*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Nevets // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 6 points to Con
>Reason for Decision:
I feel Con definitely won the argument. Unless Pro can prove that the Scientific reputable studies provided by Con, from the scientific community, are wrong, then we only have Pros word for it that they do not prove Dtap, and as it is his word against the Scientific community Con is debating for, then it could be possible that Pro is misunderstanding the scientific studies.
And Con definitely provided the more reliable sources in her/his opening argument. All reputable scientific based studies. Con can do no more than this. It is not Cons fault that Pro will not accept this.
And i feel Pro also used only one "real" argument, that was accusing over and over Con of failing to comply with his rules of focusing purely on Dtap. However Pro did not truelly once tackle Cons arguments by stating "why" he feels those studies do not support her scientific knowledge.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The Voting Policy is clear in its guidelines regarding point allocations for 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."
In addition argument-point allocations must include arguments and counterarguments. A good portion of the debate was excluded from the final RFD. While that is fine, please explain why the bulk of arguments do not matter.
As far as conduct, the Voting Policy explicates that a conduct point should be awarded when "poor conduct was either excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate." While not engaging in a debate may warrant a conduct violation, please explain how it warrants a point allocation and, pursuant to the Voting Policy, compare both user's behavior.
Thank you for your time, here is the Voting Policy in full for your perusal:
https://info.debateart.com/statements/code-of-conduct#voting-policy
You may re-cast your vote, but please keep this in mind.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: [Nevets] // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con
>Reason for Decision: I feel Con had the better moral argument to begin with, and did nothing but strengthen that argument, whilst Pros argument did not quite make the same impact.
Source wise, they both used reputable valid sources.
And grammar wise Cons writine was easier on the eye.
Conduct wise they appeared to both conduct themselves immaculately
>Reason for Mod Action: Pursuant to the Voting Policy located in the Terms of Service, point allocations must include the following: The voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.
Unfortunately, while I am thrilled that debates are receiving input, the voter must adhere to these rules. Ergo, I must remove it. Apologies for any inconvenience. You will be allowed to re-vote provided that it matches the Voting Policy which I will include for your convenience: https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con
>Reason for Decision:
Women's Health: Pro argues, with citation, “Of all abortions, an estimated 55% are safe (i.e., done using a recommended method and by an appropriately trained provider)..." This is not a convincing percentage to argue that abortion is "safe" since it acknowledges that there are degrees of safeness. Con argues, with citation, ""CDC...confirmed that there were more than 3,400 pregnancy-related deaths over a five-year period in the United States," and that, "The estimated abortion deaths, same time period --> 3,156,876 - 5,335,59" The two citations indicate that there are a thousand-fold more abortions than pregnancy-related deaths, which suggests that "women's health" is, at best, a relative term, along with "safeness" and not a credible leading argument for abortion.
Person: Con is consistent in the definition of what constitutes "person" as being human, whereas Pro vacillates in that definition.
Rights: Con argues that the unborn, being acknowledged as "persons" and humans, have rights afforded to human. Pro, due to the above vacillation, cannot argue from form both sides of the table and maintain credibility. Example: Pro argues, as a definition, that "Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status." It's the "any other status" that hangs all other Pro claims that the right to life belongs only to the woman, and not the fetus, since "Every person has a moral right to control their own body," when Pro also argues, "Freedom, justice, and peace rests on fundamental human rights such as ‘freedom from slavery, freedom from torture, equality, and the right to life." Pro has not successfully argued that a human is not human at conception, even though arguing that a "person" is not established at conception, hanging "person" on a nebulous hook of "consciousness." Pro has not demonstrated by evidence that a fetus has no consciousness, and must do that to deny a fetus the right that freedom and justice demand.
S.L.E.D. depends on a value being "taken" from the pregnant woman by the fetus, that value being nutrients, even if, in the transfer of nutrients, the woman's body is deprived of them to the degree they are "taken" by the fetus. What in the process specifically requires that "give" is not at least an equal to "take" in that the "give" is not a conscious act by the woman any more than "take" is a conscious act of the fetus? After all, Pro argues that consciousness is not a feature endowed to the fetus.
>Reason for Mod Action: While I consider the RFD flawed, there is nothing that explicitly violates the Voting Policy guidelines.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: Tied
>Reason for Decision:
This is the most absurd "debate" I've seen exercised here.
Arguments: the participants argued, but neither one made convincing debate arguments, pro or con.
Sources: what's a source?
S&G: lack of, yes.
Conduct: deplorable, both sides, by lack of debate as the term suggests a formal activity.
>Reason for Mod Action: While I am similarly incensed by the substance-less debacle that barely approximates what I would call a "debate," the Voting Policy located in the Code of Conduct and the Extended Voter policies suggest that any tie vote must "clearly explain why, based on what transpired in the debate, they chose not to award points." While many of these complaints are valid, there needs to be specific mention of what occurred during the debate. (Granted, there wasn't much that happened, but you could mention that no argument registers because both debaters used one word or one sentence posts that fail to function as arguments.) I implore the voter to vote again and to do a once over of the Voting Policy.
https://info.debateart.com/statements/code-of-conduct#voting-policy
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Christen // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con
>Reason for Decision: Pro got lazy and gave up on the thirs round. This is poor conduct.
>Reason for Mod Action: Gonna be honest, this vote is fairly innocuous. Nonetheless, the Voting Policy explicates three criteria to award conduct points:
1.Provide specific references to instances of poor conduct which occurred in the debate
2.Demonstrate how this poor conduct was either excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate
3.Compare each debater's conduct from the debate
An instance of poor conduct was identified, but the other two conditions are not met. I hate to do this, but the vote must be removed pursuant to the Voting Policy.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Christen // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Pro
>Reason for Decision: http://archive.ph/DB6l5
>Reason for Mod Action: Pursuant to the CoC, this vote must be removed for considering outside information in the overall decision. For example:
"Con does not consider that, even though more Americans finish high school, not only is the value of a high school diploma going down because of this, but also that this is mainly due to lots of grade inflation going on, where schools will artificially make it easier for their students to get higher grades so that it's easier for them to be accepted into colleges."
Grade inflation, the devaluation of the high-school diploma, and the additional sources used to justify this claim are never brought up in the debate. The voter's objection to comparing the US to India is also rejected for the same reason; No one brought it up. The Voting Policy is clear on this:
"The voter must assess the content of the debate and only the debate, any reasoning based on arguments made or information given outside of the debate rounds is unacceptable. "
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ragnar // Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Points Awarded: 1 point awarded to Con
>Reason for Decision:
1. Opening
Pro basically says that to not agree to some degree of obligation to help others in need of help, is to rooted in not being “an emotionally devoid psychopath, nor a completely self-centred narcissist.”
