the pro and con labels (the third bullet),l. In my view the title could be taken either way, thus the description clarifies. As the description was clear and specific, I don’t think you have shown the resolution is unfairly switched, or any clear reason why I must presume this was a trap - nor that you were genuinely thinking you were debating on one side, only to have it switched by your opponent.
By all means, I may have missed something: let me know what I missed above, and I will revisit if I genuinely missed something.
Hi RM, thank you for the feedback. Just a few points:
Firstly, Con wasn’t particularly rude at any time, he seemed relatively polite throughout. While there were two points where he bordered on a little condescending - I wouldn’t consider this especially “rude” and definitely not “severely rude”
Secondly, definition is not sovereign. Arguments are sovereign. I will and have rejected definitions, rules and the description where one side provides a good argument as to why I, as a voter, should discount them. The side arguing against the description has burden to uphold here.
As I pointed out in my decision, I am rejecting your arguments and your logic as poor, and insufficient to overturn the description, because you showed no clear harm and no clear unfairness inherent in that description.
As such, when you say I am arguing “the voter is supposed to respect it over the logic of the debate or the facts of the debate” this is completly incorrect - I am respecting the definition as the logic and facts you raised were not sufficient to meet your burden for me to overturn it.
If you gave me a good reason why the description was unfair, why it was an obvious trap, or why the debate was unwinnable - I would have considered those and overturned the description.
Your focus was almost solely on CAN a voter ignore the definitions (they can) rather than SHOULD a voter ignore these definitions. As a result, you don’t overturn the definition - and the description stands.
That’s fine, lol: the definition is clear, and I cannot stand semantic tactics! I will be arguing in good faith, on the topic: just that there is a very different path that could be taken here.
The framing of the resolution doesn’t claim that we have an intrinsic moral code that outlines and defines good as an objective moral standard: but such a standard is impossible without God - and such a system is stronger than a subjective model.
IE: simply proving that our morality is entirely subjective or not, is not sufficient to win. I have to show that an objective standard with God is as good as one without, or a subjective system is just as good.
Normally, morality debates fixate on what is, rather than the hypothetical side (so I was just checking :)
Just so I don’t misunderstand: This resolution does not appear to be whether morality or our moral system is objective or not - but a hypothetical question of whether it is possible to have an infallible moral system (either objective or not) without God, right?
“Your position (pro) would argue against that hypothesis, and that a code of objective values CAN exist without God, OR, that a subjective system of ethical values could be as strong of a system”
If you’re willing to issue me a challenge that is an exact copy of this debate, with at least a 3 day argument period - I would happily accept and argue in good faith specifically on the topic in question
This is not a moderated debate - meaning that pinks vote cannot be removed due to a rule violation.
However, I thInk even debates like deserve individuals spending time, producing feedback, and trying to genuinely assess the content - rather than simply through any old vote on a debate for the purpose of a voting medal.
Because of this, as I can’t remove pinks vote, it is my opinion that his vote is not really fair on either debater, and should be countered for that reason to allow the deciding votes on this debate to be higher quality votes filled with more appropriate feedback that is both useful, and fair. In this case, I am very much better at assessing votes than Rap Music - which I believe is a firmly valid reason to place the vote that I did.
While you may or may not agree with this approach; it’s no more or less valid than simply posting “I liked yours better” in this context.
I am an assistant moderator for votes: so my influence extends to assessing reported votes only; trying to help explain how vote moderation works.
You are correct, that this isn’t obvious (this is an oversight on our part), given that, we’ll work to correct it ; given that it’s a small community, it’s aometimes easy for us to forget that not every new person knows everything.
The rule is not a judgement on you, or an assessment that your account is fake. I was explaining the backgrounds ima of the rule and why it exists exists - to prevent fake accounts voting on debates by enforcing a minimum standard of participation.
The rule is enforced across the board when a votes are reported, and will at some point be enforced automatically by software. It’s much easier to assess an individuals participation: we just look at their profile, than it is to assess whether a fake account is truly fake
While we definitely know this will prevent real humans who will go on to contribute to the site from voting initially; the barrier is fairly low, and is easy to reach: so is reasonable limitation compared to providing the ability to weed out these fake accounts.
A little background - we have had problems in the past of particular users creating fake accounts and placing otherwise valid votes on their own debates.
