I'd just like to remind all the judges of Rule 5, i.e. that they should only vote on the "more convincing arguments" points and not award points on sources, conduct, or S&G; this, as indicated by Rule 6, implies that you should vote on this as if it were a "select winner" debate on DDO.
"Arguments are insufficiently explained. Referencing a single argument and a single piece of rebuttal is not sufficient. The voting guidelines explicitly state that the voter needs to reference specific *arguments* and *counter-arguments,* and compare them. The voter must have good reason to neglect a large number of arguments and counterarguments from both sides when making their decision. While this voter analyzes the issue of retribution, the voter fails to (1) analyze any other issue or have weighing analysis that compares different issues and (2) track the trajectory of this argument through the entire round."
I've proven, and you've dropped, that (1) the weighing issue is legitimate and (2) even the sources issue, in your best case, is legitimate, and importantly, that analyzing sources isn't weighing analysis.
==================================================================
>Reported vote: drafterman // Moderator action: Removed<
3 points to Pro (arguments). Reasons for voting decision: In strict adherence to the Voting Guidelines of this site, a vote for arguments requires: 1. A reference to arguments or counter arguments from each side of the debate. 2. Some kind of weighing analysis. Criteria #1 - Reference to arguments. I hereby formally reference the following argument on Con's side of the debate: (1).a. "No scope for justice, and for retribution for victims" - wherein Con describes that allowance of Jury Nullification would remove, as an aspect of the criminal justice system the attainment of retribution for victims. I hereby formally reference the following rebuttal on Pro's side of the debate: II.a. "Retribution" - wherein Pro claims what we should outright reject a retributive model of justice. Criteria #2 - Weighing analysis. Pro substantively sourced their rebuttal, arguing that a retributive model does not bring relief to victims and is counterproductive toward a restorative model which does. Con's initial argument was not sourced (noted by pro) and consisted of bare assertions. Con attempted to shift goal posts, which Pro noted. By not actually refuting Con's argument, Con necessarily concedes to it.
[*Reason for removal*] Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter references one specific issue in the debate and explains why Pro wins that issue, but fails to explain why winning that issue leads to winning the debate. The voting guidelines require "weighing analysis," which means explaining why the issue that was won is sufficient to win the debate as a whole, given the lack of analysis of any other issues in the debate.
==================================================================
(1) That was the extent of the analysis. Let's look back to it: "Pro substantively sourced their rebuttal, arguing that a retributive model does not bring relief to victims and is counterproductive toward a restorative model which does. Con's initial argument was not sourced (noted by pro) and consisted of bare assertions. Con attempted to shift goal posts, which Pro noted." The bit "arguing that a retributive model does not bring relief to victims and is counterproductive toward a restorative model which does" is merely *repeating* what happened in the debate, without analysis.
(2) That wasn't the extent of our problem. Our problem was that, even outside of that, this wasn't *weighing* analysis. You, at best, proved that Pro won this particular argument. You didn't explain -- and I've said this again and again, and you've ignored -- why that led you to make the decision to give the debate to Pro. Sure, Pro wins the argument -- so what? There's no *analysis* in terms of whether that argument was important enough to sway the debate as a whole.
(3) It's a complete strawman to say that was our explanation of weighing analysis. See here: "You need to explain that the argument was sufficiently important that to win it is winning the debate. I agree that qualitative analysis is enough. None existed. You said [x] argument was won. You didn't explain why winning [x] argument entails winning the debate. That's an explanation you need to have." "That's just reiterating what happened in the debate, not analyzing why it is important in the context of the debate as a whole, which is the *definition* of weighing analysis." "Our central disagreement lies in what it means to explain how arguments impact the outcome of the debate. From my understanding -- and based on their approval, Virtuoso's and bsh1's understanding as well -- requires comparing the arguments and counterarguments that you do reference to the rest of the debate."
“Any RFD that does not survey all or most of the main arguments in a debate is not a justified RFD. Simply singling out one or two points of a multifaceted debate and saying ‘they persuaded me’ is not sufficient, because it does not demonstrate that the voter understood, evaluated, or even read the debate in its entirety. Any good RFD must be comprehensive. Any good RFD must also be reasonable. An RFD that assigns points for trivialities, interjects the judge's own arguments or prejudices into the debate, or otherwise unfairly discriminates against a debater is clearly not a legitimate RFD. And, finally, an RFD must contain demonstrable analysis. Merely saying, ‘I was persuaded by argument XYZ’ does not show that you analyzed the debate; it does not say why you were persuaded by XYZ. Analysis is part of comprehension, but it is more than that. Voters must weigh arguments, assess evidence, and engage with the material to truly cast an informed vote; votes that simply pick and choose which arguments they liked fail to do any of the above, and thus fail as RFDs.”
