Round 1 from Whiteflame had 3 brilliant choices. While the third one was a bit ridiculous for my liking and not at all the style of Anime I enjoy (visually speaking) all three had brilliant transitions and matching of characters, colours etc to the music. The songs were the only drawback because other than Bleach's early-season opening, I didn't super love the other 2 songs but I definitely don't dislike them.
For Supa's Round 1, the first one had a decent song and I can respect the animation kind of... That flashy psychedelic style works if it's subtle but that is way too in-your-face, it actually could trigger epileptic fits if one has photosensitive triggers. It is just so eye-aching, I was not a fan of the effects since they were done too in-your-face and it didn't even make sense because the music was soothing, not rough (so why was the animation rough?). The SAO, second link, was already irritating me because of the unbelievably long and boring intro both music-wise and animation wise (too slow). Everything about this anime screamed 'why are we not moving onto the next scene?!' it was a wonderful song though and her voice is sexy, ngl. The third one from Supadudz was again very epileptic-threatening with its strobe light effects and I did have to physically skip through the video because of this (not saying I have that, I'm saying it still annoys my eyes). On the other hand, unlike his first link the strobe effects and intensity properly matched the pumping-vibe of the song. Thus, I would say his third is a good piece for sure and the anime style itself is extremely brilliant, very realistic even (which isn't always good in manga/anime but all these characters and fighting effects in the opening seem believably real to my brain as it tries to picture it as a real life 3D thing).
Supadudz's SAO (second link) is amazing. Everything about it I liked, there was nothing to dislike in it as an opening song and animation, however one thing I would say is odd is how passive it is for a sword art show. His other 2 were equally 'meh' with the first being an art style I don't like (but brilliant transitioning and okay song) and the third being boring to watch, it was like a photo-reel.
I loved all of Whiteflame's Round 2, the first link is potentially my favourite style of Anime animation ever, on part with Naruto. The way it depicts the troll goblin face, wild boar-head, cat-masks, butterflies and just the general eye concept is so fantastic. I loved this opening a lot, in ALL ways, soothing to watch indeed. The thid link was nice too, though a bit childish art-wise, it had brilliant transitions and decent music. FMA wasn't my style, why do they all look so Caucasian first of all? It's like a Danish or German local cartoon more than Anime in any shape or form and it felt boring to watch for me, as was the song. I didn't hate it but I didn't love it at all.
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH Supadudz slayed this. All three, so fucking good in all ways, especially the latter two. The first is very good indeed but the latter 2 are AMAZING even the songs. I liked it a lot. Transitions, animation-style, song-vibe all of it, spot on.
Idk what this Round was from Whiteflame... It's like cheating? Two of them weren't Anime openings regardless of them being openings for Anime. That wolf one I just straight up disqualify, it's cheating. The third link is a very nice opening, sure, and it has animation as opposed to puppets (unlike the first link) but again it feels extremely cheating because of course CGI looks better than Anime, that's a given. CGI will always display realistic objects superior to Anime due to how CGI can shade and feign 'depth' in ways Anime can't. The second link was essentially (and I say this with no transphobia intended at all) an extremely masculine female character, who is what I assume is the main character and a bunch of colour squirts in the scenes where she's not there. It was also very poor art, not becasue it was a masculine woman but just the entire way it depicts characters disproportionately. Her chin and jaw were as big as her forehead and just the whole thing was like 'eh... idk about this'. Weakest Round from whiteflame by far but the music was good.
Supadudz only was poor/meh in the first link. The latter 2 are just on point in every way, I LOVE Naruto artistically, it is the style of Anime that always will be in my top 3 no matter what other styles are come up with, I predict (whiteflame showed a style that could compete though, which I mentioned earlier in this RFD). I loved the songs of the latter 2 as well, nice and smooth to watch.
Whiteflame comes in soft... Firstly, that first link's opening is just not an opening at all at the start. What am I watching? Then out of nowhere boomboomboom flashing this character into that character bombarding my eyes and brain with too much visual stimuli at once. That's a thumbs down from me. The second is going for a mild vibe, I get it and respect it for what it is. It's a great soft-vibe opening, not the most spectactular thing ever but it wasn't supposed to be. It was great for what it was, made me feel calm. That final, third opening made me laugh actually, I don't know if they were intentionally being over the top strange and unpredictable with their transitions and animations but it put a smirk/smile on my face so I liked it even though it was very 'out there' let's say. The song oddly did match the opening even though they're paced differently.
