That is a subjective opinion. If a consenting woman or man wants to enjoy sex and get paid for it, who are they hurting? If a woman or man wants to pay for sex with someone, they consensually choose to pay for it, who are they hurting? How is it "wrong"!?!
What a poorly executed debate.
I cannot even bring myself to vote on it...since as Barney said, neither said met their BOP and I don't think it was a tie for anything.
"Cultural appropriation:
the unacknowledged or inappropriate adoption of the customs, practices, ideas, etc. of one people or society by members of another [[and typically more dominant]] people or society."
That's a flagrant double standard right there. Okay for one, but not the other. Do as I say, not as I do. *facepalm*
Dominance has nothing to do with it.
Human history covers how one culture will adopt aspects of another. It's called "assimilation" for a reason.
If this is harmful, then all black women with straightened hair, or wigs that are straight with colors not naturally common among black women need to stop it then.
Go back to the curly nappy hair that you're born with and be proud of it.
There are multiple examples of how cultures have "assimilated" aspects of other cultures. This accusation of 'cultural appropriation' is pure racist bullshit. More than that, it's childish. It's like to kids fighting on the playground bitching about whose toy is better. and when one is decided is better, they fight for possession over it. The victor being the model of what to follow, so others want the shiny new better toy too.
~ "Why not viability outside the womb or some other standard?"
Someone is confusing fetal viability with just viability. I suggest they get a dictionary and learn the inherent differences between the two terms, in CONTEXT!!!
Apologies, but honestly not interested in these rap battles. Got a lot going on outside DART at moment with chores, yard work and an 80s muscle car to work on. 🍻
“….with guns laws even remotely as lax as ours with a low gun deaths….”
The laws regulating and restricting gun ownership/possession/use are not even close to being “remotely lax,” this is a pure emotively driven unsubstantiated uneducated opinion on your part.
Science has not developed in regards to gender. It’s been perverted by those I previously mentioned, for whom the left and the trans cultists have honed in on to capitalize in their excuses to rationalize and justify their sexual perversions. Fact.
“… has "less scientific backup" than other defintions.”??
You’re kidding, right?
Current iterations of the term are what lack any scientific evidence.
You clearly don’t know the true origins of the whole trans/queer ideology movement, do you!?! It started in the early 90s with so-called German sexologists who were proven Pedophiles and frustrates sexual deviants. That’s where the term cis/cissexualuty/cisgender came from - pedos!!!
The original meaning of the term retains the most integrity.
The bullshit twisted made up convenient definition. Is merely to pacify the left and the clowns claiming otherwise using their fictitious made up term. This includes any leftist with an agenda with a piece of paper from some university over their head claiming to be a science major.
Respect is earned, not given; and you certainly have not earned it.
I did it to test orogami, as he is has proven himself a hypocrite on more than one occasion. He has also proven himself a liar too (claiming he can’t remove votes after the voting period has ended when he can).
Don’t you worry little one, I’ll be voting…soon.
As expected. You’re like a dog running to the dog whistle. Predictable.
I tested you in this and you didn’t disappoint. I have plenty of time now to meet your criteria. If met and you still remove my vote, once again you’ll prove your biased hypocrisy.
Yeah, you did lie, and I showed the receipts for it.
Besides, anyone can read the dialogue from #1 to present and see you're a liar.
Not only that, your reading comprehension sucks!
Now ignore the comments and get back to debating hey-ho.
"However, I did ask him to make sure his vote was based on the criteria and not his personal opinions. He's not only given no assurances that he would..."
~ LIAR LIAR!
From #12: "And I can and will vote. So long as I meet all the required criteria for voting and do so in a logical manner..."
"he has all but assured me "you will lose,"
Quoting out of context is a fallacy:
From #9 you said, "Sir, opinions made from experiences are never objective." and I replied to this that yes, you will LOSE this debate; especially if you believe that bologna. On that note, I am 100% factually accurate.
The rest of your comment was nothing short of a strawman-ad hominem argument. Pure emotive bunk!
His registration shows he has been here since 2022. That's hardly "new," though he/she definitely "acts" 'new.'
FFS, oromagi...what is wrong with constructive criticism to both sides to give them a helping hand on what to do to make their arguments more convincing? How is that being a POS?
I get you do not like me, and I definitely do not care for you in the slightest. But show an ounce of integrity and be more professional in exercising your duties here. You've already proven to be a hypocrite, don't prove yourself to be a complete and total tyrant asshole too.