All of this was explanation of what “weighing analysis” means. We repeatedly explained that you need to explain why those arguments led you to make the decision you made. That’s also what the CoC says. And importantly, you’re cherrypicking sentences from our comments without addressing this central point: you need to explain why Bsh1 winning that argument entails Bsh1 winning the debate. You say “voters don’t decide who wins the debate.” No, but they make a determination of who they thought won the debate. That’s literally the job of the judges. Or, if you prefer, let me rephrase: you needed to explain why winning that argument entails Bsh1 having better arguments as a whole in the entire debate. That’s what weighing analysis is. The CoC is quite clear. You’re the one with the misinterpretation of the CoC.
"And that's how it impacted the outcome that I arrived at in the end." You need to explain that the argument was sufficiently important that to win it is winning the debate. I agree that qualitative analysis is enough. None existed. You said [x] argument was won. You didn't explain why winning [x] argument entails winning the debate. That's an explanation you need to have.
"Furthermore, the 'report' button does not direct specific moderators to take specific action." Yes, that's *literally* what it does: directs me to review the vote and decide if it should be removed. And no, the chief moderator did not direct me to take specific action, he reported the vote to me. That's literally it.
(1) We have *repeatedly* explained to you, and you have still not responded, that you need to explain why winning that argument won Pro the debate. You did nothing of the sort. The CoC says: "The voter needs to explain how those arguments impacted the outcome that the voter arrived at in the end." You explained why Pro won the argument. You didn't explain why winning that argument impacted the outcome of Pro winning the debate.
(2) "This talk of updating the CoC essentially concedes the point: my current vote is valid with the CoC as written." It's really not. It's just us saying that to avoid such misconceptions occurring in the future, we'll make the CoC clearer as to what we mean.
(3) As far as bsh1's involvement is concerned: (a) He told me to make decisions regarding vote removals on this debate. I don't have physical moderator power, so he just followed all my recommendations in terms of what actions are to be taken. Any official approvals were made by Virtuoso. (b) He did not weigh in on the decision to remove the vote. That is false. He stated his opinions, which are opinions I agree with, but he did not give himself decisionmaking power as far as your vote was concerned. (c) Any user can call for reevaluation of a vote by pressing the "report" function. That's not a moderator ability, that's something any user can do. That's what the report function does.
I understand your concerns re: vagueness of the CoC, and, hopefully, it will be changed to become more sufficient.
But, from my understanding, your current RFD isn't sufficient either, because while it has one additional line that tracks the progress of the individual argument through the debate, it doesn't explain why winning that argument entails winning the debate, which is the word-for-word requirement of the CoC ("the voter needs to explain how those arguments impacted the outcome that the voter arrived at in the end"), which is an explanation that isn't clear at all in your RFD.
No, your explanation was not actual weighing analysis. On #2, read the link I posted: the standards for each of the point allocations are identical. On #3, as I've explained to you repeatedly, this is our interpretation of what the CoC means. I've repeatedly explained to you what the CoC means by "weighing analysis." You had none of it in your RFD. I'm afraid there's not much I can say to you until you actually respond to what I've said.
(1) We explained to you that we were following the CoC, simply, because we were following the *definition* of the term "weighing analysis." You failed to explain how the arguments impacted the outcome you reached. Therefore, your vote was removed. We explained this to you numerous times. You did not -- and this is the exact language of the CoC -- explain how the arguments impact the outcome you reached.
(2) We're not making stuff up or "applying rules from another site that don't exist on this site": these are the same standards used on DDO (http://www.debate.org/forums/debate.org/topic/56116/1#1784013) and there is a precedent of removing votes like this.
(3) "When a policy instead says what you can do (as with the Voting section), moderator discretion manifests itself by how strictly the moderator enforces the requirement. Their response can be anywhere from doing nothing up to requiring the letter of the law." When a policy can be *interpreted* in different ways, moderator discretion manifests in the form of interpreting that policy.
(4) Even if you don't buy any of that, here's a law as integrity argument: the point of these rules is to ensure that the judge has at least read the entire debate. Being able to reference one line from the Pro case and one line from the Con case isn't indicative of that at all. If a vote can be cast by reading two or three *sentences* in an entire 4-round, 10k character per round debate, it's probably not a sufficient vote. Inb4 you say that's not in the CoC: I've clearly explained why you violated the CoC and you've chosen to ignore that. All three moderators agreed. I'm just explaining the reasoning for this interpretation of the CoC.
(1) Moderators have discretion in interpreting vagueness in the CoC, not voters.
(2) In no respect did you engage in "weighing analysis" in your RFD. You labeled it "weighing analysis," but here's what it was: "Pro substantively sourced their rebuttal, arguing that a retributive model does not bring relief to victims and is counterproductive toward a restorative model which does. Con's initial argument was not sourced (noted by pro) and consisted of bare assertions. Con attempted to shift goal posts, which Pro noted." That's just reiterating what happened in the debate, not analyzing why it is important in the context of the debate as a whole, which is the *definition* of weighing analysis.
