Anyone should be able to debate a topic such as this. Just because he is on the Pro side doesn't mean that he agrees. Incidentally, if you watched the video, he talks about other types of national service like the Peace Corps which is a volunteer organization unrelated to the military.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: [Removed]
>Reason for Decision: Argument: The significant bone of contention re: should/can/will, with "should" defined by pro in round 1, then the attempt by Pro to expand by can/should in round 2, was successfully rebutted by Con in all rounds, first by limiting should by demonstration that can or will were even possible. When an action cannot happen, its "should" capability is strangled, and can/will become mere talking points without effectivity, as Con argued through the balance of rounds. Further, pro's argument in round 1 that IHR's regulations require "communicate... timely... information" to WHO has no enforcement teeth because "timely" is not a measurable, as Con argued in round 1 rebuttal. Points to con.
Sources: Pro's sources were rebutted by more accurate sourcing by Con, particularly relative to the measure of the China response, with many of the points alleged by Pro's timeline. points to Con
S&G Tie
Conduct: Tie
>Reason for Mod Action: Per the request of the voter. They want to add to the RFD.
************************************************************************
Since there is such a dearth of quantitative data on the police violence issue, is there much evidence available to make a case for or against? I know of some sources, but it's certainly not a holistic data set. Something will inevitably be left out.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: [fauxlaw] // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 4 to Con
>Reason for Decision:
Argument: Pro's argument that all cosmetic surgery should be banned is far to extensive to be common sense considering the vast number of surgeries performed for well-being of the patient and their wide variation. Pro argues for a moderate approach, but demonstrates "moderate" as absolute. Con's argument weold allow regulation, but not complete banning, which does smack of a "thought police" mentality, an argument Pro failed to defeat.
Sources: Pro demonstrated far more and better sourcing than Con
S&G: Clearly Con had better
Conduct: Con forfeited last round; ad form for conduct
>Reason for Mod Action: Argument points are justified, but source and S&G points are not. The Voting Policy requires the following rules for each category:
Sources
Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate
Directly evaluate at least one source in particular cited in the debate and explain how it either bolstered or weakened the argument it was used to support
Must explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's
Mere appeals to quantity are not sufficient to justify awarding sources points.
S&G
Give specific examples of S&G errors
Explain how these errors were excessive
Compare each debater's S&G from the debate
Sorry for removing the vote so close to the deadline.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: VonKlempter // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 4 to Con
>Reason for Decision:
I would first like to congratulate both debaters for their effort, but since I do not wish to write 20 pages for a vote RFD, I will keep it short and simple. Arguments wise, both sides did well, however, the Instigator has failed to provide sufficient and clear conclusions for his arguments. He seems to provide a newer substantive at the end, and while it definitely is not wrong, it does not provide his arguments with the clarity and simplicity that resounds through the Contender's arguments.
As for sources, the Instigator has bogged his arguments down with a maelstrom of sites, placing as many as three sources just for one simple sentence. This further adds to the mild confusion that Pro's arguments create.
S&G is self-explanatory, neither side has problems expressing themselves, at least from a reader's point of view.
Conduct to the Instigator because the Contender forfeited the last round.
>Reason for Mod Action: Unfortunately, the vote does not reach the minimum standards for awarding argument points. There are three criteria that must be met for argument points to be awarded. The voter must"
1. Survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate
2. Weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself)
3. Explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points
No arguments are specifically mentioned, nor their counterarguments.
For source point allocations, the voter must, per Voting Policy guidelines,
"Directly evaluate at least one source in particular cited in the debate and explain how it either bolstered or weakened the argument it was used to support."
Other point allocations meet the minimum standards. So sorry for removing the vote close to the deadline.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Jeff_Goldblum // Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Points Awarded: 1 point Pro
>Reason for Decision: See comments
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter justifies his sources point pursuant to the Voting Policy.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: CaptainSceptic // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Pro.
>Reason for Decision: By the rules, this is a full forfeit. So I am voting it as such.
>Reason for Mod Action: As half or more of the rounds are forfeited, this is technically akin to an FF. However, the Voting Policy is clear on the following:
"In the case of awarding conduct points solely on the basis of forfeits, there is an exception to these steps: a debater may award conduct points solely for forfeited rounds, but only if one debater forfeited half or more of their rounds."
In other words, only conduct points can be awarded. I apologize if I said otherwise in the past. I forgot the caveat and was recently informed about it from another user. This was likely an old DDO rule.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: nmvarco // Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Pro
>Reason for Decision: Pro used reasons well Con was too focused on semantics and tiny details.
>Reason for Mod Action: As this is a troll debate, which is defined in the Moderator Extended Policies and Interpretations as
"any competition-style debate (e.g. rap battle, talent show, poetry competition,) a debate primarily designed to be humorous or facetious or containing primarily humorous or facetious content, or a debate on a truism (e.g. "a bachelor is someone who is unmarried"),"
the vote is unmoderated.
Oops. Sorry, forgot to include that. The following pages are in order of what I cite from the report:
xi (I forgot to put a (1) by the 20 alleged plots foiled by EIT, sorry about that)
xxi (this page was about the people in detainment who were illegally detained)
Here.
https://docdro.id/pIfwfoj
Also, tell me if you can access the other sources. P.S. I checked. We still do torture people. If we didn't that would have been a short debate. ;-)
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote:K_Michael // Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con, 1 point to Pro.