My first two comments were nothing short of constructive criticism.
Clearly Americandebater24 couldn't handle it and got triggered! He reaped what he sowed with his conduct and attitude going forward in the comments. I do not take it kindly when someone personally attacks me by any means or measure for no reason.
Ever stop and think had Americandebater24 just either stayed quiet and ignored me, or he could have simply said, "thank you for the criticism" and went away. We wouldn't be here. But we are here because of HIS conduct and attitude, not mine.
For every action there will be an equal or greater reaction.
Notice hey-ho hasn't said anything? Hmmm...let that sink in.
Slavery is more often than not lifelong.
IF anything, it would be involuntary servitude, which is a short period of time.
She wins her freedom upon the birth of the unwanted pregnancy.
slavery (n.)
1550s, "severe toil, hard work, drudgery;" from slave (v.) + -ery. The meaning "state of servitude, condition of a slave, entire subjection to the will and commands of another" is from 1570s; the sense of "the keeping or holding of slaves" is from 1728.
There is no comparison to pregnancy.
What happens when a girl/woman is forced to do something against their will, like give birth, makes them society's personal incubator. That's it.
gender (n.)
c. 1300, "kind, sort, class, a class or kind of persons or things sharing certain traits," from Old French gendre, genre "kind, species; character; gender" (12c., Modern French genre), from stem of Latin genus (genitive generis) "race, stock, family; kind, rank, order; species," also "(male or female) sex," from PIE root *gene- "give birth, beget," with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups.
The unetymological -d- is a phonetic accretion in Old French (compare sound (n.1)). Also used in Latin to translate Aristotle's Greek grammatical term genos. The grammatical sense is attested in English from late 14c. Jespersen ("Philosophy of Grammar," 1924) defines grammatical gender by reference to the Indo-European distinction of masculine, feminine, neuter, "whether the division be based on the natural division into two sexes, or on that between animate and inanimate, or on something else."
The "male-or-female sex" sense of the word is attested in English from early 15c. As sex (n.) took on erotic qualities in 20c., gender came to be the usual English word for "sex of a human being," in which use it was at first regarded as colloquial or humorous. Later often in feminist writing with reference to social attributes as much as biological qualities; this sense first attested 1963. Gender-bender is from 1977, popularized from 1980, with reference to pop star David Bowie.
And just like the proverbial little child, he runs and tattle tales to mommy and daddy.
You’re definitely not going to succeed at DART with that disposition.
And I can and will vote. So long as I meet all the required criteria for voting and do so in a logical manner, you can’t stop me and if the mods have an ounce of integrity, neither will they.
“ Sir, opinions made from experiences are never objective.”
BWAAAHAAHAAHAAAHAAA!!!
Guess all those books, research papers, investigative journalism, and any and all other levels of investigations citing sources based on the author’s “experiences” aren’t “objective” (I.e., based on fact based data).
"You are free to think that my rebuttals are weak, but without a proper explanation, that's a biased opinion..."
My objective (not subjective) opinion was explained given my experience. It is not biased since I also gave the opposing side constructive criticism/advice just the same.
And I do not need you to parrot the garbage you already spouted off as the basis of your so-called argument.
You're an amateur debater, obviously young and inexperienced.
I have a degree in cirminology and criminal justice, worked in law enforcement as both an investigator and in a civilian capacity. I've also worked in a DA's Office as well. I know a helluva lot more than you do where this subject matter is concerned.
No more helpful constructive criticism from me; you can just fall on your own sword then.
You need to focus more on what you already put forth. More specifically, address the matter of the reliability of criminal background checks, which are the worst to make decisions off of and which are the best to make decisions off of. There is a difference between the various levels that some people pay for, not all are reliable whereas others are incredibly reliable. This speaks to the due diligence of the potential employer doing their research.
First and foremost, you haven't convinced me to vote for you. Your rebuttals are weak, to be honest.
Second, in order for you to have any leverage in this debate you must tip the scale in favor of the convicted by demonstrating that the benefit of their hiring outweighs the risk. So far you failed to do that whereas Con has demonstrated through the EEOC and the various jurisdictions of law that outlines that the risk does outweighs the benefit.
Lastly, having worked for a County Sheriff as their first civilian hire to perform background investigations on all new applicants for deputy sheriff (and subsequently every county office due to word of mouth that I was just that good at my job, other agencies asked the Sheriff to use my talents for their candidates), you have a huge hurdle to convince me. I will be watching this debate, and I will be voting.