For me, Whiteflame is the overall winner because of consistency. Supadudz had extreme highs and many more lows than Whiteflame did. Whiteflame's worst Round involved him trying too hard to be creative, I feel, which is an understandable reason. Supadudz's worst Rounds were the ones he was opening with, which are not the Rounds you want to 'meh' your audience or annoy them with. I have my opinion and I don't need to put some 'score' to justify this. If I did a score, I guarantee you, Supadudz falls short due to the inconsistency earlier on.
As someone who loathes privatised prison and Reaganomics, I already have a good sense how to frame this debate from the Con position, it just has even more points to it in Con's favour than that.
Con talks at the maximum before 'too fast' in fact maybe also too fast. This is such a huge flaw I hear in live debates. Why not just make it longer time if you both don't wanna cut down content?
I actually would remove faux law's vote because it insufficiently explained the tied arguments. I think his conduct vote was fine and I avoid falsely accusing my opponents of 'essentially conceding' unless I can objectively explain why and how.
It's also my specialty, though I rarely do it and more usually take your side but Google in particular I have found is the most unfairly demonised of the tech companies. It's a genuine antihero and you can say and do more on YouTube than any other equivalent platform that has the reach it has.
You're someone who has spent the entire past two threads he created to defend white supremacy and talk ill of black people and any who sympathise with them against racism. I recommend you don't say shit about me, or I'll talk about you.
Don't need to quote them. They are the only proof of it, all else is based on the axiom that they've proven we are on a curved, rotating earth as this then backs gravity which backs up a lot of other theories.
You agreed with me then called it a persecution complex. There's extreme peer pressure in all scientific communities to not doubt the round earth theory (or fact that we blindly trust NASA amd Roscosmos). This is not a persecution complex, this is genuine persecution.
Your mockery doesn't even make any sense, just shows you know how to make up stuff. Noone is saying that there is a fan causing waves in the flat earth.
There's a lot of grounding to call it a theory but if a professional scientist backs it, they get fired. I'd be in the closet if I were a scientist and I'm not saying I'm not in the closet.
Now that I've seen the anti-simulation rule, this debate is even more corrupt. Flat earth theory inherently posits that god(s) is/are simulating the flat plane.
Yeah very easy to prove in so few characters, you say NASA says so, paste a link to gravity and you're gucci.
Pro can't explain these away in so few characters, especially not when you ask wHeRe Is ThE eDgE? Which is in Antarctica, with encircles the Earth and is not proof against flat Earth, since the flat Earth model makes it clear why you can't go to the edge remotely easily at all.
This fandom wiki fails to mention that a whole episode before Eleanor accidentally provokes a revealing reaction from Linda, that Tahani had already told her she thought Linda was a demon-plant.
Regardless, I don't want to win by that vote alone. Feel free to vote, I am not ashamed of my performance in this debate, I played very defensive and strategic, I believe.
People have been beaten to a fucking pulp because of being gay. Beaten, humiliated, tormented, scared shit. It is not a choice. Noone would choose to be gay if you knew what it costed them to be it.
I don't think that the voters on this debate had any clue just how deeply satirical and clever Pro's case was. Pro was imitating Trump at first and his supporters in later Rounds, read very carefully and you will spot what can only be imitation and satire.
Read misterchris's RFD. He builds a good RFD to justify voting Pro then out of nowhere, ignores the sources point allocation, switches everything to Con because Con said the costs are too great and gives Conduct to Pro for Con posting too many new points in Round 3.
You are correct that only the debate's contents should factor in. Therefore it should be absent from your mind how much video games cost, for instance.
I am only challenging you because you are a voting moderator mostly. I would simply wait until the debate is over for a normal situation, since then it isn't voter tampering. Everyone who voted Con in this debate doesn't understand Tabula Rasa but your RFD didn't even highlight why you thought Con won until the last sections of it, the complete opposite was signified until that point.
Yes because you're abusing loopholes and technicalities. For instance, you correctly showed events in the debate then magically said the benefits are outweighed by the costs because Con says so.
You know deep down you voted wrong, to tie the points.