Some strong pathos appeals, some quite irrational, but extra credit for mentioning that cats need help (a little off topic, since of course we have a moral obligation to cats; but the debate is about people).
Pro seems to base his case on being either right or morality not existing. I’ll pretty much give the debate to him if con relies on morality is a wholesale lie (such would be a good debate topic, but it would be quite the bastard move to try in a debate he started....). Conversely, con gains significant ground if he shows morality existing but the resolution to be false for valid reasons.
Con wisely counters using pro’s own words, and points out: “outside of the [pathos] appeal there's zero warrant as to why individuals have moral obligations to help others.”
2. Ontology (the nature of being)
This is such a weird one, as con is the instigator, but he’s pulling what very closely resembles a Kritik. Glancing at the comment section, I do see that he gave double warning this was a philosophy debate (the other obvious option would be a politics debate, to imply something about what some story on the news).
So people might not exist as referenced in the resolution; and if they do, the “contents of their agency is always changing.” And it was formed by other people anyway.
Pro immediately denies this argument exists: “Notice that the entire Round that he was meant to use for opening arguments he uses only for rebuttals?!”
3. Epistemology (the nature of knowledge)
Con goes way deeper than is needed here, basically saying pro’s case is inductive and thus no good. I don’t find this to be strong, or directly connected to the arguments in question for this debate.
Pro immediately denies this argument exists: “Notice that the entire Round that he was meant to use for opening arguments he uses only for rebuttals?!”
4. Metaethics (the nature of ethics)
Con argues that the normative obligation is false because it’s not always true within other cultures (this would have been stronger if directly connected to other cultural groups, such as the millionaires pro mentioned).
Pro immediately denies this argument exists: “Notice that the entire Round that he was meant to use for opening arguments he uses only for rebuttals?!”
5. We don’t exist
Pro makes a case that con made a case that we don’t exist. As a literate person, this is obviously false. Pro even uses his final round to mostly just extend this...
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote meets the minimum requirements in the Voting Policy for the vote to not be removed.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: PressF4Respect // Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Points Awarded: Tied
>Reason for Decision: It was a tie. Also need to get my votes up.
>Reason for Mod Action: The debate qualifies as a FF as more than half of the rounds have been forfeited. Therefore, this debate's votes are mostly un-moderated.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: SirAnonymous // Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Con
>Reason for Decision: "FF and failure to meet BOP."
>Reason for Mod Action: FF debates, barring other circumstances that take priority, are not subject to moderation. While technically not a full-forfeit, the Moderation Extended Policy offers a precedent:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/726/prescription-medication-is-poison?comments_page=1&votes_page=1
As this debate is not fully forfeited either but is still classified as a FF per the extended guidelines, I am confident that this debate constitutes an FF as well.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Trent0405 // Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Con
>Reason for Decision: "Full Forfeit."
>Reason for Mod Action: FF debates, barring other circumstances that take priority, are not subject to moderation. While technically not a full-forfeit, the Moderation Extended Policy offers a precedent:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/726/prescription-medication-is-poison?comments_page=1&votes_page=1
As this debate is not fully forfeited either but is still classified as a FF per the extended guidelines, I am confident that this debate constitutes an FF as well.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ragnar // Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Con
>Reason for Decision: "FF."
>Reason for Mod Action: FF debates, barring other circumstances that take priority, are not subject to moderation. While technically not a full-forfeit, the Moderation Extended Policy offers a precedent:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/726/prescription-medication-is-poison?comments_page=1&votes_page=1
As this debate is not fully forfeited either but is still classified as a FF per the extended guidelines, I am confident that this debate constitutes an FF as well.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: blanks // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Con
>Reason for Decision:
"Forfeited."
>Reason for Mod Action: While the RFD would normally be justified, the user is not eligible to vote per the Voting Policy. For more information, please scroll to the bottom of the screen to view the Code of Conduct and search for the voting policy. Alternatively, follow this URL:
https://info.debateart.com/statements/code-of-conduct#voter-eligibility
Thank you for your cooperation.
************************************************************************
Additionally, the sources points need to be explained better.
None of the sources were analyzed individually and it was unexplained why Con failed to utilize his stats effectively.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: DynamicSquid // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: [5 points to Pro]
>Reason for Decision: Cool debate. Good job both you of!
Pro -
I liked how your formatting was neat and organized, and your contentions were very well laid out. You also laid out many facts and sources to back up your claims.
However, I would of liked to see some more direct clash with what Con said.
Also for Pro, dropping Con's case for a "young earth" damaged your text in a way. You should of disproved the flood in a young earth, and disproved the flood in an old earth (4.5 billion years old). Don't be afraid the challenge Con's definitions.
Con -
"everything can come from nothing [..] origin of the universe is quite a supernatural event"
We can't simply say god is the answer, but Pro doesn't refute this well enough, allowing Con to shape this round.
"no tenable explanation for this extraordinary phenomenon"
This has actually been proven. Also, I want a pet T-Rex!
Con also provides facts about how the Ark is feasible, however I find that Pro refutes this well enough.
Con also used sources, however very few of which actually add value to the debate.
Both -
This topic is hard. Mainly because it deals with lots of extra side topics like the existence of god. However, arguing for the existence of god would be off-topic, so I know how this could be a gray area. Here's my advice.
Instead of accepting {A} as true and basing all your arguments off {A}, you should instead present arguments if {A} were to be true, and arguments if {A} were to be false, therefore covering all scenarios.
End.
>Reason for Mod Action: Per the Voting Guidelines, the voter must survey and weigh both arguments and counter-arguments. While some arguments were surveyed adequately, others were not. For example:
"Pro doesn't refute this well enough..." Why does Pro not refute the argument well enough?
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Lazorous // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 4 to Con
>Reason for Decision: "I would have liked to see even one decent argument from either side. I had little to vote on besides two forfeitures from Pro."
>Reason for Mod Action: The user is ineligible to vote per the Voting Guidelines. To vote, a user must have either 2 finished debates or 100 forum posts. The following URL will take you to the CoC and Voting Guidelines which I recommend skimming.
https://info.debateart.com/statements/code-of-conduct#voter-eligibility
************************************************************************
Finally, as far as conduct points are concerned, the voter must explain why misconduct is excessive, which is defined as follows:
"Misconduct is excessive when it is extremely frequent and/or when it causes the debate to become incoherent or extremely toxic"
If you honestly think that the non-standardized structure made the debate inscrutable, please include that in the RFD. That said, I appreciate the attempt at fixing your vote. I don't mean to admonish you harshly.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: DynamicSquid // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 6 points awarded to Pro
>Reason for Decision: Interesting debate. Well done both of you!