"When a woman is impregnated, (Accidently or otherwise) the sperm from the male connects with one of the female's Ovum. From that point onward a child starts to grow, a HUMAN child, with as much right to life as it's mother if not more due to its young age."
You're confusing gestational development with psychological and physiological development via maturation.
You're arguing against potentiality =/= actuality, which is futile
You're not using the correct definition of malice:
"Malice
The intentional commission of a wrongful act, absent justification, with the intent to cause harm to others; conscious violation of the law that injures another individual; a mental state indicating a disposition in disregard of social duty and a tendency toward malfeasance."
An abortion is not a violation of the law (Pre overturn of RvW, though most states haven't and while some have restricted it, it is still legal). The pregnant girl/woman has no social duty to be the personal incubator for society.
You really have a Mt Everest to climb here with your position. Good luck.
So...it appears that the former "RationalMadMan" user is making any and all efforts to get me banned from DART.
He/She/It/They have other "alt" accounts: John OO and jamgiller
He challenged me to a debate, I accepted, and shortly thereafter he declined and then claimed to be too busy in life to engage anyone or participate at DART. Appears he is still watching and following.
Just a heads up in case he makes efforts to get me banned, suspended, or what have you under obvious FALSE pretenses.
Sure would be nice if more than one eligible person would provide a legitimate vote. After all, this was my first debate here. And I forced myself to play Con (devil’s advocate)!!!
You didn't provide any description of the debate to entice anyone.
Also, it is a pointless argument. Of course trans people are people, that's not debatable. What's your point here? See...this is why a description is necessary.
What are you talking about!?! I had no bop here. This is not my debate. My issue with with whiteflame. There are four criteria for voting. He keeps demanding I meet them all and spell it out like Bella does. That’s ridiculous. Your vote didn’t meet any of those criteria, nor did Barney’s.
I don’t care if you volunteer to do this. If you can’t do it right the first time, you shouldn’t be doing it at all.
I never asked you to review all votes all the time, onky in relationship to those that are being reported by those acting like scorned little girls. Even if someone thinks it’s a legit report. It’s incumbent on you as the moderator accepting the task to compare the reported votes to others within said debate. If you take one down for cause A, and other votes lack cause A too, then you take them all down. If you can’t do the job right even as a volunteer, well maybe you shouldn’t be doing it at all then.
Thanks for affirming your hypocrisy.
Ps. I know votes can be removed post end of voting. I know you thought I wouldn’t know that. But I do. Since you’re willing to lie about that, just more piece of evidence that you shouldn’t be a moderator. You’re not honest and lack integrity.
PSs. You brought this on yourself. Resign. Or do the job correctly, volunteer or not. You have a responsibility and you’re just not doing it. Fact.
Click bait bullshit.
"Prostitution is wrong,"
That is a subjective opinion. If a consenting woman or man wants to enjoy sex and get paid for it, who are they hurting? If a woman or man wants to pay for sex with someone, they consensually choose to pay for it, who are they hurting? How is it "wrong"!?!
Best.Korea is the resident troll here. Don't engage him/her/it/?
"Transgender women can have **female reproductive organs** through MTF sex reassignment surgery"
Uh, no they cannot.
Having your penis turned inside out a vagina, cervix, and uterus it does not make.
All your sophistry fails on that single physiological, biological and human reproductive FACT!!!
Pay North Korea no mind, he is the resident pro-pedophilia debater on this site.
Don't listen to Best.Korea, he/she/it/they are the resident pro-pedophile debater that makes little sense more often than not.
What a poorly executed debate.
I cannot even bring myself to vote on it...since as Barney said, neither said met their BOP and I don't think it was a tie for anything.
OH FOR FUCKS SAKE!!!!
Best.Korea simply will NOT let the topic of pedophilia go...and now he is actively debating FOR IT!!!
Talk about F.U.B.A.R.!!!
There is no such thing as white privilege. Period.
Dumb debate. Comments herein prove that fact.
"Cultural appropriation:
the unacknowledged or inappropriate adoption of the customs, practices, ideas, etc. of one people or society by members of another [[and typically more dominant]] people or society."
That's a flagrant double standard right there. Okay for one, but not the other. Do as I say, not as I do. *facepalm*
Dominance has nothing to do with it.