I am appealing to you and I know they will probably leave the vote up but this is a very unwise move by you because Ragnar will see your vote for what it is while not necessarily removing it. It shows lack of integrity and intentional abusing of loopholes in the rules, such as intentionally dodging the sources point because it's not mandatory.
You are completely wrong but you don't understand Tabula Rasa, I have reported your vote anyway and am curious how Ragnar or blamonkey will justify you keeping it up.
If they do, I will explain more absurdity in the turnaround at the end as well as the way you dodge giving Pro sources YET GIVE PRO CONDUCT.
You have a loaded vote intended to tie the points, for reasons that are strange to me.
Yes, I am accusing you of intentional corrupt voting. No, I do not care if this is against the CoC to accuse in the comments. I will explain more later after the verdict on your vote is given.
that was a ridiculous vote, your RFD clearly showed all the flaws in Con's case and strength in Pro's. Your vote makes NO sense, the turnaround at the end doesn't add up at all.
(RFD 1/3)
I have already achieved the gold 'medal' (site achievement) of voting and don't care about being 'the most overall voter' so I generally opt to vote minimalistically, as it also helps avoid grudges but more importantly saves me effort that will potentially piss someone off (the loser) or corrupt the system (if the winner begins to repay me). Regardless, the reason I am voting on this debate is because it is so close and with so many voters that I feel it is net-detrimental to opt out, as I am capable and (after reading) I do see a winner, though the other put up a decent fight.
Tied points: S&G and Conduct.
The S&G point is easy to justify, both sides presented their arguments in clear English and decent enough formatting that neither side can be justified to lose the point.
The Conduct point is more a case of both sides being sassy enough with each other and 'declaring' what the other side had failed to address in later Rounds. Con also did something that I do personally factor into my Conduct voting; bypassed character limitations by pasting URLs in the comments, despite his opponent remaining limited by several sentences in Round 1 due to pasting full URLs. Since Con only uses one source in Round 1 and Pro never brings up the issue, I will dismiss this as being mild even though in a 3k-only debate, that's actually not 'mild' per se, had Con used many more sources in his first Round and Pro raised the issue, I may have honestly voted differently here.
The (3) Arguments point(s) (go)es to Pro, as (do)es the (2) Sources point(s):
Let's skip to the juiciest issue of the debate; is 'should' based on necessity or seeking the most benefit for students? In reality, these are two extremes (minimalism vs maximal-gain ethos) while the true answer lies in the pragmatic justification for benefits being outweighed by costs or vice versa. There is also one further way this debate can go differently and in policy debates it's more common to see; Con could suggest a counterplan or alternative thing to video games that give the same benefits for less cost (or more benefits that are worth the higher cost or whatever). Con does try this by merely mentioning project-based learning but doesn't even begin to explain the benefits of it nor how they outweigh those of video games. Furthermore, cost becomes a very big issue for Con as it was his best point made in the whole debate and yet he provides 0 sourcing or evidence to back it up.
It is clear that to Con, a pillar of this debate was the necessity of implementing the plan, which Con felt was a huge portion of Pro's Burden of Proof (BoP), whereas Pro weakly pushes back on it in Round 2 but comes in much stronger in Round 3, which is where the source vote comes in but I'll explain that in the Sources section of my RFD. The problem, which is perhaps again linked to how well or poorly Con used sources, is that Con didn't use sources, let alone strong ones, for the hugest points that he was making:
1) Con says this (which is an EXCELLENT rebuttal even though it should have been a contention):
"If the effects of video games in school can be replaced by something that can be accomplished by a teacher, a staple of paper, and a single screen, then there is no need for video games because obviously, the latter is MUCH more expensive, with devices minimum at the number of a single class."
He doesn't use a single source in THIS ENTIRE brilliant rebuttal and so everything he is saying becomes (within the debate) baseless assertion. This complete lack of backing it up with data or research is why the rebuttal is then able to be easily handled by Pro in Round 3 (though Pro could have done much more to take it more Head-on already in Round 2, Pro should have been ready).
Con doesn't prove that conventional teaching methods are capable of equalling the benefits of a new teaching system that incorporates video games. Furthermore, he doesn't give a single hint, let alone clarified stat or sale price, budget or anything, to indicate the 'costs much more and isn't worth it' angle of this rebuttal. This means that Con has effectively said nothing because both of these points required some solid research or source to make them become more than baseless assertion. Con clearly feels both angles are 'obviously true' but that is not how I approach judging debates and is correct of me not to do.