Here's my break down.
ROUND ONE
Pro - States the probability of life appearing in our universe
Con - States how life cannot exists due to no contacts, and poorly clashes with Pro
ROUND TWO
Pro - Cements previous arguments sufficiently
Con - Poorly clashes with Pro by overusing assumptions, but sufficiently cements previous arguments
ROUND THREE
Omitted.
REASONING
Arguments - Pro ; Pro provided more factual arguments, cemented it, and Con poorly clashed with them
Sources - Pro ; Pro outnumbers Con 10:3 on sources
S&G - Tie ; No major negatives were found in both
Conduct - Pro ; Not following format and forfeiting a round negatively impacted Con
>Reason for Mod Action: I hate to remove this vote. Unfortunately, I have to. First, arguments need to be explained. I get the the voter feels that Con's refutations were weak, but the Voting Guidelines demands that it also be explained why one argument is superior to another.
"Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed"
Also, according to the Voting 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
Mere appeals to quantity are not sufficient to justify awarding sources points."
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: GeneralGrant // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro
>Reason for Decision: "I like how Con left Pro without being able to defend the problems with dating methods showing different time results. When Pro couldn't answer about different result in dating methods they stooped to criticizing sources."
>Reason for Mod Action: To award argument points, the voter must do the following things according to the Voting Policy:
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
While the voter mentioned individual arguments, he never weighed them to explain how they arrived at their voting decision. Additionally, he never explained why other arguments need not be weighed. Therefore, pursuant to the guidelines, this vote must be removed.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: DynamicSquid // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 6 points to Pro.
>Reason for Decision: "This debate was actually really interesting to read.
Both sides provided decent arguments, and while Con attempted to disprove Pro's case, Pro sufficiently concreted his side.
Both sides also provided good sources, by Pro outweighed Con just a bit on this.
Con didn't follow the specified format, and while I wouldn't take that as a major Pro vote, Con did forfeit his last round."
>Reason for Mod Action: The points awarded for arguments, conduct, and sources need to be explained better. Why is it that Pro sufficiently "concreted" his side? What made Pro's sources better than Con's? Why is the non-specific format severe enough to award Pro the conduct point? Until these questions are answered, the RFD unfortunately violates the Voting Policy.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: DynamicSquid // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: Tie
>Reason for Decision:"
I usually look in a unique format to differentiate two people in a debate. For example starting with an INTRODUCTION, then your ARGUMENTS, and a CONCLUSION. But you guys seemed to change your format between rounds. This made it really confusing to follow through.
Both of you guys however provided links, so that was nice.
I also noticed how you guys clash with the opponents general statements, instead of line by line. It can be hard to clash line by line with a 5000 character limit though, but I would still recommend doing so.
For the arguments, I felt like both sides kinda did the same job.
In the end, I felt like this debate was really messy, and I couldn't decide a clear winner. I however agree with Zaradi's vote, but I don't consider that a significant win.
TIE from me."
Reason for Mod Action: To cast a tie vote, the voter must "clearly explain why, based on what transpired in the debate, they chose not to award points." See here for more information: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1718. The voter did not fulfill the basic requirements of the voting policy either by failing to evaluate the arguments present in the debate. Ergo, the vote must be removed.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: PressF4Respect // Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Con
>Reason for Decision: "50% forfeit"
>Reason for Mod Action: Because half of the rounds are forfeited and the balance of points favor the side that did not concede, this vote meets the minimum standards under the Voting Guidelines.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: DynamicSquid // Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Points Awarded: 7 points awarded to Con
>Reason for Decision: "With only one piece of text, I have to go with Con on this one."
>Reason for Mod Action: Because half of the rounds are forfeited and the balance of points favor the side that did not concede, this vote meets the minimum standards under the Voting Guidelines.
************************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Zaradi // Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Points Awarded: 1 point awarded to Pro
>Reason for Decision: "Really messy debate overall. A lot the debate centered around things and issues that were never really impacted out and neither side was doing a whole lot in the way of explaining why the arguments they were making mattered in terms of my vote. This was particularly bad around the topic of adolescents just having a right to make a decision - at the end of the debate, I'm still not sure why it matters if they have a decision or not, nor how I weigh it against other arguments being presented.
At the end, the only cohesive argument being advanced that had any kind of impact tied to it at the end of the day was Pro's argument for kids going out on their own for less safe DIY procedures that were super bad for their health and is prevented in the pro world. I hate how underdeveloped the argument is, but I cant find any response to it from con other than it's a minority of cases, which doesn't really do anything outside of potentially minimize the impact off of it? But that doesn't really change the fact it's the only real impact I have to vote off of. A lot of room for improvement from both sides."
>Reason for Mod Action: I made a mistake by removing it. I missed the arguments that were surveyed by the voter. The vote does meet the requirements under the CoC and Voting Guidelines. Apologies for the mistake.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Zaradi // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 1 point awarded to Pro
>Reason for Decision: "Really messy debate overall. A lot the debate centered around things and issues that were never really impacted out and neither side was doing a whole lot in the way of explaining why the arguments they were making mattered in terms of my vote. This was particularly bad around the topic of adolescents just having a right to make a decision - at the end of the debate, I'm still not sure why it matters if they have a decision or not, nor how I weigh it against other arguments being presented.
At the end, the only cohesive argument being advanced that had any kind of impact tied to it at the end of the day was Pro's argument for kids going out on their own for less safe DIY procedures that were super bad for their health and is prevented in the pro world. I hate how underdeveloped the argument is, but I cant find any response to it from con other than it's a minority of cases, which doesn't really do anything outside of potentially minimize the impact off of it? But that doesn't really change the fact it's the only real impact I have to vote off of. A lot of room for improvement from both sides."
>Reason for Mod Action: Per the Voting Guidelines, the voter must survey the chief arguments in the round, synthesize and weigh those arguments and counter-arguments, and come to a conclusion based off the preceding steps. While I would hate to take away a vote from a new user, particularly one that came from DDO, I must do so here. While one or two arguments were addressed and some weighing occurred, the bulk of the arguments were never mentioned. In particular, there was no mention of counterarguments whatsoever. I hate to do this, but rules are rules.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: oromagi // Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Pro
>Reason for Decision: "Truly contemptible conduct by CON here. PRO sets up a skeletal premise for the seeming purpose of racist invective. PRO then assumes CON is a member of the racial group based on debate acceptance and addresses CON as a target for mere hate speech. Full points to PRO for responding with love. User mairj23 should be advised that while racism is well-tolerated on this site, attacks on fellow members are not. If such conduct continues this debater would advocate a corrective boot to ass."