Human history covers how one culture will adopt aspects of another. It's called "assimilation" for a reason.
If this is harmful, then all black women with straightened hair, or wigs that are straight with colors not naturally common among black women need to stop it then.
Go back to the curly nappy hair that you're born with and be proud of it.
There are multiple examples of how cultures have "assimilated" aspects of other cultures. This accusation of 'cultural appropriation' is pure racist bullshit. More than that, it's childish. It's like to kids fighting on the playground bitching about whose toy is better. and when one is decided is better, they fight for possession over it. The victor being the model of what to follow, so others want the shiny new better toy too.
~ "Why not viability outside the womb or some other standard?"
Someone is confusing fetal viability with just viability. I suggest they get a dictionary and learn the inherent differences between the two terms, in CONTEXT!!!
Again, another pedophilia-related topic from BK. *rolling-eyes*
You need to provide descriptions for debates, please.
I’ll be subscribing and watching this debate.
Apologies, but honestly not interested in these rap battles. Got a lot going on outside DART at moment with chores, yard work and an 80s muscle car to work on. 🍻
“….with guns laws even remotely as lax as ours with a low gun deaths….”
The laws regulating and restricting gun ownership/possession/use are not even close to being “remotely lax,” this is a pure emotively driven unsubstantiated uneducated opinion on your part.
Science has not developed in regards to gender. It’s been perverted by those I previously mentioned, for whom the left and the trans cultists have honed in on to capitalize in their excuses to rationalize and justify their sexual perversions. Fact.
“… has "less scientific backup" than other defintions.”??
You’re kidding, right?
Current iterations of the term are what lack any scientific evidence.
You clearly don’t know the true origins of the whole trans/queer ideology movement, do you!?! It started in the early 90s with so-called German sexologists who were proven Pedophiles and frustrates sexual deviants. That’s where the term cis/cissexualuty/cisgender came from - pedos!!!
Your loss. Not mine.
The original meaning of the term retains the most integrity.
The bullshit twisted made up convenient definition. Is merely to pacify the left and the clowns claiming otherwise using their fictitious made up term. This includes any leftist with an agenda with a piece of paper from some university over their head claiming to be a science major.
Not a troll, and get a dictionary before you throw this term around. Not even arguing. You might think you are, but you’re not.
Respect is earned, not given; and you certainly have not earned it.
I did it to test orogami, as he is has proven himself a hypocrite on more than one occasion. He has also proven himself a liar too (claiming he can’t remove votes after the voting period has ended when he can).
Don’t you worry little one, I’ll be voting…soon.
As expected. You’re like a dog running to the dog whistle. Predictable.
I tested you in this and you didn’t disappoint. I have plenty of time now to meet your criteria. If met and you still remove my vote, once again you’ll prove your biased hypocrisy.
Yeah, you did lie, and I showed the receipts for it.
Besides, anyone can read the dialogue from #1 to present and see you're a liar.
Not only that, your reading comprehension sucks!
Now ignore the comments and get back to debating hey-ho.
"However, I did ask him to make sure his vote was based on the criteria and not his personal opinions. He's not only given no assurances that he would..."
~ LIAR LIAR!
From #12: "And I can and will vote. So long as I meet all the required criteria for voting and do so in a logical manner..."
"he has all but assured me "you will lose,"
Quoting out of context is a fallacy:
From #9 you said, "Sir, opinions made from experiences are never objective." and I replied to this that yes, you will LOSE this debate; especially if you believe that bologna. On that note, I am 100% factually accurate.
The rest of your comment was nothing short of a strawman-ad hominem argument. Pure emotive bunk!
"I gave you two analogies: calling out answers in a trivia contest or a spelling bee."
False equivalency fallacies to what is transpiring here. Dismissed.
"...it is adding pressure to both sides who are [[[[[[[supposed to be ignoring comments]]]]]]]]] ..."
AND THERE IT IS!!!!!!! Truth is a bitch, ain't it!!!
Like I said, had he just ignored me or merely said thanks, we wouldn't be here. Try putting the blame where it belongs!!
His registration shows he has been here since 2022. That's hardly "new," though he/she definitely "acts" 'new.'
FFS, oromagi...what is wrong with constructive criticism to both sides to give them a helping hand on what to do to make their arguments more convincing? How is that being a POS?