Pro tackles the necessity angle with turning Con's source 1 (which is the same as Con's source 2, literally) against him. Now, I also don't believe in me as the judge reading the source itself and voting this way or that based on it, but Pro explicitly turns the source against Con in the final Round and I must admit that not only did Pro excellently do this, in terms of precision, but the entire message being conveyed in Con's source is supportive of incorporating games and recreation into learning, it merely posits that this shouldn't be the only way that the subjects are made more fun. I am aware that this is me 'reading the source' but Pro explicitly attacked Con's source, so to judge if this was disingenuous nitpicking and overall anti-gaming source by Pro or Con's foul use of a source, I then had to read it.
Now, moving away from the 'necessity' angle, we come into the benefits aspect of the debate (since the 'costs' angle is baselessly asserted by Con foremost in Round 2 but again in Round 3, without concrete stats or research to back it up). The 'benefits' essentially became the entire debate due to necessity and costs being zero-sum angles.
This is where Pro wins the debate. You see, Con is correct in his Round 3, Pro did basically have only 2 core points:
"Playing games could make you better at learning
Playing games isn't necessarily bad"
However, Con agrees to point 2 wholeheartedly, not just his source, since he himself agreed to this several times because his entire angle was that while there undoubtedly are benefits, it's not essential enough to be worth the cost. As for point 1, 'could' is an unfair exaggeration, 'would' and 'already can be demonstrated to, depending on game format' is a better way to explain Pro's actual angle in that regard.
Con's only hope to win the debate, if we eliminate everything else already mentioned, would be to BUILD his case on project-based learning (PBL) as a counterplan rather than keep trying to tear down the necessity of video games, which he keeps conceding will be beneficial. Con clearly is stating that in his eyes, PBL gives more benefits, less drawbacks (competition and cost) and... I'm not sure but it seems that in Round 2 Con hints at the legal complications and unfeasibility of getting this to pass as legally being an approved and enforced part of all public education curriculums and teaching methods, with there being an implicit hint from him that PBL is going to be much easier to enforce.
Pro completely neglects addressing PBL as a valid alternative, however as I said, Con never built a case for it. In fact, the sources 3 and 4 both were merely definitions of 'incorporate' and 'curriculum' so Con again fails to properly build a backed-up case for his counterplan.
Throughout the debate, Con states no concrete data, statistics or research regarding the benefits vs cost analysis of video games and/or PBL (nor comparing the two in any direct sense UNTIL THE LAST ROUND when Pro can't reply to any of it and actually many brand new points were made by Con in the final Round but it seems more out of not appreciating the debate structure and thinking he was merely explaining his points in-depth, whereas he was genuinely making brand new points and comparisons). We have quite literally got no way to believe what Con says, regarding benefits vs cost as well as feasibility of getting this legally enforced in public education curriculums is valid. Con had to back this up with sources, Pro meanwhile backs up things that are even somewhat absurd, such as that heavy gamers OUTPERFORM non-gamers at school? I'm skeptical about this being a rule, rather than that exceptions exist, but Pro uses scientific journals, concrete research and statistics to back it up.
In summary, Pro wins because when it comes to benefits vs costs, we have both sides agree on benefits and Con keeps saying there are drawbacks and expensive costs, without backing it up.
that doesn't prove the Earth is curved, it proves it's circular.
Even real flat-earthers hold Einstein as far superior to Newton (who was largely a poser that took credit for his underlings' work).
Round 1 from Whiteflame had 3 brilliant choices. While the third one was a bit ridiculous for my liking and not at all the style of Anime I enjoy (visually speaking) all three had brilliant transitions and matching of characters, colours etc to the music. The songs were the only drawback because other than Bleach's early-season opening, I didn't super love the other 2 songs but I definitely don't dislike them.