>Reason for Mod Action: This is a troll debate per the definition provided in the Moderation Extended Policies and Interpretations. Article 3 sub-section 3 designates three categories of troll debates. One of these categories reads:
"Debate primarily designed to be humorous or facetious or containing primarily humorous or facetious content."
While not humorous, it is axiomatically true that the debate is facetious in nature. Additionally, the topic is designed to incite and annoy. It, purely and simply, is a troll debate. Thus, it is not moderated.
************************************************************************
I struggle with the perception that I am part of a clique. I handle voting reports and decide whether a vote should be removed. There are no people who are "one of my guys." It's for this reason that I was reluctant to join moderation to begin with. The popular view is that moderation is an amorphous mass that attempts to restrict the views of conservatives and amplify the liberal voice. I don't do that, and will never do that. I just ameliorate concerns people have with particular votes by either deleting them or not deleting them in accordance with the CoC and Voting Guidelines. If you are convinced that I am part of a clique who tries to abuse my powers, then you really should report me to get this settled. You say that you have "no issues that need to go to Virt," but you are accusing me of egregious misconduct. In your words:
"Before my hiatus from Dart, I noticed the came the voting mods were playing. It seems you are still playing. Ram is still voting mod right?
I will track the voting, and this time, maybe with bsh1 gone, the exposure of the behavior will not fall on deaf ears."
Go ahead and expose my behavior to Virt if you find it reprehensible. He could remove me.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: SirAnonymous // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro
>Reason for Decision:
"Con dropped most of Pro's R1 arguments. He failed to show how the Trinity is a Biblical doctrine. In fact, he hardly presented any arguments. On the other hand, Pro actually took the time to explain how the doctrine of the Trinity was pagan. While I don't think he proved that the Trinity was pagan, Con failed to establish the BoP required. Pro's arguments suggest that the doctrine of the Trinity could have pagan roots. Con failed to refute those arguments. Consequently, arguments go to Pro.
There were no issues with spelling, grammar, or conduct. While Con did try to discredit one of Pro's sources, he didn't provide any reasoning for discrediting it. Thus, sources are a tie."
>Reason for Mod Action: To award points for arguments, the voter must survey the main arguments of the round, weigh them, and come to a conclusion based off the gravity of the arguments per the CoC and Voting Guidelines. There was a surface-level attempt to do this, and I do agree from my cursory evaluation that Con essentially drops this debate, but Pro's arguments and counterarguments must be evaluated as well. Sorry, my hands are tied.
************************************************************************
If you have a complaint to lodge about my actions, feel free to contact Virtuoso. I maintain that a 5 page RFD could not be done in a matter of minutes or hours with my schedule of helping out a debate club, going to college, trying to join Model UN, and moderating here. Funnily enough, I don't have a vendetta against you or other conservative voters on this site. I sincerely wanted to offer advice to the debaters and an RFD is the best way of doing that. If you observe any significant errors, please contact me at your earliest convenience.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: JesusChrist4Ever // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 5 points to Con
>Reason for Decision: Pro used a biased source by using the Watchtower Organization, which is part of the Jehovah's Witness Cult. Plus Con had a much better argument by saying that it was beyond human comprehension.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter is not eligible per the Voting Guidelines. He/she must have completed 2 non-forfeit debates or have 100 forum posts. In addition, the point justifications are insubstantial. To award the points for arguments, 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."
To award points for sources, the voter must:
"1.Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate
2.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
3.Must explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's"
I would recommend skimming the CoC and Voting Guidelines which can be located at the bottom of the page or at this URL:
https://www.debateart.com/rules
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: PressF4Respect // Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Points Awarded: 7 points awarded to Pro
>Reason for Decision: "If a debate is publicly designated as a troll debate, or if both sides present arguments that are done for the sake of trolling, then the debate is not moderated."
-DART COC
>Reason for Mod Action: Troll debates are not moderated per the CoC and Voting Guidelines. As this was already designated a troll debate by another moderator, and seeing no reason to counter that decision, this vote ought not be removed.
************************************************************************
Perhaps I should clarify: I don't have enough time in my busy schedule to care about a vote so much to the point that I'd vote out of spite by writing a 5-page RFD. Also, your vote has been reported perhaps a week ago. I asked you to recast the vote and you did with no further repercussions. It has been well within 10 months.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1532/the-problem-of-evil?open_tab=comments&comments_page=1&comment_number=15
I had no intention of nullifying your vote. I planned on voting on the debate regardless. (You thought I could write all of that in one day?) I don't remember voting on any other debate when your vote was reported.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: ethang5 // Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Points Awarded: 3 points awarded to Speedrace
>Reason for Decision: Speed better tied his arguments to what we find in reality. Most people behave as if altruism is a better philosophy than hedonism as con notes when he says, "This is essentially what the average person does daily."
Pro argued that hedonism was profitable for the individual, but failed to show how it is better for society.
But cpro's greatest failing is when he says, about the contradiction in his argument,
"Can it not be? Can you not be interested in both your own well-being and that of others at the same time? I don’t see why not. Human beings are absolutely capable of holding conflicting, contradictory thoughts and emotions at the same time."
But the debate is not about whether people can hold contradictory beliefs, but whether such beliefs are better/more rational than noncontradictory beliefs.
Pro admits the contradiction, but still insists hedonism is better. Con has demonstrated to my satisfaction that Pro's argument is internally contradictory, and does not as accurately represent reality as altruism.
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote is borderline (i.e. it does not explicitly violate the CoC.)
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Nevets // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 6 points to Con
>Reason for Decision:
I feel Con definitely won the argument. Unless Pro can prove that the Scientific reputable studies provided by Con, from the scientific community, are wrong, then we only have Pros word for it that they do not prove Dtap, and as it is his word against the Scientific community Con is debating for, then it could be possible that Pro is misunderstanding the scientific studies.
And Con definitely provided the more reliable sources in her/his opening argument. All reputable scientific based studies. Con can do no more than this. It is not Cons fault that Pro will not accept this.
And i feel Pro also used only one "real" argument, that was accusing over and over Con of failing to comply with his rules of focusing purely on Dtap. However Pro did not truelly once tackle Cons arguments by stating "why" he feels those studies do not support her scientific knowledge.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The Voting Policy is clear in its guidelines regarding point allocations for 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."