>Reason for Decision:
"The argument made by Con is pretty simple. That X is allowed does not make it follow that X should be allowed. The justification in the second round is flimsy. Even if you presume that everything is allowed for a well thought out reason doesn't mean that the reason is good. Hitler had thought-out reasons for every law passed that persecuted Jews, gays, etc. This doesn't make it right. This is essentially the point that Con made in R1, and it preempted the R2 rebuttal by Pro. Arguments to Con.
Although I think 2 rounds is ridiculous, Con did forfeit half the rounds. Conduct to Pro."
>Reason for Mod Action: While the voter did cast his vote for the side that forfeited, he has met the requirements of the Voting Policy. Therefore, this vote does not merit removal.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: User_2006 // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: i point Con
>Reason for Decision: Con had used more reliable sources and he did not forfeit any rounds.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter failed to award points consistent with the Voting Policy. The policy clearly notes:
"In cases where the debate instigator opts to use the "winner selection" (or "select winner") system, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks: (a) survey the main arguments and counter arguments presented in the debate, (b) weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself), and (c) explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points. Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole."
For more information, please consult the Voting Policy underneath this text and feel free to PM me.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#b-the-select-winner-system
************************************************************************
This is why you should be careful with wording your resolutions.
"Homosexuality ๐ช๐ด ๐ฏ๐ฐ๐ต and ๐ด๐ฉ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ญ๐ฅ ๐ฏ๐ฐ๐ต be a crime anywhere in the world."
At face value, what Pro is required to argue is that homosexuality is not a crime anywhere in world, nor should it be. To uphold the latter burden is easy, the former, though, is difficult in the face of incontrovertible evidence. Over 70 countries outlaw the practice, and would presumably levy some penalty against those in a homosexual relationship. It seems fairly impossible to prove your case unless you have surreptitiously hidden your true intentions and plan to troll other users.
It's no problem. This happens once in a while. I didn't mean to come off as snippy about it. I would recommend that in the future, should a topic be as broad as fiscal penalties, that you specify your plan in R1. Also, you gave me enough material to research for my research paper for school on sanctions and economics. Thanks!
For the record, you were right, they were frittatas. They had the consistency of the plastic bag it came in. After the Covid-19 virus stops travelling the world and looks back nostalgically on its short life before fading away satisfied with the carnage it caused, I'll try to find a decent establishment that sells it. (Florida has always been into Cuban and Asian food, but I'll find something.)
You know, I ended up eating store bought frozen quiche one time and got sick, which may have turned me off from egg dishes for the rest of my life. Good luck! Don't let my sacrifice be in vain!
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Nevets // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 6 to Pro, 1 to Con.
>Reason for Decision:
reasons in comment
>Reason for Mod Action: Per the Voting Policy:
"Similarly, a conceded debate is any debate in which on side clearly concedes the debate to their opponent. These debates are considered conceded debates and are not moderated ๐ฎ๐ง๐ฅ๐๐ฌ๐ฌ ๐ ๐ฏ๐จ๐ญ๐๐ซ ๐ฏ๐จ๐ญ๐๐ฌ ๐๐จ๐ซ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ฌ๐ข๐๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ญ ๐๐จ๐ง๐๐๐๐๐ฌ." I appreciate the lengthy analysis, and some points were raised, but the guidelines were clear.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: DrSpy // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 6 points to Pro.
>Reason for Decision: My first large debate vote on this site. Please provide feedback to me on my approach, perceived accuracy and style.
ARGUMENTS (PRO) for the reasons see the comments.
SOURCES (PRO). for relevance and depth.
S&G (TIE) Con had some mistakes, however, nothing notable worthy of point reduction.
CONDUCT (PRO) - Cons arguments had significant relevance issues. Con also stated in RD4 that they did not need to focus on that actual topic of the debate. I had asked about the focus of Darwin in the comments prior to the debate. The focus was clear, and specifically ignored by Con.
>Reason for Mod Action: Arguments are sufficiently explained. Sources, however, need to be explained better. Per community guidelines:
In order to award sources points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate
Directly evaluate at least one source in particular cited in the debate and explain how it either bolstered or weakened the argument it was used to support
Must explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's.
Conduct needs to be specifically attached to the debate, not the comments. There must be at least one incident quoted or explained that led to the conduct point allotment, and conduct needs to be compared between the two debaters.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: DrSpy // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 5 points to Con, 1 point to Pro
>Reason for Decision: This is the most frustrating thing I have read. I so want to go for Pro here. I am well versed on the subject. The debate definition is something that is very clear. The word "may" crated a technicality that I think both parties avoided (except for Pro trying to invoke it in the last round). And even as TheJackle keeps attacking me and others, they did a good job here. Even with the swearing and unconventional language, they did a good job.
PRO:
Starts out with a position with a conspiracy theory reference. Conspiracy theories are not the foundation of evidence. Some elements of a conspiracy theory may support a well-founded thesis, but should not be the corpus of one. Pro provides links to Wiki quotes on the following subjects:
1. General Conspiracy theory. --> Pro says it is now contemporary understanding
2. Big Pharma financial motives --> Pro claims alternative medicines are the target
3. Other Parties motives --> Pro claims lawyers, and legal groups also benefit
Pro starts out with these elements but does not develop on them.
For sanitation, Pro tries to establish that vaccines are reducing sensitivity to sanitation concerns by highlighting a few OCD diagnosis cases. Pro does not show any cause and effect.
Later on, Pro continues repeating the quotes from Wikipedia, without developing those ideas and offers an example of paracetamol as an example.
Pro writes extensively about sanitation and makes some great points about how important sanitation is as part of the war on disease. However, there is no cause and effect established.