Given this, we restrict the possibility of this happening by placing more restrictive limits on how much one needs to contribute to be allowed to vote: this is to dissuade individuals from simply creating a new account with a proxy and voting on their own debate. This will eventually be implemented in code, but right now is enforced manually.
You would, for example, find it suspicious if multiple accounts voted on a debate against you, when the account made little effort to engage in the side other than to post the vote against you. This rule is to try and prevent that from happening and limit to voters to those who have a minimum level of engagement.
As far as I am aware, that relates to tied votes only.
“The first policy change is that voters must offer an explanation (which is related to the content of the debate) of why they chose to award >>no points<<”
A voter only needs to explain arguments if they award conduct points based on a forfeited round (but less than half the rounds):
“In the case of awarding conduct points >>>>solely on the basis of forfeits<<<<, there is an exception to these steps: a debater may award conduct points solely for forfeited rounds, but only if one debater forfeited half or more of their rounds or if the voter also awards argument points (or explains their decision not to award argument points in a manner which meets the argument points voting standards).”
That extra post was just providing a little bit information to clarify what was good and bad about the vote - it isn’t a second attempt to moderate the vote.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Our_boat_is_right // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: win to con.
>Reason for Decision: Con proves that the original laws, despite the perception that some people or things were racist, was not founded as a white nation. He proves many things to be irrelevant, such as things like after the foundation of the country in later years, and things that had no affect on the founding documents and laws.
>Reason for Mod Action: This vote is border line, and as such is sufficient.
What is sufficient: the voter appears to reference all the main arguments made by both sides, and appears to explain why one side won with regards to the arguments being made.
What is insufficient: the voter appears to be overly brief, and doesn’t appear to explicitly reference pros arguments.
What makes this border line: reading the debate, it seems relatively clear what the voter is referring to, and it appears to cover the broad aspects of the debate - even though its brief. To make the vote sufficient I think the voter would likely not need to modify reasoning significantly (if at all), but only to add semantics such as “pro said..” and “this refuted pros argument that...” for that reason the vote is allowed.
Hi RM. this comment wasmt
directed at you : and given that you haven’t objected to anything I said, I’ll assume you have none.
I will take the time to point out that it is objectively false that I prey on new member the way you do. A total of 0 If my debates are bad faith arguments and semantic attempts to chance the resolution. The possible exceptions are some debates against Sparrow/Type1 - but everyone really gets a pass on those.
Just as an aside this isn’t really a Kritik. A Kritik is where an assumption in the resolution or the debate is challenged as harmful, or antithetical to debate. Normally for a kritik, the person making the kritik has burden of proof to show the harm in accepting the definition or assumption. This is not what’s happening here. RM is simply switching the definition from what was obvious and apparent - to one that wasn’t but was more favourable to him; he provides no argument as to why this definition is the most useful - only that it must be accepted - as RM has burden of proof to show this is what the debate should be about - and he didn’t provide it, this really should go to con across the board.
The main issue for the longevity of this site is to have new members and individuals being able to participate freely in debates, If the first thing that happens to new members, is they see people starting a debate, only to have an odd, and left field semantic argument that isn’t well justified and is not particularly pleasant - then it’s not going to be particularly fun - and was exactly why RM was asked not to participate in someone’s debate a few weeks ago - there’s really no genuine reason for them to stay on the site: you can understand if someone beats you, but beats you by arguing in bad faith is going to drive away new members and participants.
While sniping on troll debates, or the likes of Type1 with semantics is almost inherently valid given their Nature - when the debate is a legitimate debate about something, I will be holding unsupported semantic arguments like this as poor conduct, and will not accept one side unilaterally changing the terms of the debate by assertion without any justification or argument as was done here.
A.) that’s not what Anachronsitic means
B.) it’s clear what the debate meant
C.) what part of my RfD was misportraying what happened, or specifically unreasonable?
RM: if I was grudge voting id have given him sources too.