For Supa's Round 1, the first one had a decent song and I can respect the animation kind of... That flashy psychedelic style works if it's subtle but that is way too in-your-face, it actually could trigger epileptic fits if one has photosensitive triggers. It is just so eye-aching, I was not a fan of the effects since they were done too in-your-face and it didn't even make sense because the music was soothing, not rough (so why was the animation rough?). The SAO, second link, was already irritating me because of the unbelievably long and boring intro both music-wise and animation wise (too slow). Everything about this anime screamed 'why are we not moving onto the next scene?!' it was a wonderful song though and her voice is sexy, ngl. The third one from Supadudz was again very epileptic-threatening with its strobe light effects and I did have to physically skip through the video because of this (not saying I have that, I'm saying it still annoys my eyes). On the other hand, unlike his first link the strobe effects and intensity properly matched the pumping-vibe of the song. Thus, I would say his third is a good piece for sure and the anime style itself is extremely brilliant, very realistic even (which isn't always good in manga/anime but all these characters and fighting effects in the opening seem believably real to my brain as it tries to picture it as a real life 3D thing).
So, overall Whiteflame is winning now for sure.
Round 2
Supadudz's SAO (second link) is amazing. Everything about it I liked, there was nothing to dislike in it as an opening song and animation, however one thing I would say is odd is how passive it is for a sword art show. His other 2 were equally 'meh' with the first being an art style I don't like (but brilliant transitioning and okay song) and the third being boring to watch, it was like a photo-reel.
I loved all of Whiteflame's Round 2, the first link is potentially my favourite style of Anime animation ever, on part with Naruto. The way it depicts the troll goblin face, wild boar-head, cat-masks, butterflies and just the general eye concept is so fantastic. I loved this opening a lot, in ALL ways, soothing to watch indeed. The thid link was nice too, though a bit childish art-wise, it had brilliant transitions and decent music. FMA wasn't my style, why do they all look so Caucasian first of all? It's like a Danish or German local cartoon more than Anime in any shape or form and it felt boring to watch for me, as was the song. I didn't hate it but I didn't love it at all.
Round 3
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH Supadudz slayed this. All three, so fucking good in all ways, especially the latter two. The first is very good indeed but the latter 2 are AMAZING even the songs. I liked it a lot. Transitions, animation-style, song-vibe all of it, spot on.
Idk what this Round was from Whiteflame... It's like cheating? Two of them weren't Anime openings regardless of them being openings for Anime. That wolf one I just straight up disqualify, it's cheating. The third link is a very nice opening, sure, and it has animation as opposed to puppets (unlike the first link) but again it feels extremely cheating because of course CGI looks better than Anime, that's a given. CGI will always display realistic objects superior to Anime due to how CGI can shade and feign 'depth' in ways Anime can't. The second link was essentially (and I say this with no transphobia intended at all) an extremely masculine female character, who is what I assume is the main character and a bunch of colour squirts in the scenes where she's not there. It was also very poor art, not becasue it was a masculine woman but just the entire way it depicts characters disproportionately. Her chin and jaw were as big as her forehead and just the whole thing was like 'eh... idk about this'. Weakest Round from whiteflame by far but the music was good.
Round 4
Supadudz only was poor/meh in the first link. The latter 2 are just on point in every way, I LOVE Naruto artistically, it is the style of Anime that always will be in my top 3 no matter what other styles are come up with, I predict (whiteflame showed a style that could compete though, which I mentioned earlier in this RFD). I loved the songs of the latter 2 as well, nice and smooth to watch.
Whiteflame comes in soft... Firstly, that first link's opening is just not an opening at all at the start. What am I watching? Then out of nowhere boomboomboom flashing this character into that character bombarding my eyes and brain with too much visual stimuli at once. That's a thumbs down from me. The second is going for a mild vibe, I get it and respect it for what it is. It's a great soft-vibe opening, not the most spectactular thing ever but it wasn't supposed to be. It was great for what it was, made me feel calm. That final, third opening made me laugh actually, I don't know if they were intentionally being over the top strange and unpredictable with their transitions and animations but it put a smirk/smile on my face so I liked it even though it was very 'out there' let's say. The song oddly did match the opening even though they're paced differently.
For me, Whiteflame is the overall winner because of consistency. Supadudz had extreme highs and many more lows than Whiteflame did. Whiteflame's worst Round involved him trying too hard to be creative, I feel, which is an understandable reason. Supadudz's worst Rounds were the ones he was opening with, which are not the Rounds you want to 'meh' your audience or annoy them with. I have my opinion and I don't need to put some 'score' to justify this. If I did a score, I guarantee you, Supadudz falls short due to the inconsistency earlier on.
Both sides playing dirty in this debate.