Pro hints that some new vaccines support his financial motives. But he frustratingly Pro does not develop anything related to CDC patents, the fact that so many current big pharma execs used to work at the CDC or FDA, the lobbying done, the fact that FDA recommended no testing for Gardasil 9... the contradictions by the WHO. Another HUGE area that was not developed was the fact that drug companies are indemnified by the federal government for any injuries caused by vaccines. There was so much potential and Pro did not address any of it.
Pro then keeps circling back saying arguments had been made that had not. Pro admits to agreeing to everything that Con was saying but just wanted Con to add sanitation to his/her agenda. That was not the debate purpose.
Con, was rather direct, and rude. Swearing, and showing written forms of frustration. However, Con was focused. Stayed direct to the point. Con showed that Pro never established there is, or intended to be profiteering. Con also brought up over and over again that those connection weren't being made.
Con then provided some good resources supporting vaccine and sanitation as part of a co strategy.
Points to Con
======
Source, Pro relied heavily on Wikipedia quotes. 35 wiki references, and only one nonreference (quotes 3x). Con was very diverse, and while not as many, certainly demonstrates they did their homework. Points to Con
S&G - Both were understood and written to read. tie.
Conduct. - I have to give this to Pro. The swearing and frustration was too obvious.
Very frustrating from my side. So I guess I have to say well done to Con.
>Reason for Mod Action: Argument-point allocations were justified, but to award source points, a voter must "explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate." While I understand that the voter has an issue with Wikipedia, it is unclear how single-minded use of Wikipedia affected the debate or was necessarily bad. One or two sentences explaining this shall suffice. Other than that, it was a perfectly justified vote.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Points Awarded: 5 points to Con
>Reason for Decision:
Argument: I look at the debate title and conclude, by the arguments, that Con did a better job of staying on point with regard to vaccines, the subject of the debate, whereas Pro wandered into "Big Pharma" in general to discuss diseases that are not treated by vaccines, making a point that "Big Pharma" is profiting, which they have a right to do [this is, after all, the point of busness] and is the direct cause of world sanitation issues [which pro did not prove regarding direct cause]. Points to Con
Sources: Pro virtually limited sourcing to Wikipedia, which says of itself that "Wikipedia is not a reliable source." Pro even calls Wiki his "savior." It's fine to begin with Wiki to put one in a ballpark, but it is always better to go to their linked sources to draw conclusions from them. It may require further digging than that. If I am thirsty, I want to get as close to a supply of fresh water as possible. There's water in my gutter right now, but that's not my best source. Conversely [no pun intended] Con used varied sourcing; better sanitized water. Points to Con
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Nevets // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 6 points to Con.
>Reason for Decision:
There is no argument to be had. Pro forfeited and got banned from debateart by his parents. That means even the Con could argue for just about anything and be considered to have the better argument
>Reason for Mod Action: To vote solely off the basis of forfeits, it must be a full forfeit (FF) debate where at least 50% of the rounds were forfeited by one side. Only one round was forfeited, so this vote is insufficient. There was no concession either, just a small blip about not being able to post. This violates the Voting Policy and is thus subject to removal. Sorry for the inconvenience, but feel free to case another vote.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Nevets // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 6 points to Pro, 1 to Con.
>Reason for Decision:
Convincing argument - I feel Pro had the better philisophical argument, and i agree with his moral definition of "good" over that of Con, that seems more apologetic regarding the moral definition, and i feel it is quite apparent and clear just what definition of "good" Pro was talking about.
Reliable sources - I would not say that Pros sources were really great, and i do not see how much value any source can have regarding a personal opinion that is a matter of speculation, but at least his willingness to present source material showed he has invested much time studying and researching the subject he is talking about
Spelling and Grammar - I had no great issue with eithers spelling or grammar as such. But i feel Cons argument was sometimes harder to read "for some reason" and definitely when it came to seperating the subject matter of his opponent, from his own, it was quite difficult to easily recognise who was speaking, himself, or his opponent.
Conduct - I am actually going to give this to Con. I feel i agree with Pros philisophical stance, aswell as his Scholarship, but i do not agree with his religious arguments, and he violated his own policy on a number of occasions, regards to this being a philisophical debate, and not a religious debate, and he walked a very thin-line and this nearly cost him the argument in my estimation, and it is quite apparent that he is eager to tie this in with god, which makes his argument just a tad dishonest. But once weighed up, i feel his philisophical argument was good enough to win over, and reduce his violation to a conduct violation, rather than an argument violation.
>Reason for Mod Action: Allocation of argument points requires more than simply stating that one argument was convincing (https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#1-argument-points). Explain why the definition of "good" matters in the debate and why one side defines the term better better. Sources was unjustified because a) not a single citation was evaluated and b) the voter failed to compare sources of each debater (https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#2-sources-points). As for S&G, the Voting Policy explicitly states "In order to award spelling and grammar (S&G) points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Give specific examples of S&G errors
Explain how these errors were excessive
Compare each debater's S&G from the debate
S&G errors are considered excessive when they render arguments incoherent or incomprehensible."
Simply stating that you prefer one side for separating the argument to make it easier to read does not constitute excessive S&G errors.
Conduct is explained sufficiently as you did demonstrate that the mutually agreed upon rule was broken.
Please consult the Voting Policy which can be found here: https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: TheJackle // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 1 point awarded to Con.
>Reason for Decision: Argument is a big word game. We all know what animals means. This was setup as a fraud debate.