You solely argued a semantic variation of relevant that clearly wasn’t what the instigator intended - and you at no point made any effort to argue in good faith. I’ve voted down multiple multiple debates - including multiple debates of yours - where people do this, for similar reasons; it’s toxic for the other participant, and your asking me to accept a completely different definition than is obvious in the terms of debate for no good reason.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Debater445 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to pro for arguments and conduct. 2 points to con for sources
>Reason for Decision: Pro's arguments were better. Con did read the bible more thoroughly, and found more evidence, but Pro debunked it. Both had equal spelling and grammar. Con was far too rude and insulting, while Pro was as polite as possible, so of course he gets a point for best conduct.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter is not eligable to vote. A voter must have 2 completed non troll / non forfeit debates, or 100 forum comments and have read the code of conduct in order to vote.
That being said. The vote would also have been removed were this not the case as arguments, conduct S&G are insufficiently explained.
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.
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.
To award conduct points, the voter must (1) identify specific instances of misconduct, (2) explain how this misconduct was excessive, unfair, or in breach of the debate's rules, and (3) compare each debater's conduct.
*******************************************************************
There’s actually not many “main” arguments; hopefully the summary will help. But yeah. Geeeeez there’s a lot to unpack.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Club // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to pro for sources and conduct.
>Reason for Decision: Lol
So, Dr.Franklin had better sources because he used multiple unlike Mr, BRoThERd Thomas
BrotherDThomas also stated that DF was "Satanic" in some way.
>Reason for Mod Action: The does not sufficiently explaining any of the key points awarded.
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.
To award conduct points, the voter must (1) identify specific instances of misconduct, (2) explain how this misconduct was excessive, unfair, or in breach of the debate's rules, and (3) compare each debater's conduct.
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Teh_ChosenOne // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 6 points to pro for arguments, sources and conduct.
>Reason for Decision: Boopy seems to have the high ground
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter is not eligable to vote. A voter must have 2 complete non troll and non forfeit debates, or 100 forum comments in order to vote and must have read the code of conduct.
Saying this; the vote would also be insufficient, with the voter not sufficiently explaining any of the key points awarded.
The voter should familiarize themselves with the code of conduct here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: RotobagaLover // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 6 points to pro for arguments, sources and conduct. 1 point to con for S&G
>Reason for Decision: The battle was tough.
Although I liked Boopy's arguments better
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter is not eligable to vote. A voter must have 2 completes non troll and non forfeit debates, or 100 forum comments in order to vote and must have read the code of conduct.
Saying this; the vote would also be insufficient, with the voter not sufficiently explaining any of the key points awarded.
The voter should familiarize themselves with the code of conduct here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: ChristianDPriest // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 6 points to pro for arguments, sources and conduct. 1 point to con for S&G
>Reason for Decision: Speedrace had better grammar than Boopy
But overall Boopy has provided better arguments than Speedrace
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter is not eligable to vote. A voter must have 2 completes non troll and non forfeit debates, or 100 forum comments in order to vote and must have read the code of conduct.
Saying this; the vote would also be insufficient, with the voter not sufficiently explaining any of the key points awarded.
The voter should familiarize themselves with the code of conduct here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Virtuoso// Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 points to pro for conduct.
>Reason for Decision: See vote.
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient as per thesite policy.
*******************************************************************
It is on my Radar, don’t worry.
Hi Sigmaphil,
We don’t have a list of “example votes”, it’s possible that would be a good idea.
One of the best voters on this site is Ragnar, one of his recent votes is here: https://www.debateart.com/debates/975?open_tab=votes&votes_page=1&vote_number=1
We also have a thread dedicated to resources and links especially for new members - one of them is a general voting
Guide which is fairly current.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: TheAthiest // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points to con for arguments, sources and conduct.
>Reason for Decision: Pro forfeited rounds.
You cannot PROVE that murder is wrong, because morals are subjective and you can’t prove an opinion.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter is not eligable to vote. A voter must have 2 completes non troll and non forfeit debates, or 100 forum comments in order to vote.
That being said. The vote would also have been removed were it not the case as arguments and S&G are insufficiently explained.
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.
To award S/G points, the voter must (1) give specific examples of S/G errors, (2) explain how these errors were excessive, and (3) compare each debaters' S/G.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Sigmaphil // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: win to con.
>Reason for Decision: My reason for my vote is clear. Con's position was thoroughly researched and defended with facts and theories supported by logic. Pro's arguments were defended with innuendo and pompous opinionated rhetoric devoid of facts.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter is not eligable to vote. A voter must have 2 completes non troll and non forfeit debates, or 100 forum comments in order to vote.