As someone who loathes privatised prison and Reaganomics, I already have a good sense how to frame this debate from the Con position, it just has even more points to it in Con's favour than that.
Thankyouforreplyintomehopyuunderstand whatimsayin
Thistoofastforya? Okaysocontentiononeisbddkdjdj
Con talks at the maximum before 'too fast' in fact maybe also too fast. This is such a huge flaw I hear in live debates. Why not just make it longer time if you both don't wanna cut down content?
Pro talks too fast
I actually would remove faux law's vote because it insufficiently explained the tied arguments. I think his conduct vote was fine and I avoid falsely accusing my opponents of 'essentially conceding' unless I can objectively explain why and how.
Thanks for the vote.
It's also my specialty, though I rarely do it and more usually take your side but Google in particular I have found is the most unfairly demonised of the tech companies. It's a genuine antihero and you can say and do more on YouTube than any other equivalent platform that has the reach it has.
You're someone who has spent the entire past two threads he created to defend white supremacy and talk ill of black people and any who sympathise with them against racism. I recommend you don't say shit about me, or I'll talk about you.
Don't need to quote them. They are the only proof of it, all else is based on the axiom that they've proven we are on a curved, rotating earth as this then backs gravity which backs up a lot of other theories.
Idk what you're trying to achieve here. Do you want me to dislike you or others to laugh? Only the former is going to happen.
You agreed with me then called it a persecution complex. There's extreme peer pressure in all scientific communities to not doubt the round earth theory (or fact that we blindly trust NASA amd Roscosmos). This is not a persecution complex, this is genuine persecution.
Your mockery doesn't even make any sense, just shows you know how to make up stuff. Noone is saying that there is a fan causing waves in the flat earth.
There's a lot of grounding to call it a theory but if a professional scientist backs it, they get fired. I'd be in the closet if I were a scientist and I'm not saying I'm not in the closet.
Now that I've seen the anti-simulation rule, this debate is even more corrupt. Flat earth theory inherently posits that god(s) is/are simulating the flat plane.
Yeah very easy to prove in so few characters, you say NASA says so, paste a link to gravity and you're gucci.
Pro can't explain these away in so few characters, especially not when you ask wHeRe Is ThE eDgE? Which is in Antarctica, with encircles the Earth and is not proof against flat Earth, since the flat Earth model makes it clear why you can't go to the edge remotely easily at all.
https://thegoodplace.fandom.com/wiki/Linda_Johannsen
I misspelled Johannsen in my Round 2.
This fandom wiki fails to mention that a whole episode before Eleanor accidentally provokes a revealing reaction from Linda, that Tahani had already told her she thought Linda was a demon-plant.
Ragnar is biased in more ways than one.
Regardless, I don't want to win by that vote alone. Feel free to vote, I am not ashamed of my performance in this debate, I played very defensive and strategic, I believe.
Facts don't matter more than feelings, that's just how you feel about them. Xoxo
People have been beaten to a fucking pulp because of being gay. Beaten, humiliated, tormented, scared shit. It is not a choice. Noone would choose to be gay if you knew what it costed them to be it.
It is homophobic to be Pro on this topic. I do not care what you say.
Please remember tabula rasa when you vote.
Hall of fame worthy debate: pro-homophobia.
#ofcourse
#hofforsure
I don't think that the voters on this debate had any clue just how deeply satirical and clever Pro's case was. Pro was imitating Trump at first and his supporters in later Rounds, read very carefully and you will spot what can only be imitation and satire.
????????????????????
That isn't proof of winner selection being better, it's proof that you should not be sloppy on sourcing.
Read misterchris's RFD. He builds a good RFD to justify voting Pro then out of nowhere, ignores the sources point allocation, switches everything to Con because Con said the costs are too great and gives Conduct to Pro for Con posting too many new points in Round 3.
You tell me his vote seems legit? Read it.
Con never proves the costs are severe, let alone that his counter plan outweighs the benefits.
Tabula Rasa indeed means throwing any education out the window that isn't purely semantic and required to follow the debate.
You are correct that only the debate's contents should factor in. Therefore it should be absent from your mind how much video games cost, for instance.