(3) Yes, the CoC says "arguments and/or counterarguments." You mentioned *one* argument (so not "arguments") and *one* counterargument (so not "counterarguments"), so you did neither of the two.
Our central disagreement lies in what it means to explain how arguments impact the outcome of the debate. From my understanding -- and based on their approval, Virtuoso's and bsh1's understanding as well -- requires comparing the arguments and counterarguments that you do reference to the rest of the debate. Merely mentioning one argument and one counterargument and suggesting that one is sourced while the other is not is not weighing. Neglecting a significant portion of the case, similarly, means you're failing to explain how those arguments function in the context of the debate as a whole. I linked the DDO Guide not to suggest that DART policies are the identical, but rather, because it had a great explanation of what the CoC means by weighing. Similarly, I quoted Bsh1's guide because it contains an explanation of what the CoC means. The CoC doesn't explicitly say "that indicates that you need to explain why you neglected a significant portion of the case," but the CoC doesn't explicitly define "weighing analysis" either. That doesn't justify not actually engaging in weighing analysis. In terms of you explaining how Pro's arguments refuted Con's -- that's not weighing analysis, that's analyzing the counterargument. You didn't explain why that meant, in the context of the debate as a whole, Pro won.
In addition, you referenced one counterargument from Pro and one argument from Con. That means you're not fulfilling the criterion of referencing "arguments" and "counterarguments."
First, I am enforcing CoC standards. For one, it explicitly says “arguments” and “counterarguments,” plural. Moreover, I’m specifically enforcing this portion: “The second necessity is that the voter needs to explain how those arguments impacted the outcome that the voter arrived at in the end.” Clearly, that indicates that you need to explain why you neglected a significant portion of the case – because the weighing analysis isn’t just “this argument is important,” it is that “this argument is important enough to lead Pro to win the debate,” which necessarily involves an analysis of the trajectory of the debate as a whole. That’s how weighing analysis works. In particular, your weighing analysis was clearly insufficient: merely saying X was sourced but Y wasn't isn't explaining that an argument was sufficient to win the debate. To understand what this weighing looks like, I would recommend reading the in-depth voting guide (http://www.debate.org/forums/Debate.org/topic/68208/).
Bsh1 expands on what this means more articulately than me in his guide to voting on the 7-point system (https://docs.google.com/document/d/10oWHhN-eI0eX6TEpW2kgPv1iRCUNTrIHblqn8BRRXL8/edit): “Any RFD that does not survey all or most of the main arguments in a debate is not a justified RFD. Simply singling out one or two points of a multifaceted debate and saying ‘they persuaded me’ is not sufficient, because it does not demonstrate that the voter understood, evaluated, or even read the debate in its entirety. Any good RFD must be comprehensive. Any good RFD must also be reasonable. An RFD that assigns points for trivialities, interjects the judge's own arguments or prejudices into the debate, or otherwise unfairly discriminates against a debater is clearly not a legitimate RFD. And, finally, an RFD must contain demonstrable analysis. Merely saying, ‘I was persuaded by argument XYZ’ does not show that you analyzed the debate; it does not say why you were persuaded by XYZ. Analysis is part of comprehension, but it is more than that. Voters must weigh arguments, assess evidence, and engage with the material to truly cast an informed vote; votes that simply pick and choose which arguments they liked fail to do any of the above, and thus fail as RFDs.”
Second, on the issue that I’m an assistant moderator: yes, the way this works is bsh1 and Virtuoso refer particular votes that have been reported to me, I review them and recommend particular action with reasoning, and then one of them approves or rejects my action. In this debate, Virtuoso was the one approving my action, since this is Bsh1’s debate.
==================================================================
>Reported vote: drafterman // Moderator action: Removed<
5 points to Pro (arguments, sources). Reasons for voting decision: The primary convincing elements of Pro's argument, with respect to defending it against Con's rebuttals were the notion that Con's alternative method was not mutually exclusive to Pro's and that Con's criticisms of Jury Nullification (with respect to retribution, rehabilitation, recidivism). The greatest weakness in Con's argument was the lack of support for his statements. Con provided few, if any sources that validated such statements as regarding the actual application of Jury Nullification in practice. In the end, Pro provided a better sourced and more cogent argument.
[*Reason for removal*] (1) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter simply does not address any of the three contentions in Con's case (i.e. retribution and rehabilitation, crime rates, racial minorities), exclusively looking at Con's mitigation of Pro's case. The voter must either compare the arguments made by both sides or provide some BOP analysis as a reason for discounting the entire case made by one side. The RFD is also too generic on arguments -- a sweeping statement like "[t]he greatest weakness in Con's argument was the lack of support for his statements," which is the extent of comparative analysis in the RFD, can be copy/pasted into any debate. (2) Sources are insufficiently explained. The quantity of sources isn't sufficient reason to award sources point. The voter is required to analyze the quality of the sources of one side and compare it to the other side's sources. The explanation of how the sources impacted the debate is too generic.