In addition argument-point allocations must include arguments and counterarguments. A good portion of the debate was excluded from the final RFD. While that is fine, please explain why the bulk of arguments do not matter.
As far as conduct, the Voting Policy explicates that a conduct point should be awarded when "poor conduct was either excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate." While not engaging in a debate may warrant a conduct violation, please explain how it warrants a point allocation and, pursuant to the Voting Policy, compare both user's behavior.
Thank you for your time, here is the Voting Policy in full for your perusal:
https://info.debateart.com/statements/code-of-conduct#voting-policy
You may re-cast your vote, but please keep this in mind.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: [Nevets] // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con
>Reason for Decision: I feel Con had the better moral argument to begin with, and did nothing but strengthen that argument, whilst Pros argument did not quite make the same impact.
Source wise, they both used reputable valid sources.
And grammar wise Cons writine was easier on the eye.
Conduct wise they appeared to both conduct themselves immaculately
>Reason for Mod Action: Pursuant to the Voting Policy located in the Terms of Service, point allocations must include the following: The voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.
Unfortunately, while I am thrilled that debates are receiving input, the voter must adhere to these rules. Ergo, I must remove it. Apologies for any inconvenience. You will be allowed to re-vote provided that it matches the Voting Policy which I will include for your convenience: https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy.
************************************************************************
Thanks for voting again!
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con
>Reason for Decision:
Women's Health: Pro argues, with citation, “Of all abortions, an estimated 55% are safe (i.e., done using a recommended method and by an appropriately trained provider)..." This is not a convincing percentage to argue that abortion is "safe" since it acknowledges that there are degrees of safeness. Con argues, with citation, ""CDC...confirmed that there were more than 3,400 pregnancy-related deaths over a five-year period in the United States," and that, "The estimated abortion deaths, same time period --> 3,156,876 - 5,335,59" The two citations indicate that there are a thousand-fold more abortions than pregnancy-related deaths, which suggests that "women's health" is, at best, a relative term, along with "safeness" and not a credible leading argument for abortion.
Person: Con is consistent in the definition of what constitutes "person" as being human, whereas Pro vacillates in that definition.
Rights: Con argues that the unborn, being acknowledged as "persons" and humans, have rights afforded to human. Pro, due to the above vacillation, cannot argue from form both sides of the table and maintain credibility. Example: Pro argues, as a definition, that "Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status." It's the "any other status" that hangs all other Pro claims that the right to life belongs only to the woman, and not the fetus, since "Every person has a moral right to control their own body," when Pro also argues, "Freedom, justice, and peace rests on fundamental human rights such as ‘freedom from slavery, freedom from torture, equality, and the right to life." Pro has not successfully argued that a human is not human at conception, even though arguing that a "person" is not established at conception, hanging "person" on a nebulous hook of "consciousness." Pro has not demonstrated by evidence that a fetus has no consciousness, and must do that to deny a fetus the right that freedom and justice demand.
S.L.E.D. depends on a value being "taken" from the pregnant woman by the fetus, that value being nutrients, even if, in the transfer of nutrients, the woman's body is deprived of them to the degree they are "taken" by the fetus. What in the process specifically requires that "give" is not at least an equal to "take" in that the "give" is not a conscious act by the woman any more than "take" is a conscious act of the fetus? After all, Pro argues that consciousness is not a feature endowed to the fetus.
>Reason for Mod Action: While I consider the RFD flawed, there is nothing that explicitly violates the Voting Policy guidelines.
************************************************************************
Trump's response is still occurring, so I feel that any analysis will necessarily be incomplete. Nonetheless, I am looking forward to this.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: Tied
>Reason for Decision:
This is the most absurd "debate" I've seen exercised here.
Arguments: the participants argued, but neither one made convincing debate arguments, pro or con.
Sources: what's a source?
S&G: lack of, yes.
Conduct: deplorable, both sides, by lack of debate as the term suggests a formal activity.
>Reason for Mod Action: While I am similarly incensed by the substance-less debacle that barely approximates what I would call a "debate," the Voting Policy located in the Code of Conduct and the Extended Voter policies suggest that any tie vote must "clearly explain why, based on what transpired in the debate, they chose not to award points." While many of these complaints are valid, there needs to be specific mention of what occurred during the debate. (Granted, there wasn't much that happened, but you could mention that no argument registers because both debaters used one word or one sentence posts that fail to function as arguments.) I implore the voter to vote again and to do a once over of the Voting Policy.
https://info.debateart.com/statements/code-of-conduct#voting-policy
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Christen // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con
>Reason for Decision: Pro got lazy and gave up on the thirs round. This is poor conduct.
>Reason for Mod Action: Gonna be honest, this vote is fairly innocuous. Nonetheless, the Voting Policy explicates three criteria to award conduct points:
1.Provide specific references to instances of poor conduct which occurred in the debate
2.Demonstrate how this poor conduct was either excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate
3.Compare each debater's conduct from the debate
An instance of poor conduct was identified, but the other two conditions are not met. I hate to do this, but the vote must be removed pursuant to the Voting Policy.
************************************************************************
Thanks. Nothing personal.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Christen // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Pro
>Reason for Decision: http://archive.ph/DB6l5
>Reason for Mod Action: Pursuant to the CoC, this vote must be removed for considering outside information in the overall decision. For example:
"Con does not consider that, even though more Americans finish high school, not only is the value of a high school diploma going down because of this, but also that this is mainly due to lots of grade inflation going on, where schools will artificially make it easier for their students to get higher grades so that it's easier for them to be accepted into colleges."
Grade inflation, the devaluation of the high-school diploma, and the additional sources used to justify this claim are never brought up in the debate. The voter's objection to comparing the US to India is also rejected for the same reason; No one brought it up. The Voting Policy is clear on this:
"The voter must assess the content of the debate and only the debate, any reasoning based on arguments made or information given outside of the debate rounds is unacceptable. "
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ragnar // Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Points Awarded: 1 point awarded to Con
>Reason for Decision:
1. Opening
Pro basically says that to not agree to some degree of obligation to help others in need of help, is to rooted in not being “an emotionally devoid psychopath, nor a completely self-centred narcissist.”
Some strong pathos appeals, some quite irrational, but extra credit for mentioning that cats need help (a little off topic, since of course we have a moral obligation to cats; but the debate is about people).