I am only challenging you because you are a voting moderator mostly. I would simply wait until the debate is over for a normal situation, since then it isn't voter tampering. Everyone who voted Con in this debate doesn't understand Tabula Rasa but your RFD didn't even highlight why you thought Con won until the last sections of it, the complete opposite was signified until that point.
Yes because you're abusing loopholes and technicalities. For instance, you correctly showed events in the debate then magically said the benefits are outweighed by the costs because Con says so.
You are making both debaters owe you. This is the only sensible motive I can see.
You know deep down you voted wrong, to tie the points.
I am appealing to you and I know they will probably leave the vote up but this is a very unwise move by you because Ragnar will see your vote for what it is while not necessarily removing it. It shows lack of integrity and intentional abusing of loopholes in the rules, such as intentionally dodging the sources point because it's not mandatory.
it's possible my report didn't go through because ragnar removed my ability to report forum posts and comments.
why would i 'justify conduct point' based on what others are voting?
I did report his vote, he is lying.
You are completely wrong but you don't understand Tabula Rasa, I have reported your vote anyway and am curious how Ragnar or blamonkey will justify you keeping it up.
If they do, I will explain more absurdity in the turnaround at the end as well as the way you dodge giving Pro sources YET GIVE PRO CONDUCT.
You have a loaded vote intended to tie the points, for reasons that are strange to me.
Yes, I am accusing you of intentional corrupt voting. No, I do not care if this is against the CoC to accuse in the comments. I will explain more later after the verdict on your vote is given.
as a voting mod, how the fuck do you justify not giving sources to Pro?
that was a ridiculous vote, your RFD clearly showed all the flaws in Con's case and strength in Pro's. Your vote makes NO sense, the turnaround at the end doesn't add up at all.
(RFD 1/3)
I have already achieved the gold 'medal' (site achievement) of voting and don't care about being 'the most overall voter' so I generally opt to vote minimalistically, as it also helps avoid grudges but more importantly saves me effort that will potentially piss someone off (the loser) or corrupt the system (if the winner begins to repay me). Regardless, the reason I am voting on this debate is because it is so close and with so many voters that I feel it is net-detrimental to opt out, as I am capable and (after reading) I do see a winner, though the other put up a decent fight.
Tied points: S&G and Conduct.
The S&G point is easy to justify, both sides presented their arguments in clear English and decent enough formatting that neither side can be justified to lose the point.
The Conduct point is more a case of both sides being sassy enough with each other and 'declaring' what the other side had failed to address in later Rounds. Con also did something that I do personally factor into my Conduct voting; bypassed character limitations by pasting URLs in the comments, despite his opponent remaining limited by several sentences in Round 1 due to pasting full URLs. Since Con only uses one source in Round 1 and Pro never brings up the issue, I will dismiss this as being mild even though in a 3k-only debate, that's actually not 'mild' per se, had Con used many more sources in his first Round and Pro raised the issue, I may have honestly voted differently here.
(RFD 2/3)
The (3) Arguments point(s) (go)es to Pro, as (do)es the (2) Sources point(s):
Let's skip to the juiciest issue of the debate; is 'should' based on necessity or seeking the most benefit for students? In reality, these are two extremes (minimalism vs maximal-gain ethos) while the true answer lies in the pragmatic justification for benefits being outweighed by costs or vice versa. There is also one further way this debate can go differently and in policy debates it's more common to see; Con could suggest a counterplan or alternative thing to video games that give the same benefits for less cost (or more benefits that are worth the higher cost or whatever). Con does try this by merely mentioning project-based learning but doesn't even begin to explain the benefits of it nor how they outweigh those of video games. Furthermore, cost becomes a very big issue for Con as it was his best point made in the whole debate and yet he provides 0 sourcing or evidence to back it up.
It is clear that to Con, a pillar of this debate was the necessity of implementing the plan, which Con felt was a huge portion of Pro's Burden of Proof (BoP), whereas Pro weakly pushes back on it in Round 2 but comes in much stronger in Round 3, which is where the source vote comes in but I'll explain that in the Sources section of my RFD. The problem, which is perhaps again linked to how well or poorly Con used sources, is that Con didn't use sources, let alone strong ones, for the hugest points that he was making:
1) Con says this (which is an EXCELLENT rebuttal even though it should have been a contention):
"If the effects of video games in school can be replaced by something that can be accomplished by a teacher, a staple of paper, and a single screen, then there is no need for video games because obviously, the latter is MUCH more expensive, with devices minimum at the number of a single class."