>Reason for Mod Action: Per the site rules:
"A full-forfeit debate is defined as a debate that has no argument presented by one side following the opening round, resulting in all subsequent rounds being forfeited. When this is the case, these debates are considered full-forfeit debates and are not moderated unless a voter votes for the forfeiting side. Similarly, a conceded debate is any debate in which on side clearly concedes the debate to their opponent. These debates are considered conceded debates and are not moderated unless a voter votes for the side that concedes."
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Nevets // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 3 to Pro, 2 to Con
>Reason for Decision:
Convincing argument - This is a hard one. Con appears to be a highly skilled multi-linguist scholar and researcher, and he certainly done a better job of arguing his case than Pro. However in my pre-conceived opinion, it is the wrong case.. Pro appears to believe that the bible is mostly fiction. He does a bad job presenting this. However Con does a great job in trying to convince everyone why one should donate so much time to defending a 4000 year old semi-fictional book, therefore i "may" present Con points for other factors below, but not for argument.
Sources - Con provided more sources. However providing sources from religious organisations, to prove a religious opinion, is likely going to result in the opinion being biased, and non neutral example below. but i left it at a tie, as Pro did not take the time to provide any meaningful sources at-all
https://www.islam21c.com/islamic-thought/whats-the-real-meaning-of-islam/
Spelling and Grammer - Without a doubt, that is Con
Better conduct - Again, definitely Con.. Pro forfeiteded a round and appeared to get a tad irate with Con
>Reason for Mod Action: Per the Voting Policy:
"Similarly, a conceded debate is any debate in which on side clearly concedes the debate to their opponent. These debates are considered conceded debates and are not moderated ๐ฎ๐ง๐ฅ๐๐ฌ๐ฌ ๐ ๐ฏ๐จ๐ญ๐๐ซ ๐ฏ๐จ๐ญ๐๐ฌ ๐๐จ๐ซ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ฌ๐ข๐๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ญ ๐๐จ๐ง๐๐๐๐๐ฌ."
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: DrSpy // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Pro
>Reason for Decision:
Pro did a better job of staying focused on the issue at hand and repeatedly tried to bring the conversation back to that point. It is something that I appreciate.
Pro brought up some valid fallacy issues with Con's arguments.
Con attempted to change the definition of the woman to woman and unborn in stats framing. This for me was an area of no return. Con had just argued about the independent personhood of a fetus and then argues that a woman and fetus are one, for the pure purposes of trying to misapply statistics on the acquisition of abortion to woman health, at which point it could be argued there was an adoption of the Violinist theory.
Con also miscategorized the rights differences brought yup between a man and a woman and how they use their body.
Finally, credibility is substantially eroded when Nazi's are brought in for comparative purposes. It just undermines the entire argument from Con.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter did not meet the requirements of awarding argument points per the Voting Policy.
In order to award argument points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate
Weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself)
Explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points
Pro's arguments were recounted as fallacies, but the voter never explained what those fallacies were or why they were persuasive. Additionally, the bulk of the arguments from Pro's constructive was excluded too. That's ok if you explain why most of the arguments don't factor into your decision, but you have to do that.
I apologize for the inconvenience. Please PM me if you have any questions.
************************************************************************
Anyone should be able to debate a topic such as this. Just because he is on the Pro side doesn't mean that he agrees. Incidentally, if you watched the video, he talks about other types of national service like the Peace Corps which is a volunteer organization unrelated to the military.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: [Removed]
>Reason for Decision: Argument: The significant bone of contention re: should/can/will, with "should" defined by pro in round 1, then the attempt by Pro to expand by can/should in round 2, was successfully rebutted by Con in all rounds, first by limiting should by demonstration that can or will were even possible. When an action cannot happen, its "should" capability is strangled, and can/will become mere talking points without effectivity, as Con argued through the balance of rounds. Further, pro's argument in round 1 that IHR's regulations require "communicate... timely... information" to WHO has no enforcement teeth because "timely" is not a measurable, as Con argued in round 1 rebuttal. Points to con.
Sources: Pro's sources were rebutted by more accurate sourcing by Con, particularly relative to the measure of the China response, with many of the points alleged by Pro's timeline. points to Con
S&G Tie
Conduct: Tie
>Reason for Mod Action: Per the request of the voter. They want to add to the RFD.
************************************************************************
Since there is such a dearth of quantitative data on the police violence issue, is there much evidence available to make a case for or against? I know of some sources, but it's certainly not a holistic data set. Something will inevitably be left out.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: [fauxlaw] // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 4 to Con
>Reason for Decision:
Argument: Pro's argument that all cosmetic surgery should be banned is far to extensive to be common sense considering the vast number of surgeries performed for well-being of the patient and their wide variation. Pro argues for a moderate approach, but demonstrates "moderate" as absolute. Con's argument weold allow regulation, but not complete banning, which does smack of a "thought police" mentality, an argument Pro failed to defeat.
Sources: Pro demonstrated far more and better sourcing than Con
S&G: Clearly Con had better
Conduct: Con forfeited last round; ad form for conduct
>Reason for Mod Action: Argument points are justified, but source and S&G points are not. The Voting Policy requires the following rules for each category:
Sources
Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate
Directly evaluate at least one source in particular cited in the debate and explain how it either bolstered or weakened the argument it was used to support
Must explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's
Mere appeals to quantity are not sufficient to justify awarding sources points.