==================================================================
I'm sick right now, I'll start flowing this the moment I get better.
I'm experimenting with the idea of me flowing DDO/DArt rounds I judge rather than just reading. So I'll do that, and try my best to cast a ballot. If the debaters are fine with that, of course.
I'll try to limit myself to 8,000 but just in case I end up exceeding it, I'd like to have the flexibility to go up to 10,000, if that's fine with you.
I think feasibility issues do play into "should" debates when they're issues like "the government physically has no way of implementing this policy," e.g. if the topic is "governments should ensure food security for their citizens," an argument that it would be physically impossible is okay.
What doesn't play into the debate is when the government has the power to get the ability to do that. In this debate, the actor is the US government, which has the power to change the constitution. I'm sure you know about this already, but if no, I'd recommend reading up on "fiat" in debating -- whether something "can" happen plays into a normative resolution, but not whether something "will" happen, for instance.
I agree with you on the fact that it was the rules, my fault for not going through the debate details. Apologies, feel free to ask the moderator to have my vote removed.
However, I strongly disagree that that's implied by the word "the US" in the resolution -- because the resolution gives Pro the *fiat* to repeal or reword constitutional documents. So I think this was strange resolution drafting.
"Also that *The US* in the debate resolution implies adherance to the framework laid out by the founding documents and subsequent legislation/legal rulings of the United States. This isnt a debate on the validity of the framework itself, it is a debate on whether that framework and system would permit the implementation of a federally mandated universal background check for any and all transfers of ownership. As well as a debate upon the harms/benefits of any such implementation."
Okay, I didn't see this rule. Is there any way for me to nullify my vote?
I do think this rule is bizarre and the resolution should be rephrased to avoid such confusion arising in the future.
I'll try to vote on this in the next 6 hours, can't promise to though.
Just skimming through the debate, I don't think this was particularly good though:
1. The entirety of Con's case appears to be an is/ought conflation -- it occurs to me that Pro has the fiat to pass the proposal nonetheless.
2. Pro never explains why universal background checks would actually reduce violence; their own source says that people transition to illegal guns. So where's the offense? I don't see any solvency.
I also don't like that there were only two speeches per side in the entire debate. The reason LD works is that the 2NR is effectively two speeches and is the equivalent of a Neg block in other formats, and the 2NR and 2AR aren't allowed to make new arguments. Unless clear character constraints are put in place, it seems to me that the format would be inherently unfair -- and in this debate, new arguments were made in last speech, which is strange.
For what it's worth, I think the case I'd run from Con on this is:
1. This is coercive and the government ought not place such an explicit value judgment on meat consumption
2. In the short term, this tanks the meat industry, hurting workers in the industry, food security, and cultural groups for whom meat is important
3. Even if we cared about animal rights, this hurts animals:
(a) In the long term, this desensitizes people to meat consumption and damages the animal rights movement by creating backlash, hurting the organic shift that would've been far more sustainable than the immediate shift created by this plan
(b) This would disincentivize small meat businesses and butchers from registering under the government, particularly in developing countries, preventing animal welfare regulation
"Why should I have to explain why I voted what I did? I just did because I thought I should have. I don't need to explain. Isn't that the whole point of voting?"
You're not really "voting," you're *judging* the debate. You have an obligation to the debaters to explain why you judged the debate in the way you did.
I would've said: (1) This upholds the ethical principle of recompense for historic and current injustice. (2) Critical mass theory, i.e. more women represented in national legislatures leads to better policies for women. (3) This helps break stereotypes about whether women can be in positions of power. I think it's a very defensible position, and I was in favor of this before the debate and would've argued it if I had more time, though I'm now reconsidering my position and am undecided.
[comment redacted - nevermind this]
I'd just like to remind all the judges of Rule 5, i.e. that they should only vote on the "more convincing arguments" points and not award points on sources, conduct, or S&G; this, as indicated by Rule 6, implies that you should vote on this as if it were a "select winner" debate on DDO.
Thanks :) This was fun.
Ugh I'll have to postpone my vote to Sunday.
Thanks for the debate! Regardless of the outcome, this was fun, and I learned loads. I look forward to reading your R3.
I'll vote on this today, guys. I've started maintaining a list of debates to vote on and this stands at #1, I've already started flowing.
Your RFD now is obviously more than sufficient and is thorough, at least in my view.
