Is there a short version of voting guide here? Because many people are getting these votes wrong.
Is this one good? For start:
1. For Arguments point
-Set up goalposts relevant to topic, those goalposts must be mentioned in debate. Usually 5 to 10 most important goalposts is enough in a vote.
-See which side wins on what goalpost
-weight goalposts to see who won more goalposts or who won more higher quality goalposts
Important notice: dont add your own arguments which were not mentioned in debate to your vote.
If one person had multiple forfeits and forfeited 40% or more of debate, his arguments dont have to be considered as valid anymore.
2. For sources
Usually left tie if both sides used sources. If one side used sources while other didnt, then source point can be rewarded.
3. Legibility
Usually left tie unless one side was very difficult to read.
4. Conduct
Usually left tie unless one side does personal attacks or has forfeit.
Personal insults are generally not allowed. There was a time when they were, until site got spammed with so much insults that there wasnt almost any debate in forums.
But yeah, not a big reason to start fight. I mean, people find different things as upsetting. But usually, either adapt to someone either just part ways. There is really no reason to continue fight which started over kittens.
Cats can drink milk. Just not too much. They actually love it. The internet says its bad for them, but I have never seen a cat get sick from milk. The only issue could be that they cant fully digest it.
I got it as a kid long time ago. It hurts when it first appears, and makes it difficult to eat. After some time, the visible symptoms go away, and it stops hurting, but disease itself is not ever curable.
"Given the principle behind the original statement, your response then begs the question, and every single time you respond with "debates are needed for debates," you beg the same question again."
Thats not true, as the question was already answered.
"If you respond with "debating is useful for debating," you now have to ask, what is debating useful for? If your response is then "debating is useful for debating,""
You are asking same question twice, so get same answer.
"What if someone's sources undermine their own point?"
Well, sure, if you linked those sources too, it would be different. But when it comes to objective standards, anyone can say that any source says anything, literally. There were debates where people claimed same sources said completely opposite things. So generally, I cannot agree with your quote from a source if you didnt even link the source you quoted from there. I would have to be biased to say both sides provided equally good sources when you literally provided none of yours, none. So even if some of his sources are bad, yours are non-existent.
"It's even more retarded that conduct is seen as "oh no you said mean words""
Well, yeah, what else is conduct supposed to be for? Conduct is for forfeit and insults, personal attacks. You will probably always lose conduct point if you do personal attacks. Some voters may choose to ignore conduct, but its not any advantage for you to rely on hope that voters will always ignore it. Same with sources point.
"Not so, his sources didn't actually negate or prove anything substantial"
The sources point is awarded for quality and presence of sources. When one side has no sources while the other has, no matter how low quality those sources are, they are still somewhat better than none.
"he lost conduct by outright lying and twisting things all through the debate"
Lying doesnt lose conduct. It loses argument there. Lying = claim not true
So yeah, even if I can justify giving you argument points here, it would take over 10 of my votes just to make debate tie now. Literally anyone who votes for you cant reasonably give you even 3 points here. I dont see why you refuse to use sources there. At least 1 source per round would make it somewhat possible to give tie on sources. But as it stands now, for every 1 vote against you, you need 5 votes for you just to make simple tie in debate.
Its okay to disagree with voters, but at this point, even if I or someone could cast 10 votes in your favor, it still wouldnt outweigh their votes. You objectively lose sources point here as you used none. So no one can reasonably leave sources tie. Conduct also is questionable. You gave your opponent plenty of advantage here. Even if you won arguments, you objectively lost 3 points on sources and conduct.
When voting, you must mention arguments from both sides in your vote. Just do something simple like list 5 to 10 main goalposts in debate and see who won on which there. Also, dont add your own arguments to vote. Its important to use what is found in debate only. It takes some time to understand how voting works here. But some votes are much easier to do than others. If one side forfeits their whole debate, you can just vote for the other side by just saying "forfeit". Those are easiest votes. But there are cases where debaters agree that forfeited rounds are instead posted in comments there. Thats different case then. But if you see clear forfeit by one side, its an easy vote.