I get you do not like me, and I definitely do not care for you in the slightest. But show an ounce of integrity and be more professional in exercising your duties here. You've already proven to be a hypocrite, don't prove yourself to be a complete and total tyrant asshole too.
My first two comments were nothing short of constructive criticism.
Clearly Americandebater24 couldn't handle it and got triggered! He reaped what he sowed with his conduct and attitude going forward in the comments. I do not take it kindly when someone personally attacks me by any means or measure for no reason.
Ever stop and think had Americandebater24 just either stayed quiet and ignored me, or he could have simply said, "thank you for the criticism" and went away. We wouldn't be here. But we are here because of HIS conduct and attitude, not mine.
For every action there will be an equal or greater reaction.
Notice hey-ho hasn't said anything? Hmmm...let that sink in.
Slavery is more often than not lifelong.
IF anything, it would be involuntary servitude, which is a short period of time.
She wins her freedom upon the birth of the unwanted pregnancy.
It's not slavery.
slavery (n.)
1550s, "severe toil, hard work, drudgery;" from slave (v.) + -ery. The meaning "state of servitude, condition of a slave, entire subjection to the will and commands of another" is from 1570s; the sense of "the keeping or holding of slaves" is from 1728.
There is no comparison to pregnancy.
What happens when a girl/woman is forced to do something against their will, like give birth, makes them society's personal incubator. That's it.
Your definition of 'gender' is all wrong:
gender (n.)
c. 1300, "kind, sort, class, a class or kind of persons or things sharing certain traits," from Old French gendre, genre "kind, species; character; gender" (12c., Modern French genre), from stem of Latin genus (genitive generis) "race, stock, family; kind, rank, order; species," also "(male or female) sex," from PIE root *gene- "give birth, beget," with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups.
The unetymological -d- is a phonetic accretion in Old French (compare sound (n.1)). Also used in Latin to translate Aristotle's Greek grammatical term genos. The grammatical sense is attested in English from late 14c. Jespersen ("Philosophy of Grammar," 1924) defines grammatical gender by reference to the Indo-European distinction of masculine, feminine, neuter, "whether the division be based on the natural division into two sexes, or on that between animate and inanimate, or on something else."
The "male-or-female sex" sense of the word is attested in English from early 15c. As sex (n.) took on erotic qualities in 20c., gender came to be the usual English word for "sex of a human being," in which use it was at first regarded as colloquial or humorous. Later often in feminist writing with reference to social attributes as much as biological qualities; this sense first attested 1963. Gender-bender is from 1977, popularized from 1980, with reference to pop star David Bowie.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/gender
Your definition is the liberal made up term.
“I never disputed your ability to vote. However, there are rules against voting outside of the criteria.“
No shit sherlock. What part of what I said about meeting the criteria of the voting did you fail to comprehend!?!
You’re new here. Don’t lecture me n what the voting criteria is or isn’t.
Run along now, you have more arguments to make.
Bwaahaaahaahaaahaaa!!!
And just like the proverbial little child, he runs and tattle tales to mommy and daddy.
You’re definitely not going to succeed at DART with that disposition.
And I can and will vote. So long as I meet all the required criteria for voting and do so in a logical manner, you can’t stop me and if the mods have an ounce of integrity, neither will they.
“ Sir, opinions made from experiences are never objective.”
BWAAAHAAHAAHAAAHAAA!!!
Guess all those books, research papers, investigative journalism, and any and all other levels of investigations citing sources based on the author’s “experiences” aren’t “objective” (I.e., based on fact based data).
Fucking idiot.
You WILL lose this debate.
"You are free to think that my rebuttals are weak, but without a proper explanation, that's a biased opinion..."
My objective (not subjective) opinion was explained given my experience. It is not biased since I also gave the opposing side constructive criticism/advice just the same.
And I do not need you to parrot the garbage you already spouted off as the basis of your so-called argument.
You're an amateur debater, obviously young and inexperienced.
I have a degree in cirminology and criminal justice, worked in law enforcement as both an investigator and in a civilian capacity. I've also worked in a DA's Office as well. I know a helluva lot more than you do where this subject matter is concerned.
No more helpful constructive criticism from me; you can just fall on your own sword then.
Good luck, you're going to need it!!!
You need to focus more on what you already put forth. More specifically, address the matter of the reliability of criminal background checks, which are the worst to make decisions off of and which are the best to make decisions off of. There is a difference between the various levels that some people pay for, not all are reliable whereas others are incredibly reliable. This speaks to the due diligence of the potential employer doing their research.