This was the original reason:
"Arguments are insufficiently explained. Referencing a single argument and a single piece of rebuttal is not sufficient. The voting guidelines explicitly state that the voter needs to reference specific *arguments* and *counter-arguments,* and compare them. The voter must have good reason to neglect a large number of arguments and counterarguments from both sides when making their decision. While this voter analyzes the issue of retribution, the voter fails to (1) analyze any other issue or have weighing analysis that compares different issues and (2) track the trajectory of this argument through the entire round."
I've proven, and you've dropped, that (1) the weighing issue is legitimate and (2) even the sources issue, in your best case, is legitimate, and importantly, that analyzing sources isn't weighing analysis.
==================================================================
>Reported vote: drafterman // Moderator action: Removed<
3 points to Pro (arguments). Reasons for voting decision: In strict adherence to the Voting Guidelines of this site, a vote for arguments requires: 1. A reference to arguments or counter arguments from each side of the debate. 2. Some kind of weighing analysis. Criteria #1 - Reference to arguments. I hereby formally reference the following argument on Con's side of the debate: (1).a. "No scope for justice, and for retribution for victims" - wherein Con describes that allowance of Jury Nullification would remove, as an aspect of the criminal justice system the attainment of retribution for victims. I hereby formally reference the following rebuttal on Pro's side of the debate: II.a. "Retribution" - wherein Pro claims what we should outright reject a retributive model of justice. Criteria #2 - Weighing analysis. Pro substantively sourced their rebuttal, arguing that a retributive model does not bring relief to victims and is counterproductive toward a restorative model which does. Con's initial argument was not sourced (noted by pro) and consisted of bare assertions. Con attempted to shift goal posts, which Pro noted. By not actually refuting Con's argument, Con necessarily concedes to it.
[*Reason for removal*] Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter references one specific issue in the debate and explains why Pro wins that issue, but fails to explain why winning that issue leads to winning the debate. The voting guidelines require "weighing analysis," which means explaining why the issue that was won is sufficient to win the debate as a whole, given the lack of analysis of any other issues in the debate.
==================================================================
I'm going to keep recommending that the vote be removed and stop responding until you actually respond to what I'm saying.
Three problems:
(1) That was the extent of the analysis. Let's look back to it: "Pro substantively sourced their rebuttal, arguing that a retributive model does not bring relief to victims and is counterproductive toward a restorative model which does. Con's initial argument was not sourced (noted by pro) and consisted of bare assertions. Con attempted to shift goal posts, which Pro noted." The bit "arguing that a retributive model does not bring relief to victims and is counterproductive toward a restorative model which does" is merely *repeating* what happened in the debate, without analysis.
(2) That wasn't the extent of our problem. Our problem was that, even outside of that, this wasn't *weighing* analysis. You, at best, proved that Pro won this particular argument. You didn't explain -- and I've said this again and again, and you've ignored -- why that led you to make the decision to give the debate to Pro. Sure, Pro wins the argument -- so what? There's no *analysis* in terms of whether that argument was important enough to sway the debate as a whole.
(3) It's a complete strawman to say that was our explanation of weighing analysis. See here: "You need to explain that the argument was sufficiently important that to win it is winning the debate. I agree that qualitative analysis is enough. None existed. You said [x] argument was won. You didn't explain why winning [x] argument entails winning the debate. That's an explanation you need to have." "That's just reiterating what happened in the debate, not analyzing why it is important in the context of the debate as a whole, which is the *definition* of weighing analysis." "Our central disagreement lies in what it means to explain how arguments impact the outcome of the debate. From my understanding -- and based on their approval, Virtuoso's and bsh1's understanding as well -- requires comparing the arguments and counterarguments that you do reference to the rest of the debate."
Cont’d from the comment above:
“Any RFD that does not survey all or most of the main arguments in a debate is not a justified RFD. Simply singling out one or two points of a multifaceted debate and saying ‘they persuaded me’ is not sufficient, because it does not demonstrate that the voter understood, evaluated, or even read the debate in its entirety. Any good RFD must be comprehensive. Any good RFD must also be reasonable. An RFD that assigns points for trivialities, interjects the judge's own arguments or prejudices into the debate, or otherwise unfairly discriminates against a debater is clearly not a legitimate RFD. And, finally, an RFD must contain demonstrable analysis. Merely saying, ‘I was persuaded by argument XYZ’ does not show that you analyzed the debate; it does not say why you were persuaded by XYZ. Analysis is part of comprehension, but it is more than that. Voters must weigh arguments, assess evidence, and engage with the material to truly cast an informed vote; votes that simply pick and choose which arguments they liked fail to do any of the above, and thus fail as RFDs.”