S&G
Give specific examples of S&G errors
Explain how these errors were excessive
Compare each debater's S&G from the debate
Sorry for removing the vote so close to the deadline.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: VonKlempter // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 4 to Con
>Reason for Decision:
I would first like to congratulate both debaters for their effort, but since I do not wish to write 20 pages for a vote RFD, I will keep it short and simple. Arguments wise, both sides did well, however, the Instigator has failed to provide sufficient and clear conclusions for his arguments. He seems to provide a newer substantive at the end, and while it definitely is not wrong, it does not provide his arguments with the clarity and simplicity that resounds through the Contender's arguments.
As for sources, the Instigator has bogged his arguments down with a maelstrom of sites, placing as many as three sources just for one simple sentence. This further adds to the mild confusion that Pro's arguments create.
S&G is self-explanatory, neither side has problems expressing themselves, at least from a reader's point of view.
Conduct to the Instigator because the Contender forfeited the last round.
>Reason for Mod Action: Unfortunately, the vote does not reach the minimum standards for awarding argument points. There are three criteria that must be met for argument points to be awarded. The voter must"
1. Survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate
2. Weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself)
3. Explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points
No arguments are specifically mentioned, nor their counterarguments.
For source point allocations, the voter must, per Voting Policy guidelines,
"Directly evaluate at least one source in particular cited in the debate and explain how it either bolstered or weakened the argument it was used to support."
Other point allocations meet the minimum standards. So sorry for removing the vote close to the deadline.
************************************************************************
Yeah. Will do. Sorry about being a bit late with this.
I can see some neg ground if debate theory is used. I don't think I can take this one though.
Thanks!
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Jeff_Goldblum // Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Points Awarded: 1 point Pro
>Reason for Decision: See comments
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter justifies his sources point pursuant to the Voting Policy.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: CaptainSceptic // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Pro.
>Reason for Decision: By the rules, this is a full forfeit. So I am voting it as such.
>Reason for Mod Action: As half or more of the rounds are forfeited, this is technically akin to an FF. However, the Voting Policy is clear on the following:
"In the case of awarding conduct points solely on the basis of forfeits, there is an exception to these steps: a debater may award conduct points solely for forfeited rounds, but only if one debater forfeited half or more of their rounds."
In other words, only conduct points can be awarded. I apologize if I said otherwise in the past. I forgot the caveat and was recently informed about it from another user. This was likely an old DDO rule.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: nmvarco // Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Pro
>Reason for Decision: Pro used reasons well Con was too focused on semantics and tiny details.
>Reason for Mod Action: As this is a troll debate, which is defined in the Moderator Extended Policies and Interpretations as
"any competition-style debate (e.g. rap battle, talent show, poetry competition,) a debate primarily designed to be humorous or facetious or containing primarily humorous or facetious content, or a debate on a truism (e.g. "a bachelor is someone who is unmarried"),"
the vote is unmoderated.
************************************************************************
It can refer to a bunch of different torture methods. I'm pretty sure that the CIA codified a list of acceptable EIT methods.
Oops. Sorry, forgot to include that. The following pages are in order of what I cite from the report:
xi (I forgot to put a (1) by the 20 alleged plots foiled by EIT, sorry about that)
xxi (this page was about the people in detainment who were illegally detained)
Here.
https://docdro.id/pIfwfoj
Also, tell me if you can access the other sources. P.S. I checked. We still do torture people. If we didn't that would have been a short debate. ;-)
Can I send it as a pdf?
People at Gitmo, probably some black sites too. I could get more specific, but I'll save it for the debate.
Yeah, I meant comments
Enhanced interrogation techniques performed by the CIA is essentially torture. I'll change it to be more specific.
Sure. You could just place sources in the description too.
I forgot to change the point system to choose winner. One sec.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote:K_Michael // Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con, 1 point to Pro.
>Reason for Decision:
"The argument made by Con is pretty simple. That X is allowed does not make it follow that X should be allowed. The justification in the second round is flimsy. Even if you presume that everything is allowed for a well thought out reason doesn't mean that the reason is good. Hitler had thought-out reasons for every law passed that persecuted Jews, gays, etc. This doesn't make it right. This is essentially the point that Con made in R1, and it preempted the R2 rebuttal by Pro. Arguments to Con.
Although I think 2 rounds is ridiculous, Con did forfeit half the rounds. Conduct to Pro."
>Reason for Mod Action: While the voter did cast his vote for the side that forfeited, he has met the requirements of the Voting Policy. Therefore, this vote does not merit removal.
************************************************************************
Sorry, I don't make the rules
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: User_2006 // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: i point Con
>Reason for Decision: Con had used more reliable sources and he did not forfeit any rounds.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter failed to award points consistent with the Voting Policy. The policy clearly notes:
"In cases where the debate instigator opts to use the "winner selection" (or "select winner") system, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks: (a) survey the main arguments and counter arguments presented in the debate, (b) weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself), and (c) explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points. Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole."
For more information, please consult the Voting Policy underneath this text and feel free to PM me.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#b-the-select-winner-system
************************************************************************
No problem! This sort of stuff happens.
This is why you should be careful with wording your resolutions.
"Homosexuality ๐ช๐ด ๐ฏ๐ฐ๐ต and ๐ด๐ฉ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ญ๐ฅ ๐ฏ๐ฐ๐ต be a crime anywhere in the world."
At face value, what Pro is required to argue is that homosexuality is not a crime anywhere in world, nor should it be. To uphold the latter burden is easy, the former, though, is difficult in the face of incontrovertible evidence. Over 70 countries outlaw the practice, and would presumably levy some penalty against those in a homosexual relationship. It seems fairly impossible to prove your case unless you have surreptitiously hidden your true intentions and plan to troll other users.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZgZ_1jUHu0ooQ1fIn2293kWMQm8Yez2UhtI93r74nXQ/edit?usp=sharing
Not my greatest RFD (I wrote this at 3 AM) but it sure is exensive. Good job to both debaters.