That being said. The vote would also have been removed were it not the case.
To award a win, 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.
************************************************************************
What you just said, is mostly just a nonsensical rant that has no specifics, little detail, and appears (as with Dr.Franklin) to be mostly an attempt to try and suggest liberals are Fascists without actually going to the trouble of being able to specifically link them to or even specify any policies or positions that are inherently fascist.
Contrarily, this vitriolic angry bile that has basically been a staple of many on the right since Newt Gingrich and the culture wars is a reflection of what is most assuredly a fascist policy (and more broadly a generally authoritarian tactic) of pushing “the big lie”. The Republican right now is effectively the state party in 1984. Truth is irrelevant. Facts are irrelevant. Principles are irrelevant. The party is all.
Again, that’s not fascism.
Being violent against people you don’t like, is indeed political violence (which fascists did), but not specifically fascist.
Again, not Fascists. I have an incredibly strong suspicion that you have no clue what Fascism actually is other than it’s bad, and you want to tag the left with it.
While Anti-Fa are a thuggish left wing group, that is not on itself enough for them to call them fascists: which requires a much more specific set of criteria. While the political violence often typified some fascist groups, they fail to match multiple other key aspects of fascism.
Rigghhht.
So Nazis Zeig-heiling Trump don’t really count as fascists, because we all know fascists are really anyone who feels Society is better served by additional government managed programs organized to try and provide equality of opportunity its citizens?
Most *white* nationalist are republicans.
Also.
Most “Fascists” do indeed affiliate with the Republicans, they classify themselves as part of the Alt-Right. Hence all the Nazi flags at the “unite the right” march, hence why at an Alt Right conference, they Nazi Saluted Donald Trumps Victory.
While you maybe preoccupied with insulting the left moreso than being either accurate or factual, at least we should be able to agree that actual Nazis are fascists?
Yes, most communists are Democrats, most Fascists - and the majority of White Nationalists are Republican.
What you’re doing, is pretending that “Fascism” means big government that’s not what Fascism means. Liberalism, again, also doesn’t really mean big government.
Fascism, is an authoritarian political system categorized by overt militarism, appeal to racial purity and Scapegoating of racial groups in order to promote internal unity. It relies on part on corporatism - the big german companies made out like bandits, and inherent military strength. Fascists authoritarian governments do tend to be big, but not all big governments are fascists.
It seems like so many other conservatives you don’t really have an argument, or specific facts, your more interested in hurling tropes and insults. Perhaps you should read up on how the German people were indoctrinated through systems of Propoganda. There are some stark parallels with what is going on with the right wing fake news machine.
The Republican Party isn’t Fascist, but all fascists are republicans.
You really should google what fascism means, because it seems you just want to define it as “anything that the Democrats Do” rather than what if actually means.
I listed key properties of fascism - and how the Republican Party follows them, those are much more
Commensurate with what Fascism actually entails.
Hi RM - thank you for the feedback.
Your opponent said it wasn’t written down in the constitution - this is accurate. You didn’t refute that point; even though I know (given the constitution) that it doesn’t matter. As I don’t bring my knowledge of the constitution to the debtate - his argument was dropped by you, and as you didn’t refute
It - a TR judge must accept it as true.
Your point was unrefuted, but was also terrible - stating that because other unrelated things are accepted - this can be considered too. This is a terrible point that I came close to rejecting on the grounds of inherent warrant - and that if I accept your argument I can’t tell if the resolution is affirmed or not, as most of your argument seemed tangential.
I offered my specific critique of the legal aspects - in order to potentially help you grow as a debater, and realize more reasonable angles of attack.
A.) That’s not really true - Fascists were primarily corporatists. The Nazis specifically put socialist in the name of the party for Pr reasons to steal support from actual socialists. Indeed - Facsism was historically a right wing response to organized left wing labour movements - including socialism.