He doesn't use a single source in THIS ENTIRE brilliant rebuttal and so everything he is saying becomes (within the debate) baseless assertion. This complete lack of backing it up with data or research is why the rebuttal is then able to be easily handled by Pro in Round 3 (though Pro could have done much more to take it more Head-on already in Round 2, Pro should have been ready).
Con doesn't prove that conventional teaching methods are capable of equalling the benefits of a new teaching system that incorporates video games. Furthermore, he doesn't give a single hint, let alone clarified stat or sale price, budget or anything, to indicate the 'costs much more and isn't worth it' angle of this rebuttal. This means that Con has effectively said nothing because both of these points required some solid research or source to make them become more than baseless assertion. Con clearly feels both angles are 'obviously true' but that is not how I approach judging debates and is correct of me not to do.
Pro tackles the necessity angle with turning Con's source 1 (which is the same as Con's source 2, literally) against him. Now, I also don't believe in me as the judge reading the source itself and voting this way or that based on it, but Pro explicitly turns the source against Con in the final Round and I must admit that not only did Pro excellently do this, in terms of precision, but the entire message being conveyed in Con's source is supportive of incorporating games and recreation into learning, it merely posits that this shouldn't be the only way that the subjects are made more fun. I am aware that this is me 'reading the source' but Pro explicitly attacked Con's source, so to judge if this was disingenuous nitpicking and overall anti-gaming source by Pro or Con's foul use of a source, I then had to read it.
Now, moving away from the 'necessity' angle, we come into the benefits aspect of the debate (since the 'costs' angle is baselessly asserted by Con foremost in Round 2 but again in Round 3, without concrete stats or research to back it up). The 'benefits' essentially became the entire debate due to necessity and costs being zero-sum angles.
(RFD 3/3)
This is where Pro wins the debate. You see, Con is correct in his Round 3, Pro did basically have only 2 core points:
"Playing games could make you better at learning
Playing games isn't necessarily bad"
However, Con agrees to point 2 wholeheartedly, not just his source, since he himself agreed to this several times because his entire angle was that while there undoubtedly are benefits, it's not essential enough to be worth the cost. As for point 1, 'could' is an unfair exaggeration, 'would' and 'already can be demonstrated to, depending on game format' is a better way to explain Pro's actual angle in that regard.
Con's only hope to win the debate, if we eliminate everything else already mentioned, would be to BUILD his case on project-based learning (PBL) as a counterplan rather than keep trying to tear down the necessity of video games, which he keeps conceding will be beneficial. Con clearly is stating that in his eyes, PBL gives more benefits, less drawbacks (competition and cost) and... I'm not sure but it seems that in Round 2 Con hints at the legal complications and unfeasibility of getting this to pass as legally being an approved and enforced part of all public education curriculums and teaching methods, with there being an implicit hint from him that PBL is going to be much easier to enforce.
Pro completely neglects addressing PBL as a valid alternative, however as I said, Con never built a case for it. In fact, the sources 3 and 4 both were merely definitions of 'incorporate' and 'curriculum' so Con again fails to properly build a backed-up case for his counterplan.
Throughout the debate, Con states no concrete data, statistics or research regarding the benefits vs cost analysis of video games and/or PBL (nor comparing the two in any direct sense UNTIL THE LAST ROUND when Pro can't reply to any of it and actually many brand new points were made by Con in the final Round but it seems more out of not appreciating the debate structure and thinking he was merely explaining his points in-depth, whereas he was genuinely making brand new points and comparisons). We have quite literally got no way to believe what Con says, regarding benefits vs cost as well as feasibility of getting this legally enforced in public education curriculums is valid. Con had to back this up with sources, Pro meanwhile backs up things that are even somewhat absurd, such as that heavy gamers OUTPERFORM non-gamers at school? I'm skeptical about this being a rule, rather than that exceptions exist, but Pro uses scientific journals, concrete research and statistics to back it up.
In summary, Pro wins because when it comes to benefits vs costs, we have both sides agree on benefits and Con keeps saying there are drawbacks and expensive costs, without backing it up.
Thanks for your vote. I like the feedback too.
if everyone spammed like you did, it would negate the reason you are doing it.
Boat hump
Oh sorry it's covid, I can't.