I dont usually ever ignore arguments in debate. The only time I might consider such thing is if opponent waits till last round to post all arguments, and other person cannot even respond. As long as you can respond to argument, the choice not to do so would make me treat argument as unchallenged.
I dont really like being a deciding vote in a debate. When there is plenty of votes, my vote can fit among others. But when its close to tie, then my 1 vote there decides entire debate and I dont like such power. It becomes as if only my vote matters. And its difficult to be fair in this debate because I can justify giving win to either side, to Mall for forfeit or last round arguments, or to you for your last round arguments. If I can justify both sides as winners, then its likely a tie there anyway.
"In 3 days if 0 votes are here, what is the strategy to get votes?"
I usually make short debates(5000 characters, 2 rounds) to make it much easier to vote. But here, you have 18 songs which together last over 40 minutes. Its a bit much for many voters.
I didnt watch that anime, but after watching the video, I see there is space for both to argue. Not the type of anime I usually watch, but looks fun. However, Kirei lost an arm there, obviously. Thats gonna be a very tough one to argue.
Sorry 😭
"My opponent is friends with mods"
Mods have voted against me more times than for me, I think. 🤔
No worries. I forfeit 1 round too then, so forfeit doesnt count.
I am too cute to die.
"If you want my advise, just take his voting privs. 3 week ban from voting"
If he casts few more of terrible votes, then yeah. At this point, he alone is creating too much work for moderators.
I was almost sure Pro will post arguments.
Is there a short version of voting guide here? Because many people are getting these votes wrong.
Is this one good? For start:
1. For Arguments point
-Set up goalposts relevant to topic, those goalposts must be mentioned in debate. Usually 5 to 10 most important goalposts is enough in a vote.
-See which side wins on what goalpost
-weight goalposts to see who won more goalposts or who won more higher quality goalposts
Important notice: dont add your own arguments which were not mentioned in debate to your vote.
If one person had multiple forfeits and forfeited 40% or more of debate, his arguments dont have to be considered as valid anymore.
2. For sources
Usually left tie if both sides used sources. If one side used sources while other didnt, then source point can be rewarded.
3. Legibility
Usually left tie unless one side was very difficult to read.
4. Conduct
Usually left tie unless one side does personal attacks or has forfeit.
Yeah, I will respond in time <3
No, I mean, if powerful attack the weak, one should defend the weak even if it means standing up to powerful then.
I might need plenty of luck for this debate now. Good luck <3
Personal insults are generally not allowed. There was a time when they were, until site got spammed with so much insults that there wasnt almost any debate in forums.
"the problem is he is trying to get me banned"
You are kinda greatly helping him do that with all the insults there.
But yeah, not a big reason to start fight. I mean, people find different things as upsetting. But usually, either adapt to someone either just part ways. There is really no reason to continue fight which started over kittens.
Cats can drink milk. Just not too much. They actually love it. The internet says its bad for them, but I have never seen a cat get sick from milk. The only issue could be that they cant fully digest it.
I have no issues with any votes, for or against me there. Complaining is too much work too.
"I know in an open voting system, sourcing is not required, but it still makes for convincing arguments when you have a credible citation behind you."
Sometimes I dont have enough time to look for sources.
I got it as a kid long time ago. It hurts when it first appears, and makes it difficult to eat. After some time, the visible symptoms go away, and it stops hurting, but disease itself is not ever curable.
"Given the principle behind the original statement, your response then begs the question, and every single time you respond with "debates are needed for debates," you beg the same question again."
Thats not true, as the question was already answered.
"If you respond with "debating is useful for debating," you now have to ask, what is debating useful for? If your response is then "debating is useful for debating,""
You are asking same question twice, so get same answer.
Debating is useful for debating too.
Inshallah
Debate is needed to have a debate.
Not needed for what?
Kissing is how I got herpes.
I am biased on this topic, so I hope that wont affect my vote.
Thats cute.
"What if someone's sources undermine their own point?"
Well, sure, if you linked those sources too, it would be different. But when it comes to objective standards, anyone can say that any source says anything, literally. There were debates where people claimed same sources said completely opposite things. So generally, I cannot agree with your quote from a source if you didnt even link the source you quoted from there. I would have to be biased to say both sides provided equally good sources when you literally provided none of yours, none. So even if some of his sources are bad, yours are non-existent.