B.) Today, Neo- Nazis, white nationalists, Authoritarians, are all mostly Republican. Overt Militarilism, Nationalistic displays of patriotism and the upholding of patriotic symbols to almost a religious extent, again - all Republicans. Implicit dog whistles of racial purity with loaded language such as “breeding”, the whiteness of the country, and pressing the danger of changing racial demographics - also mainly Republicans. Even Democracy - right now, you have republicans controlled elections purging voters, trying to make it harder forpeople to vote, excessively GerryMandering their areas, and raising the alarm about fictitious voter fraud in order to generate public support (in person voter fraud is non existent - trump lies about it, the texas SoS recently resigned after being caught lying about it, Kansas voter fraud guy lied about it repeatedly... again, mostly republican.
But hey, don’t let a snazzy quote get in the way of facts
I spent a lot of time working in India, and working with a lot of Indian engineer, aside from learning not to trust anyone who says “it’s not too hot, don’t worry”,I was actually interested by much of their responses to colonialism. While I don’t want to list the details as it will help cons case; I’ve heard some argue the legacy of colonialism isn’t all bad, and isn’t net bad - they made some pretty decent cases to it.
Damn, you’re a class act :) kudos for you.
Arg can you remove my vote so I can go again! Bah!
I’m not sure that you’re entirely getting the nuance here.
To win Pro must affirm the resolution, con must negate (with burden on pro).
The resolution is a product of what is written in the title, description, and based upon the definition used by both sides.
Because both sides were arguing on implicitly different definitions - as I explained - they’re effectively arguing different resolutions. Neither of which appear to be the sensible interpretation of the debate description.
As no one really justifies why their version of the resolution is correct - and both stray from the resolution specified - I could easily arbitrarily chose either side as the winner and so chose neither.
Beliefs are irrelevant - I vote on the arguments.
To affirm the resolution - does pro merely have to show one minor, trivial aspect to affirm? Or does he have to affirm by proving, in detail, that homosexuality is worse than being heterosexual/white/black etc.
Both sides argue past each other on this front, and don’t bother to establish which is the correct way to view an affirmation of the resolution. While I could have gone straight for Tiwaz, on the grounds that his interpretation is close to the definitions; he subtly undermines that point himself, but not enough for me to take pros side.
So how do I know what consistutes the resolution being affirmed? I don’t know: both sides argue their own view, and don’t really do anything to show their position is correct over the others.
Or to be more succinct.
If your argument is that you didn’t read the description: I won’t overturn. That’s your fault not your opponents.
If your argument is that the rules and description can arbitrarily be ignored by either side: I won’t overturn. That’s not fair on your opponent.
I will only overturn if a reasonable interpretation of the title and description is unfair to one side.
As I said:
“In terms of the resolution, pro/con could go either way, the phrasing of the resolution could work either way.
“Moral Codes Cannot Exist In and Of Themselves Without God”
Con could mean “they cannot” or “that sentence is false” “
In this case, the title could possibly go both ways, the debate as a whole appears 100% absolutely and totally unambiguously clear as to what your position should be prior to your acceptance. This means you have to make a very good argument to convince me that you were “confused” into accepting the wrong side of the debate, or that cons failure to specify both sides unambiguously caused you to think you were accepting a different side.
Your argument wasn’t any of these things - but was instead demanding that I simply ignore the description of the debate and focus on an interpretation that was preferrential to you and detrimental to con - for no good apparent reason.
I’m not going to do that in a billion years because it is inherently unfair to one side that made no mistake or error. Overturning the description is solely about whether the description is unfair to one side and should be to redress the unfairness.
You appeared to argue that it should be overturned to MAKE it unfair to one side because you saw a perceived way of arguing that the setup was incorrect and wanted to capitalize on that to score a cheap win.
So in that regard - he met the burden of proof in the description
By all means, share quotes matching the criteria below, I am interested in being fair and want to make sure that I have not missed where you have argued one of the key points.
In terms of the resolution, pro/con could go either way, the phrasing of the resolution could work either way.
“Moral Codes Cannot Exist In and Of Themselves Without God”
Con could mean “they cannot” or “that sentence is false”
Normally, the debate description clarified exactly - and I don’t think anyone could reasonably interpret your position as you did. And by all means if you argued that it’s not reasonable to interpretat it any other way, please quote it here.
If the resolution was “Moral codes depend on God”, and he was con arguing that moral codes depend on God, you would have a case.
In reality you give the impression that you looked at the debate, didn’t want to argue the topic at hand, but instead found some semantic way to argue against your opponent, despite it clearly not being a reasonable interpretation of what he meant.