No problem
This is blamonkey circa 2020 voting on this debate:
https://i.pinimg.com/474x/86/fd/bf/86fdbf4d0b1fc2e6afb55929c87c7f24.jpg
Sorry about waiving rounds. I forgot all about that when I made the debate.
It's no problem. This happens once in a while. I didn't mean to come off as snippy about it. I would recommend that in the future, should a topic be as broad as fiscal penalties, that you specify your plan in R1. Also, you gave me enough material to research for my research paper for school on sanctions and economics. Thanks!
Thanks! You too! You definitely penned some written works. It comes off in your writing.
For the record, you were right, they were frittatas. They had the consistency of the plastic bag it came in. After the Covid-19 virus stops travelling the world and looks back nostalgically on its short life before fading away satisfied with the carnage it caused, I'll try to find a decent establishment that sells it. (Florida has always been into Cuban and Asian food, but I'll find something.)
Still a little lengthy, but overall, about 20% shorter than my case if my calculations are right.
My response should be considerably shorter. I'm nearly done with it now
I met "deem" not "de"
Out of character from the debate: I share your skepticism, but I think it's a bit early to de it a complete failure.
Believe it or not, I had 2 other points that wouldn't fit, so I wittled down the first points I made. I'm really sorry.
Sorry it's a massive case. I pruned it as best I could.
1. https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/china-mongolia-taiwan/peoples-republic-china
2. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/26/trade-war-coronavirus-show-retail-too-reliant-on-china-ex-macys-ceo.html
3. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11434
4. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dont-panic-about-rare-earth-elements/
5. https://docdro.id/l0DDkwg (should load as a pdf)
6. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-china-rareearth/china-ready-to-hit-back-at-u-s-with-rare-earths-ruling-party-newspaper-idUSKCN1SZ07V
7. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-china-economy/china-retaliatory-tariffs-cost-billions-in-lost-consumption-study-idUSKBN1YF23W
8. https://taxfoundation.org/tariffs-trump-trade-war/
9. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R45929.pdf pg. 8
10. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-rareearth-explainer/explainer-chinas-rare-earth-supplies-could-be-vital-bargaining-chip-in-u-s-trade-war-idUSKCN1T00EK
11. https://lacrossetribune.com/news/local/number-of-telehealth-visits-rapidly-rising-at-gundersen-mayo-during-covid-19/article_4886203e-1527-5558-a877-d7688be0d995.html
12. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/ready-to-help-india-to-procure-ventilators-but-scaling-up-production-a-challenge-china/articleshow/74933098.cms
13. https://www.duluthnewstribune.com/opinion/columns/5014051-Column-Crisis-shows-US-too-reliant-on-China-for-metals-other-imports
14. https://www.industryweek.com/the-economy/article/22025438/us-needs-china-more-than-china-needs-the-us
15. https://www.piie.com/blogs/trade-investment-policy-watch/steel-profits-gain-steel-users-pay-under-trumps-protectionism
16. http://tradepartnership.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/232EmploymentPolicyBrief.pdf
17. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/30/coronavirus-job-losses-could-total-47-million-unemployment-rate-of-32percent-fed-says.html
18. https://www.piie.com/blogs/trade-and-investment-policy-watch/us-china-trade-disputes-wto-usually-sides-united-states
19. https://www.livemint.com/opinion/columns/an-assessment-of-china-s-ip-protection-11577291621170.html
20. https://www.chinabusinessreview.com/chinas-ip-system-was-improving-even-before-the-trade-war/
21. https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3014258/pain-tariffs-and-sanctions-behind-china-and-russias-push-dethrone
22. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/07/china-pm-europe-bolster-ties-trade-war-180708170911157.html
23. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brics-summit-preview/brics-summit-marks-recovery-of-china-brazil-relations-idUSKBN1XM205
24. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/chinas-massive-belt-and-road-initiative
25. https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1179&context=caselrev pg. 215-216
27. https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/phase-one-china-trade-deal-tests-the-limits-of-us-power/
28. https://money.cnn.com/2018/03/23/technology/china-us-trump-tariffs-ip-theft/index.html
29. https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/china-investment-us-drying-up-poor-states-michigan-lose-out-2019-7-1028371155
30. https://www.statista.com/statistics/188806/top-15-countries-for-united-states-direct-investments/
31.https://legacy.trade.gov/mas/ian/build/groups/public/@tg_ian/documents/webcontent/tg_ian_005496.pdf pg v.
You know, I ended up eating store bought frozen quiche one time and got sick, which may have turned me off from egg dishes for the rest of my life. Good luck! Don't let my sacrifice be in vain!
Do you mind waiving the last round so that we have an equal number of speeches?
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Nevets // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 6 to Pro, 1 to Con.
>Reason for Decision:
reasons in comment
>Reason for Mod Action: Per the Voting Policy:
"Similarly, a conceded debate is any debate in which on side clearly concedes the debate to their opponent. These debates are considered conceded debates and are not moderated ๐ฎ๐ง๐ฅ๐๐ฌ๐ฌ ๐ ๐ฏ๐จ๐ญ๐๐ซ ๐ฏ๐จ๐ญ๐๐ฌ ๐๐จ๐ซ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ฌ๐ข๐๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ญ ๐๐จ๐ง๐๐๐๐๐ฌ." I appreciate the lengthy analysis, and some points were raised, but the guidelines were clear.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: DrSpy // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 6 points to Pro.