"It's even more retarded that conduct is seen as "oh no you said mean words""
Well, yeah, what else is conduct supposed to be for? Conduct is for forfeit and insults, personal attacks. You will probably always lose conduct point if you do personal attacks. Some voters may choose to ignore conduct, but its not any advantage for you to rely on hope that voters will always ignore it. Same with sources point.
"Not so, his sources didn't actually negate or prove anything substantial"
The sources point is awarded for quality and presence of sources. When one side has no sources while the other has, no matter how low quality those sources are, they are still somewhat better than none.
"he lost conduct by outright lying and twisting things all through the debate"
Lying doesnt lose conduct. It loses argument there. Lying = claim not true
So yeah, even if I can justify giving you argument points here, it would take over 10 of my votes just to make debate tie now. Literally anyone who votes for you cant reasonably give you even 3 points here. I dont see why you refuse to use sources there. At least 1 source per round would make it somewhat possible to give tie on sources. But as it stands now, for every 1 vote against you, you need 5 votes for you just to make simple tie in debate.
Its okay to disagree with voters, but at this point, even if I or someone could cast 10 votes in your favor, it still wouldnt outweigh their votes. You objectively lose sources point here as you used none. So no one can reasonably leave sources tie. Conduct also is questionable. You gave your opponent plenty of advantage here. Even if you won arguments, you objectively lost 3 points on sources and conduct.
When voting, you must mention arguments from both sides in your vote. Just do something simple like list 5 to 10 main goalposts in debate and see who won on which there. Also, dont add your own arguments to vote. Its important to use what is found in debate only. It takes some time to understand how voting works here. But some votes are much easier to do than others. If one side forfeits their whole debate, you can just vote for the other side by just saying "forfeit". Those are easiest votes. But there are cases where debaters agree that forfeited rounds are instead posted in comments there. Thats different case then. But if you see clear forfeit by one side, its an easy vote.
Sure.
I dont like losing my rating.
"No because I want to kiss you on lip"
Thats nice, but we just met.
"As a condition, if you accept this debate before 2026, then you automatically lose."
Not if no one votes to give the win.
I dont usually ever ignore arguments in debate. The only time I might consider such thing is if opponent waits till last round to post all arguments, and other person cannot even respond. As long as you can respond to argument, the choice not to do so would make me treat argument as unchallenged.
"only 1 of non-Denominationalism must be better than Christianity"
I meant better than catholicism there. Typing error.
Its nothing to you personally now. I just dont care about those specific topics or want to repeat this one.
There. No description.
Alright.
I honestly couldnt care less about what you are talking about here.
I dont really like being a deciding vote in a debate. When there is plenty of votes, my vote can fit among others. But when its close to tie, then my 1 vote there decides entire debate and I dont like such power. It becomes as if only my vote matters. And its difficult to be fair in this debate because I can justify giving win to either side, to Mall for forfeit or last round arguments, or to you for your last round arguments. If I can justify both sides as winners, then its likely a tie there anyway.
Once they create cheap holograms, they will be more than just text, voice, image and video. Holograms are next thing, I think.
There is. If you both agree here, you can ask moderator to delete debate. But its only if both agree and if moderators have time to do it.
Well, I could try.
"In 3 days if 0 votes are here, what is the strategy to get votes?"
I usually make short debates(5000 characters, 2 rounds) to make it much easier to vote. But here, you have 18 songs which together last over 40 minutes. Its a bit much for many voters.
I didnt watch that anime, but after watching the video, I see there is space for both to argue. Not the type of anime I usually watch, but looks fun. However, Kirei lost an arm there, obviously. Thats gonna be a very tough one to argue.
Tôi biết Việt Nam sản xuất nhiều sản phẩm. Tôi không thích điện thoại thông minh từ Trung Quốc vì tôi ghét Trung Quốc, nhưng Việt Nam thì tốt.
Google translate means I can talk any language. Although sometimes it doesnt translate well.
Điện thoại thông minh của tôi được sản xuất tại Việt Nam.
Good first round, which I agree with too.