Hi Omar,
This one is tricky: but I will clarify. I think the use of “value” here maybe a bit confusing.
Both sides are interpreting the resolution as the definition to mean two independent things. For Pro - it is exclusively that there is some harm visited upon society by homosexuals. For Con: this resolution appears to be “homosexuality is directly and on balance no more harmful to society than any other group”. Of course this is my paraphrasing of the way both presented their arguments.
I think both sides proved their side of that resolution based on that specific value condition they interpreted.
Few people actively spell out their interpretation of the resolution and argue in support of it over the other. Meaning voters are often left to chose which of the two argued resolutions they prefer in this situationsr. Often one is a bit more intuive, or the definitions more specific - but in this case I can’t take cons side as the resolution doesn’t include his aspects, and I can’t take pros side as I don’t think “any harm whatsoever” is the default interpretation of “harmful to society”.
As I can’t chose which resolution is more accurate - both sides argue that their interpretation is the one that should be followed, but unless I missed something, neither explained why in a way that allows me to say “you know, that interpretation makes more sense”
Again, thank you for the feedback. To clarify:
My criteria for overturning for the debate description is:
1.) The one wishing the description overturned has burden of proof.
2.) As the debate rules are accepted by both sides, for me to overturn it, you must do one or more of the following:
- Show how the rules inherently prevent a debate by making it impossible or difficult for one side to lose.
- Show how the rules as being interpreted by one side match the specific semantics - but not the reasonable interpretation of the definitions/rules such that one sides approach to the debate rules is not how any reasonable person would have envisaged them whilst accepting them.
- Show how the rules and description appear to have been a trap - subtle description changes from the title mean it is reasonable for the contender to think he was taking one position, but I’m actuality an easily missed semantic difference in the description means the instigator forces the contender to take another.
I may well have missed something subtle: if you can quote me the part where you provided a solid argument to support the above, I will remove my vote and devote for you.
What I saw from yourself - was you objecting to the pro and con labels (the third bullet),l. In my view the title could be taken either way, thus the description clarifies. As the description was clear and specific, I don’t think you have shown the resolution is unfairly switched, or any clear reason why I must presume this was a trap - nor that you were genuinely thinking you were debating on one side, only to have it switched by your opponent.
By all means, I may have missed something: let me know what I missed above, and I will revisit if I genuinely missed something.
Hi RM, thank you for the feedback. Just a few points:
Firstly, Con wasn’t particularly rude at any time, he seemed relatively polite throughout. While there were two points where he bordered on a little condescending - I wouldn’t consider this especially “rude” and definitely not “severely rude”
Secondly, definition is not sovereign. Arguments are sovereign. I will and have rejected definitions, rules and the description where one side provides a good argument as to why I, as a voter, should discount them. The side arguing against the description has burden to uphold here.
As I pointed out in my decision, I am rejecting your arguments and your logic as poor, and insufficient to overturn the description, because you showed no clear harm and no clear unfairness inherent in that description.
As such, when you say I am arguing “the voter is supposed to respect it over the logic of the debate or the facts of the debate” this is completly incorrect - I am respecting the definition as the logic and facts you raised were not sufficient to meet your burden for me to overturn it.
If you gave me a good reason why the description was unfair, why it was an obvious trap, or why the debate was unwinnable - I would have considered those and overturned the description.
Your focus was almost solely on CAN a voter ignore the definitions (they can) rather than SHOULD a voter ignore these definitions. As a result, you don’t overturn the definition - and the description stands.
That’s fine, lol: the definition is clear, and I cannot stand semantic tactics! I will be arguing in good faith, on the topic: just that there is a very different path that could be taken here.
The framing of the resolution doesn’t claim that we have an intrinsic moral code that outlines and defines good as an objective moral standard: but such a standard is impossible without God - and such a system is stronger than a subjective model.
IE: simply proving that our morality is entirely subjective or not, is not sufficient to win. I have to show that an objective standard with God is as good as one without, or a subjective system is just as good.
Normally, morality debates fixate on what is, rather than the hypothetical side (so I was just checking :)
Just so I don’t misunderstand: This resolution does not appear to be whether morality or our moral system is objective or not - but a hypothetical question of whether it is possible to have an infallible moral system (either objective or not) without God, right?