>Reason for Decision: My first large debate vote on this site. Please provide feedback to me on my approach, perceived accuracy and style.
ARGUMENTS (PRO) for the reasons see the comments.
SOURCES (PRO). for relevance and depth.
S&G (TIE) Con had some mistakes, however, nothing notable worthy of point reduction.
CONDUCT (PRO) - Cons arguments had significant relevance issues. Con also stated in RD4 that they did not need to focus on that actual topic of the debate. I had asked about the focus of Darwin in the comments prior to the debate. The focus was clear, and specifically ignored by Con.
>Reason for Mod Action: Arguments are sufficiently explained. Sources, however, need to be explained better. Per community guidelines:
In order to award sources points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate
Directly evaluate at least one source in particular cited in the debate and explain how it either bolstered or weakened the argument it was used to support
Must explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's.
Conduct needs to be specifically attached to the debate, not the comments. There must be at least one incident quoted or explained that led to the conduct point allotment, and conduct needs to be compared between the two debaters.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: DrSpy // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 5 points to Con, 1 point to Pro
>Reason for Decision: This is the most frustrating thing I have read. I so want to go for Pro here. I am well versed on the subject. The debate definition is something that is very clear. The word "may" crated a technicality that I think both parties avoided (except for Pro trying to invoke it in the last round). And even as TheJackle keeps attacking me and others, they did a good job here. Even with the swearing and unconventional language, they did a good job.
PRO:
Starts out with a position with a conspiracy theory reference. Conspiracy theories are not the foundation of evidence. Some elements of a conspiracy theory may support a well-founded thesis, but should not be the corpus of one. Pro provides links to Wiki quotes on the following subjects:
1. General Conspiracy theory. --> Pro says it is now contemporary understanding
2. Big Pharma financial motives --> Pro claims alternative medicines are the target
3. Other Parties motives --> Pro claims lawyers, and legal groups also benefit
Pro starts out with these elements but does not develop on them.
For sanitation, Pro tries to establish that vaccines are reducing sensitivity to sanitation concerns by highlighting a few OCD diagnosis cases. Pro does not show any cause and effect.
Later on, Pro continues repeating the quotes from Wikipedia, without developing those ideas and offers an example of paracetamol as an example.
Pro writes extensively about sanitation and makes some great points about how important sanitation is as part of the war on disease. However, there is no cause and effect established.
Pro hints that some new vaccines support his financial motives. But he frustratingly Pro does not develop anything related to CDC patents, the fact that so many current big pharma execs used to work at the CDC or FDA, the lobbying done, the fact that FDA recommended no testing for Gardasil 9... the contradictions by the WHO. Another HUGE area that was not developed was the fact that drug companies are indemnified by the federal government for any injuries caused by vaccines. There was so much potential and Pro did not address any of it.
Pro then keeps circling back saying arguments had been made that had not. Pro admits to agreeing to everything that Con was saying but just wanted Con to add sanitation to his/her agenda. That was not the debate purpose.
Con, was rather direct, and rude. Swearing, and showing written forms of frustration. However, Con was focused. Stayed direct to the point. Con showed that Pro never established there is, or intended to be profiteering. Con also brought up over and over again that those connection weren't being made.
Con then provided some good resources supporting vaccine and sanitation as part of a co strategy.
Points to Con
======
Source, Pro relied heavily on Wikipedia quotes. 35 wiki references, and only one nonreference (quotes 3x). Con was very diverse, and while not as many, certainly demonstrates they did their homework. Points to Con
S&G - Both were understood and written to read. tie.
Conduct. - I have to give this to Pro. The swearing and frustration was too obvious.
Very frustrating from my side. So I guess I have to say well done to Con.
>Reason for Mod Action: Argument-point allocations were justified, but to award source points, a voter must "explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate." While I understand that the voter has an issue with Wikipedia, it is unclear how single-minded use of Wikipedia affected the debate or was necessarily bad. One or two sentences explaining this shall suffice. Other than that, it was a perfectly justified vote.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Points Awarded: 5 points to Con
>Reason for Decision:
Argument: I look at the debate title and conclude, by the arguments, that Con did a better job of staying on point with regard to vaccines, the subject of the debate, whereas Pro wandered into "Big Pharma" in general to discuss diseases that are not treated by vaccines, making a point that "Big Pharma" is profiting, which they have a right to do [this is, after all, the point of busness] and is the direct cause of world sanitation issues [which pro did not prove regarding direct cause]. Points to Con
Sources: Pro virtually limited sourcing to Wikipedia, which says of itself that "Wikipedia is not a reliable source." Pro even calls Wiki his "savior." It's fine to begin with Wiki to put one in a ballpark, but it is always better to go to their linked sources to draw conclusions from them. It may require further digging than that. If I am thirsty, I want to get as close to a supply of fresh water as possible. There's water in my gutter right now, but that's not my best source. Conversely [no pun intended] Con used varied sourcing; better sanitized water. Points to Con
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Nevets // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 6 points to Con.
>Reason for Decision:
There is no argument to be had. Pro forfeited and got banned from debateart by his parents. That means even the Con could argue for just about anything and be considered to have the better argument
>Reason for Mod Action: To vote solely off the basis of forfeits, it must be a full forfeit (FF) debate where at least 50% of the rounds were forfeited by one side. Only one round was forfeited, so this vote is insufficient. There was no concession either, just a small blip about not being able to post. This violates the Voting Policy and is thus subject to removal. Sorry for the inconvenience, but feel free to case another vote.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Nevets // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 6 points to Pro, 1 to Con.