Pro seems to base his case on being either right or morality not existing. I’ll pretty much give the debate to him if con relies on morality is a wholesale lie (such would be a good debate topic, but it would be quite the bastard move to try in a debate he started....). Conversely, con gains significant ground if he shows morality existing but the resolution to be false for valid reasons.
Con wisely counters using pro’s own words, and points out: “outside of the [pathos] appeal there's zero warrant as to why individuals have moral obligations to help others.”
2. Ontology (the nature of being)
This is such a weird one, as con is the instigator, but he’s pulling what very closely resembles a Kritik. Glancing at the comment section, I do see that he gave double warning this was a philosophy debate (the other obvious option would be a politics debate, to imply something about what some story on the news).
So people might not exist as referenced in the resolution; and if they do, the “contents of their agency is always changing.” And it was formed by other people anyway.
Pro immediately denies this argument exists: “Notice that the entire Round that he was meant to use for opening arguments he uses only for rebuttals?!”
3. Epistemology (the nature of knowledge)
Con goes way deeper than is needed here, basically saying pro’s case is inductive and thus no good. I don’t find this to be strong, or directly connected to the arguments in question for this debate.
Pro immediately denies this argument exists: “Notice that the entire Round that he was meant to use for opening arguments he uses only for rebuttals?!”
4. Metaethics (the nature of ethics)
Con argues that the normative obligation is false because it’s not always true within other cultures (this would have been stronger if directly connected to other cultural groups, such as the millionaires pro mentioned).
Pro immediately denies this argument exists: “Notice that the entire Round that he was meant to use for opening arguments he uses only for rebuttals?!”
5. We don’t exist
Pro makes a case that con made a case that we don’t exist. As a literate person, this is obviously false. Pro even uses his final round to mostly just extend this...
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote meets the minimum requirements in the Voting Policy for the vote to not be removed.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: PressF4Respect // Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Points Awarded: Tied
>Reason for Decision: It was a tie. Also need to get my votes up.
>Reason for Mod Action: The debate qualifies as a FF as more than half of the rounds have been forfeited. Therefore, this debate's votes are mostly un-moderated.
************************************************************************
Thanks for the vote! This debate was a test of endurance.
Thanks for the RFD! This was an exhausting debate, but I loved it.
If it's more than half, it technically is a FF if I'm not mistaken.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: SirAnonymous // Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Con
>Reason for Decision: "FF and failure to meet BOP."
>Reason for Mod Action: FF debates, barring other circumstances that take priority, are not subject to moderation. While technically not a full-forfeit, the Moderation Extended Policy offers a precedent:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/726/prescription-medication-is-poison?comments_page=1&votes_page=1
As this debate is not fully forfeited either but is still classified as a FF per the extended guidelines, I am confident that this debate constitutes an FF as well.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Trent0405 // Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Con
>Reason for Decision: "Full Forfeit."
>Reason for Mod Action: FF debates, barring other circumstances that take priority, are not subject to moderation. While technically not a full-forfeit, the Moderation Extended Policy offers a precedent:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/726/prescription-medication-is-poison?comments_page=1&votes_page=1
As this debate is not fully forfeited either but is still classified as a FF per the extended guidelines, I am confident that this debate constitutes an FF as well.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ragnar // Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Con
>Reason for Decision: "FF."
>Reason for Mod Action: FF debates, barring other circumstances that take priority, are not subject to moderation. While technically not a full-forfeit, the Moderation Extended Policy offers a precedent:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/726/prescription-medication-is-poison?comments_page=1&votes_page=1
As this debate is not fully forfeited either but is still classified as a FF per the extended guidelines, I am confident that this debate constitutes an FF as well.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: blanks // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Con
>Reason for Decision:
"Forfeited."
>Reason for Mod Action: While the RFD would normally be justified, the user is not eligible to vote per the Voting Policy. For more information, please scroll to the bottom of the screen to view the Code of Conduct and search for the voting policy. Alternatively, follow this URL:
https://info.debateart.com/statements/code-of-conduct#voter-eligibility
Thank you for your cooperation.
************************************************************************
Thanks!
I guess I was wrong. I spoke to another mod. You can repost it.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure they need to be completed, but I was going to ask him anyway
I'm sorry. I don't mean to keep on taking down your votes when you clearly are trying. I'm sort of obligated to though.
Additionally, the sources points need to be explained better.
None of the sources were analyzed individually and it was unexplained why Con failed to utilize his stats effectively.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: DynamicSquid // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: [5 points to Pro]
>Reason for Decision: Cool debate. Good job both you of!
Pro -
I liked how your formatting was neat and organized, and your contentions were very well laid out. You also laid out many facts and sources to back up your claims.
However, I would of liked to see some more direct clash with what Con said.
Also for Pro, dropping Con's case for a "young earth" damaged your text in a way. You should of disproved the flood in a young earth, and disproved the flood in an old earth (4.5 billion years old). Don't be afraid the challenge Con's definitions.
Con -
"everything can come from nothing [..] origin of the universe is quite a supernatural event"
We can't simply say god is the answer, but Pro doesn't refute this well enough, allowing Con to shape this round.
"no tenable explanation for this extraordinary phenomenon"
This has actually been proven. Also, I want a pet T-Rex!
Con also provides facts about how the Ark is feasible, however I find that Pro refutes this well enough.
Con also used sources, however very few of which actually add value to the debate.
Both -
This topic is hard. Mainly because it deals with lots of extra side topics like the existence of god. However, arguing for the existence of god would be off-topic, so I know how this could be a gray area. Here's my advice.
Instead of accepting {A} as true and basing all your arguments off {A}, you should instead present arguments if {A} were to be true, and arguments if {A} were to be false, therefore covering all scenarios.
End.
>Reason for Mod Action: Per the Voting Guidelines, the voter must survey and weigh both arguments and counter-arguments. While some arguments were surveyed adequately, others were not. For example:
"Pro doesn't refute this well enough..." Why does Pro not refute the argument well enough?
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Lazorous // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 4 to Con
>Reason for Decision: "I would have liked to see even one decent argument from either side. I had little to vote on besides two forfeitures from Pro."
>Reason for Mod Action: The user is ineligible to vote per the Voting Guidelines. To vote, a user must have either 2 finished debates or 100 forum posts. The following URL will take you to the CoC and Voting Guidelines which I recommend skimming.
https://info.debateart.com/statements/code-of-conduct#voter-eligibility
************************************************************************
Finally, as far as conduct points are concerned, the voter must explain why misconduct is excessive, which is defined as follows:
"Misconduct is excessive when it is extremely frequent and/or when it causes the debate to become incoherent or extremely toxic"
If you honestly think that the non-standardized structure made the debate inscrutable, please include that in the RFD. That said, I appreciate the attempt at fixing your vote. I don't mean to admonish you harshly.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: DynamicSquid // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 6 points awarded to Pro
>Reason for Decision: Interesting debate. Well done both of you!