“Your position (pro) would argue against that hypothesis, and that a code of objective values CAN exist without God, OR, that a subjective system of ethical values could be as strong of a system”
This doesn’t seem particularly ambiguous to me.
Thanks for the challenge, hopefully I won’t need each set of 3 days - but it means I don’t have to stress about time!
If you’re willing to issue me a challenge that is an exact copy of this debate, with at least a 3 day argument period - I would happily accept and argue in good faith specifically on the topic in question
This is not a moderated debate - meaning that pinks vote cannot be removed due to a rule violation.
However, I thInk even debates like deserve individuals spending time, producing feedback, and trying to genuinely assess the content - rather than simply through any old vote on a debate for the purpose of a voting medal.
Because of this, as I can’t remove pinks vote, it is my opinion that his vote is not really fair on either debater, and should be countered for that reason to allow the deciding votes on this debate to be higher quality votes filled with more appropriate feedback that is both useful, and fair. In this case, I am very much better at assessing votes than Rap Music - which I believe is a firmly valid reason to place the vote that I did.
While you may or may not agree with this approach; it’s no more or less valid than simply posting “I liked yours better” in this context.
No problem, welcome to the site. Feel free to PM me if you have any questions.
I am an assistant moderator for votes: so my influence extends to assessing reported votes only; trying to help explain how vote moderation works.
You are correct, that this isn’t obvious (this is an oversight on our part), given that, we’ll work to correct it ; given that it’s a small community, it’s aometimes easy for us to forget that not every new person knows everything.
The rule is not a judgement on you, or an assessment that your account is fake. I was explaining the backgrounds ima of the rule and why it exists exists - to prevent fake accounts voting on debates by enforcing a minimum standard of participation.
The rule is enforced across the board when a votes are reported, and will at some point be enforced automatically by software. It’s much easier to assess an individuals participation: we just look at their profile, than it is to assess whether a fake account is truly fake
While we definitely know this will prevent real humans who will go on to contribute to the site from voting initially; the barrier is fairly low, and is easy to reach: so is reasonable limitation compared to providing the ability to weed out these fake accounts.
A little background - we have had problems in the past of particular users creating fake accounts and placing otherwise valid votes on their own debates.
Given this, we restrict the possibility of this happening by placing more restrictive limits on how much one needs to contribute to be allowed to vote: this is to dissuade individuals from simply creating a new account with a proxy and voting on their own debate. This will eventually be implemented in code, but right now is enforced manually.
You would, for example, find it suspicious if multiple accounts voted on a debate against you, when the account made little effort to engage in the side other than to post the vote against you. This rule is to try and prevent that from happening and limit to voters to those who have a minimum level of engagement.
As far as I am aware, that relates to tied votes only.
“The first policy change is that voters must offer an explanation (which is related to the content of the debate) of why they chose to award >>no points<<”
A voter only needs to explain arguments if they award conduct points based on a forfeited round (but less than half the rounds):
“In the case of awarding conduct points >>>>solely on the basis of forfeits<<<<, there is an exception to these steps: a debater may award conduct points solely for forfeited rounds, but only if one debater forfeited half or more of their rounds or if the voter also awards argument points (or explains their decision not to award argument points in a manner which meets the argument points voting standards).”
That extra post was just providing a little bit information to clarify what was good and bad about the vote - it isn’t a second attempt to moderate the vote.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Our_boat_is_right // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: win to con.
>Reason for Decision: Con proves that the original laws, despite the perception that some people or things were racist, was not founded as a white nation. He proves many things to be irrelevant, such as things like after the foundation of the country in later years, and things that had no affect on the founding documents and laws.
>Reason for Mod Action: This vote is border line, and as such is sufficient.
What is sufficient: the voter appears to reference all the main arguments made by both sides, and appears to explain why one side won with regards to the arguments being made.
What is insufficient: the voter appears to be overly brief, and doesn’t appear to explicitly reference pros arguments.
What makes this border line: reading the debate, it seems relatively clear what the voter is referring to, and it appears to cover the broad aspects of the debate - even though its brief. To make the vote sufficient I think the voter would likely not need to modify reasoning significantly (if at all), but only to add semantics such as “pro said..” and “this refuted pros argument that...” for that reason the vote is allowed.
************************************************************************