>Reason for Decision:
Convincing argument - I feel Pro had the better philisophical argument, and i agree with his moral definition of "good" over that of Con, that seems more apologetic regarding the moral definition, and i feel it is quite apparent and clear just what definition of "good" Pro was talking about.
Reliable sources - I would not say that Pros sources were really great, and i do not see how much value any source can have regarding a personal opinion that is a matter of speculation, but at least his willingness to present source material showed he has invested much time studying and researching the subject he is talking about
Spelling and Grammar - I had no great issue with eithers spelling or grammar as such. But i feel Cons argument was sometimes harder to read "for some reason" and definitely when it came to seperating the subject matter of his opponent, from his own, it was quite difficult to easily recognise who was speaking, himself, or his opponent.
Conduct - I am actually going to give this to Con. I feel i agree with Pros philisophical stance, aswell as his Scholarship, but i do not agree with his religious arguments, and he violated his own policy on a number of occasions, regards to this being a philisophical debate, and not a religious debate, and he walked a very thin-line and this nearly cost him the argument in my estimation, and it is quite apparent that he is eager to tie this in with god, which makes his argument just a tad dishonest. But once weighed up, i feel his philisophical argument was good enough to win over, and reduce his violation to a conduct violation, rather than an argument violation.
>Reason for Mod Action: Allocation of argument points requires more than simply stating that one argument was convincing (https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#1-argument-points). Explain why the definition of "good" matters in the debate and why one side defines the term better better. Sources was unjustified because a) not a single citation was evaluated and b) the voter failed to compare sources of each debater (https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#2-sources-points). As for S&G, the Voting Policy explicitly states "In order to award spelling and grammar (S&G) points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Give specific examples of S&G errors
Explain how these errors were excessive
Compare each debater's S&G from the debate
S&G errors are considered excessive when they render arguments incoherent or incomprehensible."
Simply stating that you prefer one side for separating the argument to make it easier to read does not constitute excessive S&G errors.
Conduct is explained sufficiently as you did demonstrate that the mutually agreed upon rule was broken.
Please consult the Voting Policy which can be found here: https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: TheJackle // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 1 point awarded to Con.
>Reason for Decision: Argument is a big word game. We all know what animals means. This was setup as a fraud debate.
>Reason for Mod Action: Per the site rules:
"A full-forfeit debate is defined as a debate that has no argument presented by one side following the opening round, resulting in all subsequent rounds being forfeited. When this is the case, these debates are considered full-forfeit debates and are not moderated unless a voter votes for the forfeiting side. Similarly, a conceded debate is any debate in which on side clearly concedes the debate to their opponent. These debates are considered conceded debates and are not moderated unless a voter votes for the side that concedes."
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Nevets // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 3 to Pro, 2 to Con
>Reason for Decision:
Convincing argument - This is a hard one. Con appears to be a highly skilled multi-linguist scholar and researcher, and he certainly done a better job of arguing his case than Pro. However in my pre-conceived opinion, it is the wrong case.. Pro appears to believe that the bible is mostly fiction. He does a bad job presenting this. However Con does a great job in trying to convince everyone why one should donate so much time to defending a 4000 year old semi-fictional book, therefore i "may" present Con points for other factors below, but not for argument.
Sources - Con provided more sources. However providing sources from religious organisations, to prove a religious opinion, is likely going to result in the opinion being biased, and non neutral example below. but i left it at a tie, as Pro did not take the time to provide any meaningful sources at-all
https://www.islam21c.com/islamic-thought/whats-the-real-meaning-of-islam/
Spelling and Grammer - Without a doubt, that is Con
Better conduct - Again, definitely Con.. Pro forfeiteded a round and appeared to get a tad irate with Con
>Reason for Mod Action: Per the Voting Policy:
"Similarly, a conceded debate is any debate in which on side clearly concedes the debate to their opponent. These debates are considered conceded debates and are not moderated ๐ฎ๐ง๐ฅ๐๐ฌ๐ฌ ๐ ๐ฏ๐จ๐ญ๐๐ซ ๐ฏ๐จ๐ญ๐๐ฌ ๐๐จ๐ซ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ฌ๐ข๐๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ญ ๐๐จ๐ง๐๐๐๐๐ฌ."
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: DrSpy // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Pro
>Reason for Decision:
Pro did a better job of staying focused on the issue at hand and repeatedly tried to bring the conversation back to that point. It is something that I appreciate.
Pro brought up some valid fallacy issues with Con's arguments.
Con attempted to change the definition of the woman to woman and unborn in stats framing. This for me was an area of no return. Con had just argued about the independent personhood of a fetus and then argues that a woman and fetus are one, for the pure purposes of trying to misapply statistics on the acquisition of abortion to woman health, at which point it could be argued there was an adoption of the Violinist theory.
Con also miscategorized the rights differences brought yup between a man and a woman and how they use their body.
Finally, credibility is substantially eroded when Nazi's are brought in for comparative purposes. It just undermines the entire argument from Con.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter did not meet the requirements of awarding argument points per the Voting Policy.
In order to award argument points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate
Weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself)
Explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points
Pro's arguments were recounted as fallacies, but the voter never explained what those fallacies were or why they were persuasive. Additionally, the bulk of the arguments from Pro's constructive was excluded too. That's ok if you explain why most of the arguments don't factor into your decision, but you have to do that.
I apologize for the inconvenience. Please PM me if you have any questions.
************************************************************************