All of this was explanation of what “weighing analysis” means. We repeatedly explained that you need to explain why those arguments led you to make the decision you made. That’s also what the CoC says. And importantly, you’re cherrypicking sentences from our comments without addressing this central point: you need to explain why Bsh1 winning that argument entails Bsh1 winning the debate. You say “voters don’t decide who wins the debate.” No, but they make a determination of who they thought won the debate. That’s literally the job of the judges. Or, if you prefer, let me rephrase: you needed to explain why winning that argument entails Bsh1 having better arguments as a whole in the entire debate. That’s what weighing analysis is. The CoC is quite clear. You’re the one with the misinterpretation of the CoC.
"You're telling me that what bsh1 meant by this was that he was going to merely click the report button?"
Or privately message me saying "I am reporting drafter's vote again." Which all users are also free to do in lieu of the report function.
"And that's how it impacted the outcome that I arrived at in the end." You need to explain that the argument was sufficiently important that to win it is winning the debate. I agree that qualitative analysis is enough. None existed. You said [x] argument was won. You didn't explain why winning [x] argument entails winning the debate. That's an explanation you need to have.
"Furthermore, the 'report' button does not direct specific moderators to take specific action." Yes, that's *literally* what it does: directs me to review the vote and decide if it should be removed. And no, the chief moderator did not direct me to take specific action, he reported the vote to me. That's literally it.
(1) We have *repeatedly* explained to you, and you have still not responded, that you need to explain why winning that argument won Pro the debate. You did nothing of the sort. The CoC says: "The voter needs to explain how those arguments impacted the outcome that the voter arrived at in the end." You explained why Pro won the argument. You didn't explain why winning that argument impacted the outcome of Pro winning the debate.
(2) "This talk of updating the CoC essentially concedes the point: my current vote is valid with the CoC as written." It's really not. It's just us saying that to avoid such misconceptions occurring in the future, we'll make the CoC clearer as to what we mean.
(3) As far as bsh1's involvement is concerned: (a) He told me to make decisions regarding vote removals on this debate. I don't have physical moderator power, so he just followed all my recommendations in terms of what actions are to be taken. Any official approvals were made by Virtuoso. (b) He did not weigh in on the decision to remove the vote. That is false. He stated his opinions, which are opinions I agree with, but he did not give himself decisionmaking power as far as your vote was concerned. (c) Any user can call for reevaluation of a vote by pressing the "report" function. That's not a moderator ability, that's something any user can do. That's what the report function does.
I understand your concerns re: vagueness of the CoC, and, hopefully, it will be changed to become more sufficient.
But, from my understanding, your current RFD isn't sufficient either, because while it has one additional line that tracks the progress of the individual argument through the debate, it doesn't explain why winning that argument entails winning the debate, which is the word-for-word requirement of the CoC ("the voter needs to explain how those arguments impacted the outcome that the voter arrived at in the end"), which is an explanation that isn't clear at all in your RFD.
No, your explanation was not actual weighing analysis. On #2, read the link I posted: the standards for each of the point allocations are identical. On #3, as I've explained to you repeatedly, this is our interpretation of what the CoC means. I've repeatedly explained to you what the CoC means by "weighing analysis." You had none of it in your RFD. I'm afraid there's not much I can say to you until you actually respond to what I've said.
(1) We explained to you that we were following the CoC, simply, because we were following the *definition* of the term "weighing analysis." You failed to explain how the arguments impacted the outcome you reached. Therefore, your vote was removed. We explained this to you numerous times. You did not -- and this is the exact language of the CoC -- explain how the arguments impact the outcome you reached.
(2) We're not making stuff up or "applying rules from another site that don't exist on this site": these are the same standards used on DDO (http://www.debate.org/forums/debate.org/topic/56116/1#1784013) and there is a precedent of removing votes like this.
(3) "When a policy instead says what you can do (as with the Voting section), moderator discretion manifests itself by how strictly the moderator enforces the requirement. Their response can be anywhere from doing nothing up to requiring the letter of the law." When a policy can be *interpreted* in different ways, moderator discretion manifests in the form of interpreting that policy.
(4) Even if you don't buy any of that, here's a law as integrity argument: the point of these rules is to ensure that the judge has at least read the entire debate. Being able to reference one line from the Pro case and one line from the Con case isn't indicative of that at all. If a vote can be cast by reading two or three *sentences* in an entire 4-round, 10k character per round debate, it's probably not a sufficient vote. Inb4 you say that's not in the CoC: I've clearly explained why you violated the CoC and you've chosen to ignore that. All three moderators agreed. I'm just explaining the reasoning for this interpretation of the CoC.
Bsh1 covers most of this, but:
(1) Moderators have discretion in interpreting vagueness in the CoC, not voters.
(2) In no respect did you engage in "weighing analysis" in your RFD. You labeled it "weighing analysis," but here's what it was: "Pro substantively sourced their rebuttal, arguing that a retributive model does not bring relief to victims and is counterproductive toward a restorative model which does. Con's initial argument was not sourced (noted by pro) and consisted of bare assertions. Con attempted to shift goal posts, which Pro noted." That's just reiterating what happened in the debate, not analyzing why it is important in the context of the debate as a whole, which is the *definition* of weighing analysis.