First and foremost, you haven't convinced me to vote for you. Your rebuttals are weak, to be honest.
Second, in order for you to have any leverage in this debate you must tip the scale in favor of the convicted by demonstrating that the benefit of their hiring outweighs the risk. So far you failed to do that whereas Con has demonstrated through the EEOC and the various jurisdictions of law that outlines that the risk does outweighs the benefit.
Lastly, having worked for a County Sheriff as their first civilian hire to perform background investigations on all new applicants for deputy sheriff (and subsequently every county office due to word of mouth that I was just that good at my job, other agencies asked the Sheriff to use my talents for their candidates), you have a huge hurdle to convince me. I will be watching this debate, and I will be voting.
"When a woman is impregnated, (Accidently or otherwise) the sperm from the male connects with one of the female's Ovum. From that point onward a child starts to grow, a HUMAN child, with as much right to life as it's mother if not more due to its young age."
WRONG!
A zygote =/= [a] child.
Being HUMAN in origin =/= [a] "human being"
Introducing the institution of slavery into this debate covering a medical procedure is just ignorant.
You're confusing gestational development with psychological and physiological development via maturation.
You're arguing against potentiality =/= actuality, which is futile
You're not using the correct definition of malice:
"Malice
The intentional commission of a wrongful act, absent justification, with the intent to cause harm to others; conscious violation of the law that injures another individual; a mental state indicating a disposition in disregard of social duty and a tendency toward malfeasance."
An abortion is not a violation of the law (Pre overturn of RvW, though most states haven't and while some have restricted it, it is still legal). The pregnant girl/woman has no social duty to be the personal incubator for society.
You really have a Mt Everest to climb here with your position. Good luck.
So...it appears that the former "RationalMadMan" user is making any and all efforts to get me banned from DART.
He/She/It/They have other "alt" accounts: John OO and jamgiller
He challenged me to a debate, I accepted, and shortly thereafter he declined and then claimed to be too busy in life to engage anyone or participate at DART. Appears he is still watching and following.
Just a heads up in case he makes efforts to get me banned, suspended, or what have you under obvious FALSE pretenses.
"Thanks to you as well! Thought you did a good job."
Appreciate that; and likewise, for sure.
"Skimmed this: I don’t foresee any way around the definitions which makes the resolution inherently true."
~ Could you be anymore cryptic?
Thank you for taking the time and energy to engage me in this debate.
Gratitude.
Thank you both for voting, and your follow-up comments.
Had I not screwed myself on position (I meant to be the opposite of what I was), I would have won this debate hands down.
Alas, I had to play Devil's Advocate. I did my best, but I knew I would not win.
S.L. - yes, I know I would have wiped the floor with RationalMadMan easily.
Thank you, G.P. for the kudos and advice. Much appreciated.
Initials and a combinations of numbers heard on a movie that stuck.
Sure would be nice if more than one eligible person would provide a legitimate vote. After all, this was my first debate here. And I forced myself to play Con (devil’s advocate)!!!
You didn't provide any description of the debate to entice anyone.
Also, it is a pointless argument. Of course trans people are people, that's not debatable. What's your point here? See...this is why a description is necessary.
What are you talking about!?! I had no bop here. This is not my debate. My issue with with whiteflame. There are four criteria for voting. He keeps demanding I meet them all and spell it out like Bella does. That’s ridiculous. Your vote didn’t meet any of those criteria, nor did Barney’s.
I don’t care if you volunteer to do this. If you can’t do it right the first time, you shouldn’t be doing it at all.
I never asked you to review all votes all the time, onky in relationship to those that are being reported by those acting like scorned little girls. Even if someone thinks it’s a legit report. It’s incumbent on you as the moderator accepting the task to compare the reported votes to others within said debate. If you take one down for cause A, and other votes lack cause A too, then you take them all down. If you can’t do the job right even as a volunteer, well maybe you shouldn’t be doing it at all then.
Thanks for affirming your hypocrisy.
Ps. I know votes can be removed post end of voting. I know you thought I wouldn’t know that. But I do. Since you’re willing to lie about that, just more piece of evidence that you shouldn’t be a moderator. You’re not honest and lack integrity.
PSs. You brought this on yourself. Resign. Or do the job correctly, volunteer or not. You have a responsibility and you’re just not doing it. Fact.