Here's my break down.
ROUND ONE
Pro - States the probability of life appearing in our universe
Con - States how life cannot exists due to no contacts, and poorly clashes with Pro
ROUND TWO
Pro - Cements previous arguments sufficiently
Con - Poorly clashes with Pro by overusing assumptions, but sufficiently cements previous arguments
ROUND THREE
Omitted.
REASONING
Arguments - Pro ; Pro provided more factual arguments, cemented it, and Con poorly clashed with them
Sources - Pro ; Pro outnumbers Con 10:3 on sources
S&G - Tie ; No major negatives were found in both
Conduct - Pro ; Not following format and forfeiting a round negatively impacted Con
>Reason for Mod Action: I hate to remove this vote. Unfortunately, I have to. First, arguments need to be explained. I get the the voter feels that Con's refutations were weak, but the Voting Guidelines demands that it also be explained why one argument is superior to another.
"Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed"
Also, according to the Voting 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
Mere appeals to quantity are not sufficient to justify awarding sources points."
None of this is done either.
Just finished. Good debate!
I'm finishing it up now. Will be done soon
There was a tiny problem on my part. When I discuss the Ohio State University card, it should be source 6, not 8. I'm really sorry about that.
No problem. I think I can access you links. Sorry it took me a bit to come up with a case. I had to make some alterations.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: GeneralGrant // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro
>Reason for Decision: "I like how Con left Pro without being able to defend the problems with dating methods showing different time results. When Pro couldn't answer about different result in dating methods they stooped to criticizing sources."
>Reason for Mod Action: To award argument points, the voter must do the following things according to the Voting Policy:
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
While the voter mentioned individual arguments, he never weighed them to explain how they arrived at their voting decision. Additionally, he never explained why other arguments need not be weighed. Therefore, pursuant to the guidelines, this vote must be removed.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: DynamicSquid // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 6 points to Pro.
>Reason for Decision: "This debate was actually really interesting to read.
Both sides provided decent arguments, and while Con attempted to disprove Pro's case, Pro sufficiently concreted his side.
Both sides also provided good sources, by Pro outweighed Con just a bit on this.
Con didn't follow the specified format, and while I wouldn't take that as a major Pro vote, Con did forfeit his last round."
>Reason for Mod Action: The points awarded for arguments, conduct, and sources need to be explained better. Why is it that Pro sufficiently "concreted" his side? What made Pro's sources better than Con's? Why is the non-specific format severe enough to award Pro the conduct point? Until these questions are answered, the RFD unfortunately violates the Voting Policy.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: armoredcat // Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Con
>Reason for Decision: "tv cuyvuyjgvhb"
>Reason for Mod Action: Full-forfeit debates are not moderated.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: DynamicSquid // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: Tie
>Reason for Decision:"
I usually look in a unique format to differentiate two people in a debate. For example starting with an INTRODUCTION, then your ARGUMENTS, and a CONCLUSION. But you guys seemed to change your format between rounds. This made it really confusing to follow through.
Both of you guys however provided links, so that was nice.
I also noticed how you guys clash with the opponents general statements, instead of line by line. It can be hard to clash line by line with a 5000 character limit though, but I would still recommend doing so.
For the arguments, I felt like both sides kinda did the same job.
In the end, I felt like this debate was really messy, and I couldn't decide a clear winner. I however agree with Zaradi's vote, but I don't consider that a significant win.
TIE from me."
Reason for Mod Action: To cast a tie vote, the voter must "clearly explain why, based on what transpired in the debate, they chose not to award points." See here for more information: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1718. The voter did not fulfill the basic requirements of the voting policy either by failing to evaluate the arguments present in the debate. Ergo, the vote must be removed.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: PressF4Respect // Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Con
>Reason for Decision: "50% forfeit"
>Reason for Mod Action: Because half of the rounds are forfeited and the balance of points favor the side that did not concede, this vote meets the minimum standards under the Voting Guidelines.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: DynamicSquid // Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Points Awarded: 7 points awarded to Con
>Reason for Decision: "With only one piece of text, I have to go with Con on this one."
>Reason for Mod Action: Because half of the rounds are forfeited and the balance of points favor the side that did not concede, this vote meets the minimum standards under the Voting Guidelines.
************************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Zaradi // Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Points Awarded: 1 point awarded to Pro
>Reason for Decision: "Really messy debate overall. A lot the debate centered around things and issues that were never really impacted out and neither side was doing a whole lot in the way of explaining why the arguments they were making mattered in terms of my vote. This was particularly bad around the topic of adolescents just having a right to make a decision - at the end of the debate, I'm still not sure why it matters if they have a decision or not, nor how I weigh it against other arguments being presented.
At the end, the only cohesive argument being advanced that had any kind of impact tied to it at the end of the day was Pro's argument for kids going out on their own for less safe DIY procedures that were super bad for their health and is prevented in the pro world. I hate how underdeveloped the argument is, but I cant find any response to it from con other than it's a minority of cases, which doesn't really do anything outside of potentially minimize the impact off of it? But that doesn't really change the fact it's the only real impact I have to vote off of. A lot of room for improvement from both sides."
>Reason for Mod Action: I made a mistake by removing it. I missed the arguments that were surveyed by the voter. The vote does meet the requirements under the CoC and Voting Guidelines. Apologies for the mistake.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Zaradi // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 1 point awarded to Pro
>Reason for Decision: "Really messy debate overall. A lot the debate centered around things and issues that were never really impacted out and neither side was doing a whole lot in the way of explaining why the arguments they were making mattered in terms of my vote. This was particularly bad around the topic of adolescents just having a right to make a decision - at the end of the debate, I'm still not sure why it matters if they have a decision or not, nor how I weigh it against other arguments being presented.
At the end, the only cohesive argument being advanced that had any kind of impact tied to it at the end of the day was Pro's argument for kids going out on their own for less safe DIY procedures that were super bad for their health and is prevented in the pro world. I hate how underdeveloped the argument is, but I cant find any response to it from con other than it's a minority of cases, which doesn't really do anything outside of potentially minimize the impact off of it? But that doesn't really change the fact it's the only real impact I have to vote off of. A lot of room for improvement from both sides."