(3) Yes, the CoC says "arguments and/or counterarguments." You mentioned *one* argument (so not "arguments") and *one* counterargument (so not "counterarguments"), so you did neither of the two.
Our central disagreement lies in what it means to explain how arguments impact the outcome of the debate. From my understanding -- and based on their approval, Virtuoso's and bsh1's understanding as well -- requires comparing the arguments and counterarguments that you do reference to the rest of the debate. Merely mentioning one argument and one counterargument and suggesting that one is sourced while the other is not is not weighing. Neglecting a significant portion of the case, similarly, means you're failing to explain how those arguments function in the context of the debate as a whole. I linked the DDO Guide not to suggest that DART policies are the identical, but rather, because it had a great explanation of what the CoC means by weighing. Similarly, I quoted Bsh1's guide because it contains an explanation of what the CoC means. The CoC doesn't explicitly say "that indicates that you need to explain why you neglected a significant portion of the case," but the CoC doesn't explicitly define "weighing analysis" either. That doesn't justify not actually engaging in weighing analysis. In terms of you explaining how Pro's arguments refuted Con's -- that's not weighing analysis, that's analyzing the counterargument. You didn't explain why that meant, in the context of the debate as a whole, Pro won.
In addition, you referenced one counterargument from Pro and one argument from Con. That means you're not fulfilling the criterion of referencing "arguments" and "counterarguments."
First, I am enforcing CoC standards. For one, it explicitly says “arguments” and “counterarguments,” plural. Moreover, I’m specifically enforcing this portion: “The second necessity is that the voter needs to explain how those arguments impacted the outcome that the voter arrived at in the end.” Clearly, that indicates that you need to explain why you neglected a significant portion of the case – because the weighing analysis isn’t just “this argument is important,” it is that “this argument is important enough to lead Pro to win the debate,” which necessarily involves an analysis of the trajectory of the debate as a whole. That’s how weighing analysis works. In particular, your weighing analysis was clearly insufficient: merely saying X was sourced but Y wasn't isn't explaining that an argument was sufficient to win the debate. To understand what this weighing looks like, I would recommend reading the in-depth voting guide (http://www.debate.org/forums/Debate.org/topic/68208/).
cont'd from comment above:
Bsh1 expands on what this means more articulately than me in his guide to voting on the 7-point system (https://docs.google.com/document/d/10oWHhN-eI0eX6TEpW2kgPv1iRCUNTrIHblqn8BRRXL8/edit): “Any RFD that does not survey all or most of the main arguments in a debate is not a justified RFD. Simply singling out one or two points of a multifaceted debate and saying ‘they persuaded me’ is not sufficient, because it does not demonstrate that the voter understood, evaluated, or even read the debate in its entirety. Any good RFD must be comprehensive. Any good RFD must also be reasonable. An RFD that assigns points for trivialities, interjects the judge's own arguments or prejudices into the debate, or otherwise unfairly discriminates against a debater is clearly not a legitimate RFD. And, finally, an RFD must contain demonstrable analysis. Merely saying, ‘I was persuaded by argument XYZ’ does not show that you analyzed the debate; it does not say why you were persuaded by XYZ. Analysis is part of comprehension, but it is more than that. Voters must weigh arguments, assess evidence, and engage with the material to truly cast an informed vote; votes that simply pick and choose which arguments they liked fail to do any of the above, and thus fail as RFDs.”
Second, on the issue that I’m an assistant moderator: yes, the way this works is bsh1 and Virtuoso refer particular votes that have been reported to me, I review them and recommend particular action with reasoning, and then one of them approves or rejects my action. In this debate, Virtuoso was the one approving my action, since this is Bsh1’s debate.
==================================================================
>Reported vote: drafterman // Moderator action: Removed<
5 points to Pro (arguments, sources). Reasons for voting decision: The primary convincing elements of Pro's argument, with respect to defending it against Con's rebuttals were the notion that Con's alternative method was not mutually exclusive to Pro's and that Con's criticisms of Jury Nullification (with respect to retribution, rehabilitation, recidivism). The greatest weakness in Con's argument was the lack of support for his statements. Con provided few, if any sources that validated such statements as regarding the actual application of Jury Nullification in practice. In the end, Pro provided a better sourced and more cogent argument.
[*Reason for removal*] (1) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter simply does not address any of the three contentions in Con's case (i.e. retribution and rehabilitation, crime rates, racial minorities), exclusively looking at Con's mitigation of Pro's case. The voter must either compare the arguments made by both sides or provide some BOP analysis as a reason for discounting the entire case made by one side. The RFD is also too generic on arguments -- a sweeping statement like "[t]he greatest weakness in Con's argument was the lack of support for his statements," which is the extent of comparative analysis in the RFD, can be copy/pasted into any debate. (2) Sources are insufficiently explained. The quantity of sources isn't sufficient reason to award sources point. The voter is required to analyze the quality of the sources of one side and compare it to the other side's sources. The explanation of how the sources impacted the debate is too generic.
==================================================================
Debates without character limits are annoying.
I'll try my best to get to this.
Has a system of vote reports been set up yet?
Also, please remove my vote, as it was a counter.
TheHammer's vote should be removed.
Do you want to get this debate deleted?
I'm sick right now, I'll start flowing this the moment I get better.
I'm experimenting with the idea of me flowing DDO/DArt rounds I judge rather than just reading. So I'll do that, and try my best to cast a ballot. If the debaters are fine with that, of course.
I'll try to limit myself to 8,000 but just in case I end up exceeding it, I'd like to have the flexibility to go up to 10,000, if that's fine with you.
Why do you want the character limit to be 8,000?
Hello, would appreciate if you could remove the_bat_man's vote, it has no explanation whatsoever for why points were awarded. Thanks.
Well, nothing in this debate talks about the US. See rule 7.
That would mean, since the majority of nations in the world are developing, this debate primarily takes place in developing countries.
I do think it exists in developed countries such as the US too, though.
You don't view the existence of institutional sexism as a defensible position? Even in the developing world?
I think feasibility issues do play into "should" debates when they're issues like "the government physically has no way of implementing this policy," e.g. if the topic is "governments should ensure food security for their citizens," an argument that it would be physically impossible is okay.
What doesn't play into the debate is when the government has the power to get the ability to do that. In this debate, the actor is the US government, which has the power to change the constitution. I'm sure you know about this already, but if no, I'd recommend reading up on "fiat" in debating -- whether something "can" happen plays into a normative resolution, but not whether something "will" happen, for instance.
I agree with you on the fact that it was the rules, my fault for not going through the debate details. Apologies, feel free to ask the moderator to have my vote removed.
However, I strongly disagree that that's implied by the word "the US" in the resolution -- because the resolution gives Pro the *fiat* to repeal or reword constitutional documents. So I think this was strange resolution drafting.
"Also that *The US* in the debate resolution implies adherance to the framework laid out by the founding documents and subsequent legislation/legal rulings of the United States. This isnt a debate on the validity of the framework itself, it is a debate on whether that framework and system would permit the implementation of a federally mandated universal background check for any and all transfers of ownership. As well as a debate upon the harms/benefits of any such implementation."
Okay, I didn't see this rule. Is there any way for me to nullify my vote?
I do think this rule is bizarre and the resolution should be rephrased to avoid such confusion arising in the future.
I'll try to vote on this in the next 6 hours, can't promise to though.
Just skimming through the debate, I don't think this was particularly good though:
1. The entirety of Con's case appears to be an is/ought conflation -- it occurs to me that Pro has the fiat to pass the proposal nonetheless.
2. Pro never explains why universal background checks would actually reduce violence; their own source says that people transition to illegal guns. So where's the offense? I don't see any solvency.
I also don't like that there were only two speeches per side in the entire debate. The reason LD works is that the 2NR is effectively two speeches and is the equivalent of a Neg block in other formats, and the 2NR and 2AR aren't allowed to make new arguments. Unless clear character constraints are put in place, it seems to me that the format would be inherently unfair -- and in this debate, new arguments were made in last speech, which is strange.
For what it's worth, I think the case I'd run from Con on this is:
1. This is coercive and the government ought not place such an explicit value judgment on meat consumption
2. In the short term, this tanks the meat industry, hurting workers in the industry, food security, and cultural groups for whom meat is important
3. Even if we cared about animal rights, this hurts animals:
(a) In the long term, this desensitizes people to meat consumption and damages the animal rights movement by creating backlash, hurting the organic shift that would've been far more sustainable than the immediate shift created by this plan
(b) This would disincentivize small meat businesses and butchers from registering under the government, particularly in developing countries, preventing animal welfare regulation
I agree with Virtuoso, it might be useful for you to remove thebatman's vote.
"Why should I have to explain why I voted what I did? I just did because I thought I should have. I don't need to explain. Isn't that the whole point of voting?"
You're not really "voting," you're *judging* the debate. You have an obligation to the debaters to explain why you judged the debate in the way you did.
Yeah sure, I don't mind that.
I would've said: (1) This upholds the ethical principle of recompense for historic and current injustice. (2) Critical mass theory, i.e. more women represented in national legislatures leads to better policies for women. (3) This helps break stereotypes about whether women can be in positions of power. I think it's a very defensible position, and I was in favor of this before the debate and would've argued it if I had more time, though I'm now reconsidering my position and am undecided.
I've had loads of fun too.