>Reason for Mod Action: Per the Voting Guidelines, the voter must survey the chief arguments in the round, synthesize and weigh those arguments and counter-arguments, and come to a conclusion based off the preceding steps. While I would hate to take away a vote from a new user, particularly one that came from DDO, I must do so here. While one or two arguments were addressed and some weighing occurred, the bulk of the arguments were never mentioned. In particular, there was no mention of counterarguments whatsoever. I hate to do this, but rules are rules.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: oromagi // Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Pro
>Reason for Decision: "Truly contemptible conduct by CON here. PRO sets up a skeletal premise for the seeming purpose of racist invective. PRO then assumes CON is a member of the racial group based on debate acceptance and addresses CON as a target for mere hate speech. Full points to PRO for responding with love. User mairj23 should be advised that while racism is well-tolerated on this site, attacks on fellow members are not. If such conduct continues this debater would advocate a corrective boot to ass."
>Reason for Mod Action: This is a troll debate per the definition provided in the Moderation Extended Policies and Interpretations. Article 3 sub-section 3 designates three categories of troll debates. One of these categories reads:
"Debate primarily designed to be humorous or facetious or containing primarily humorous or facetious content."
While not humorous, it is axiomatically true that the debate is facetious in nature. Additionally, the topic is designed to incite and annoy. It, purely and simply, is a troll debate. Thus, it is not moderated.
************************************************************************
What you just wrote was sufficient.
I struggle with the perception that I am part of a clique. I handle voting reports and decide whether a vote should be removed. There are no people who are "one of my guys." It's for this reason that I was reluctant to join moderation to begin with. The popular view is that moderation is an amorphous mass that attempts to restrict the views of conservatives and amplify the liberal voice. I don't do that, and will never do that. I just ameliorate concerns people have with particular votes by either deleting them or not deleting them in accordance with the CoC and Voting Guidelines. If you are convinced that I am part of a clique who tries to abuse my powers, then you really should report me to get this settled. You say that you have "no issues that need to go to Virt," but you are accusing me of egregious misconduct. In your words:
"Before my hiatus from Dart, I noticed the came the voting mods were playing. It seems you are still playing. Ram is still voting mod right?
I will track the voting, and this time, maybe with bsh1 gone, the exposure of the behavior will not fall on deaf ears."
Go ahead and expose my behavior to Virt if you find it reprehensible. He could remove me.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: SirAnonymous // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro
>Reason for Decision:
"Con dropped most of Pro's R1 arguments. He failed to show how the Trinity is a Biblical doctrine. In fact, he hardly presented any arguments. On the other hand, Pro actually took the time to explain how the doctrine of the Trinity was pagan. While I don't think he proved that the Trinity was pagan, Con failed to establish the BoP required. Pro's arguments suggest that the doctrine of the Trinity could have pagan roots. Con failed to refute those arguments. Consequently, arguments go to Pro.
There were no issues with spelling, grammar, or conduct. While Con did try to discredit one of Pro's sources, he didn't provide any reasoning for discrediting it. Thus, sources are a tie."
>Reason for Mod Action: To award points for arguments, the voter must survey the main arguments of the round, weigh them, and come to a conclusion based off the gravity of the arguments per the CoC and Voting Guidelines. There was a surface-level attempt to do this, and I do agree from my cursory evaluation that Con essentially drops this debate, but Pro's arguments and counterarguments must be evaluated as well. Sorry, my hands are tied.
************************************************************************
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wD3PpKDVBmoe8otXWddnBjrorY1Lr_u_2as6Wrx_2yI/edit?usp=sharing
How about this: I'll delete my vote and only give the RFD. Fair enough?
If you have a complaint to lodge about my actions, feel free to contact Virtuoso. I maintain that a 5 page RFD could not be done in a matter of minutes or hours with my schedule of helping out a debate club, going to college, trying to join Model UN, and moderating here. Funnily enough, I don't have a vendetta against you or other conservative voters on this site. I sincerely wanted to offer advice to the debaters and an RFD is the best way of doing that. If you observe any significant errors, please contact me at your earliest convenience.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: JesusChrist4Ever // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 5 points to Con
>Reason for Decision: Pro used a biased source by using the Watchtower Organization, which is part of the Jehovah's Witness Cult. Plus Con had a much better argument by saying that it was beyond human comprehension.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter is not eligible per the Voting Guidelines. He/she must have completed 2 non-forfeit debates or have 100 forum posts. In addition, the point justifications are insubstantial. To award the points for arguments, 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."
To award points for sources, the voter must:
"1.Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate
2.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
3.Must explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's"
I would recommend skimming the CoC and Voting Guidelines which can be located at the bottom of the page or at this URL:
https://www.debateart.com/rules
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: PressF4Respect // Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Points Awarded: 7 points awarded to Pro
>Reason for Decision: "If a debate is publicly designated as a troll debate, or if both sides present arguments that are done for the sake of trolling, then the debate is not moderated."
-DART COC
>Reason for Mod Action: Troll debates are not moderated per the CoC and Voting Guidelines. As this was already designated a troll debate by another moderator, and seeing no reason to counter that decision, this vote ought not be removed.
************************************************************************
Perhaps I should clarify: I don't have enough time in my busy schedule to care about a vote so much to the point that I'd vote out of spite by writing a 5-page RFD. Also, your vote has been reported perhaps a week ago. I asked you to recast the vote and you did with no further repercussions. It has been well within 10 months.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1532/the-problem-of-evil?open_tab=comments&comments_page=1&comment_number=15
I had no intention of nullifying your vote. I planned on voting on the debate regardless. (You thought I could write all of that in one day?) I don't remember voting on any other debate when your vote was reported.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: ethang5 // Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Points Awarded: 3 points awarded to Speedrace
>Reason for Decision: Speed better tied his arguments to what we find in reality. Most people behave as if altruism is a better philosophy than hedonism as con notes when he says, "This is essentially what the average person does daily."
Pro argued that hedonism was profitable for the individual, but failed to show how it is better for society.
But cpro's greatest failing is when he says, about the contradiction in his argument,
"Can it not be? Can you not be interested in both your own well-being and that of others at the same time? I don’t see why not. Human beings are absolutely capable of holding conflicting, contradictory thoughts and emotions at the same time."
But the debate is not about whether people can hold contradictory beliefs, but whether such beliefs are better/more rational than noncontradictory beliefs.
Pro admits the contradiction, but still insists hedonism is better. Con has demonstrated to my satisfaction that Pro's argument is internally contradictory, and does not as accurately represent reality as altruism.
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote is borderline (i.e. it does not explicitly violate the CoC.)
************************************************************************