*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: ethang5 // Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Points Awarded: 3 points awarded to Nemiroff
>Reason for Decision: "Pro seems to have based his argument on his assumptions of how God should be. That is not grounds for a logical case against God. Pro's foundational claim is that the existence of evil is impossible if God exists. But his reason for this belief is based on his personal taste, not logic.
Con makes a convincing argument that there is no inherent contradiction between the existence of evil and the existence of God, and he offers several examples of such a situation when he says...
"My stance is that there is no contradiction. A good god may logically make 2 choices: 1. Free will, the result of which was moral evil. And 2. A knowable reality that is stable, with knowable rules, which resulted in natural evil."
Pro never overcomes these credible possibilities and thus con's argument does establish that a good God can be compatible with the existence of evil."
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter has proffered a borderline vote. It is by no means a comprehensive evaluation of the debate, but it doesn't explicitly violate the Voting Guidelines to my mind.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: WhoPutYouOnThePlanet // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: [7 points awarded to Virtuoso]
>Reason for Decision:"Pro clearly has a more sound argument"
>Reason for Mod Action: a) The voter is not eligible to vote per the Voting Guidelines because he has not completed 2 debates nor has he made 100 forum posts. b) The RFD does not adhere to the minimum standards used to award points in any category (i.e. arguments, S&G, etc.) For more information, please consult the Voting Guidelines located in the CoC:
https://www.debateart.com/rules
************************************************************************
Per the Voting Guidelines, you had to summarize Con's and Pro's argument. If you explained how Con justified his stance by positing that god's actions aren't immoral, but granting free will to humans brings about evil (which was his central contention), then your vote would be justified. Your new vote essentially meets this standard to my mind, so there is nothing to worry about. Thank you for changing it.
P.S. If you have a question about a mod decision, please list me as a receiver or PM me so that I can remedy a problem if I made a mistake or if you have a pertinent question.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: ethang5 // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 5 points awarded to Nemiroff
>Reason for Decision:
"Pro seem to have based his argument on his assumptions of how God should be. That is not grounds for a logical case against God. Pro's foundational claim is that the existence of evil is impossible if God exists. But his reason for this belief is based on his personal taste, not logic.
Con makes a convincing argument that there is no inherent contradiction between the existence of evil and the existence of God, and he offers several examples of such a situation."
>Reason for Mod Action: a) The voter failed to justify the S&G and conduct points. b) The voter's recollection of Con's arguments was nebulous. What are the "several examples" presented in Con's case that disprove's Pro's premise? Why are the Con arguments incontrovertible in the context of the debate? Remember, the primary arguments need to be addressed in the RFD per the Voting Guidelines:
"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
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."
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Harleygator // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 5 points awarded to Dynasty
>Reason for Decision:"Forfeit grants a technical win to Con, though the substance of the argument was nonetheless in favor of Con regardless. Pro's failure in instigating this debate was to cite a good source, but then fail to properly define the terms he was attempting to connect. Thus, while Con's somewhat basic appeal to codified definitions - which is essentially what Pro would've been rebutting in proposing and introducing this motion, thereby rendering such an appeal fallacious - was simply stated, it defined and therefore grounded the debate in a favorable semantic framework."
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter has not earned the privilege to vote by completing 2 debates and has voted for the user who conceded the debate by accident. These are violations of the Voting Guidelines.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: DroneYoinker // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 7 points awarded to TheRealNihilist
>Reason for Decision: "I give it to con because pro did not seem like they were involved in the debate at all. Pro didn't respond to anything Con said specifically, and continued to ask irrelevant questions"
>Reason for Mod Action: The RFD is not properly substantiated per the Voting Guidelines. To meet the minimum requirements, the voter must summarize the vital arguments, weigh them, and explain how/why one side wins. In addition, the s&g, conduct, and sources points are not explained either. For further information, please consult the Voting Guidelines here:
https://www.debateart.com/rules
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: SupaDudz // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 4 points to RM
>Reason for Decision: "Forfeit is bad conduct"
>Reason for Mod Action: While the voting policy allows for conduct points to be awarded with no substantiation when a user forfeits more than half of the rounds, awarding argument points still requires justification.
"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 or if the voter also awards argument points (or explains their decision not to award argument points in a manner which meets the argument points voting standards)."
You may award argument points when more than 1/2 the rounds are forfeited, and a simple "Pro did not contest Con's CP, the semantic debate, or the "endless loop" argument," will suffice. I'm sorry if this seems like nitpicking, but I do have to enforce the Voting Policy.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Dr.Franklin // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 7 awarded to both users
>Reason for Decision: I would give it to RM, but then again it wasnt a well deserved win
>Reason for Mod Action: I've been informed that I made a mistake. All tie votes need justification as to why no points were awarded to either side. Sorry. My mistake.
************************************************************************
Conceded debates aren't moderated under the extended moderation guidelines insofar as the "balance of votes" do not favor the conceded party. I cited it. The same rules are in the standard voting guidelines.
"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."
I understand your concerns and perhaps this can be a new MEEP, but I did as the guidelines suggested.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Dr.Franklin // Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Points Awarded: 7 awarded to both users
>Reason for Decision: I would give it to RM, but then again it wasnt a well deserved win
>Reason for Mod Action: Moderation Extended Policies Subsection B1 part IV states that unless the balance of points are in favor of the conceded party, the debate is not moderated. Unless something else takes precedence, (i.e. a user is voting who doesn't have voting privileges,) this vote cannot be removed.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: DynamicSquid // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 4 points awarded to OoDart
>Reason for Decision: "Oh wow. This debate was so well done. Great facts on both teams, great evidence, nice organizations of text. Well done, both of you. Round of applause please."
>Reason for Mod Action: Under the voting guidelines, only those with 3, non-forfeited, non-troll debates are eligible to vote. At this time, the user is precluded from voting. I apologize for the inconvenience.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: DynamicSquid // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 4 points awarded to OoDart
>Reason for Decision: "Oh wow, tough decision guys. This was one of the better debates that I have seen. Well done to both of you. But in the end, sadly I would have to go with Dart on this one. He provided much more sources and facts, and organized too. Madman, you actually also did great, but forfeiting a round did you no good. If you were to continue, you might of just won this debate, or at the very least tied it up. Don't get me wrong here, you did fantastic, but Dart just did an overall better job. Thank you to both of you, and I wish you guys the best of luck in the future! Later."
>Reason for Mod Action: Under the voting guidelines, only those with 3, non-forfeited, non-troll debates are eligible to vote. At this time, the user is precluded from voting. I apologize for the inconvenience.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: OoDart // Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Points Awarded: 4 points awarded to SupaDudz
>Reason for Decision: Con and pro seemed to have different ideas of what "good" meant. Despite this, after R2, pro did not seem to object to con's new definition, so I must assume that pro agreed with con's new definition.
Arguments:
Con dropped many of pro's rebuttals including: Trump's Honesty, the lack of need for Trump to be kind, Trump's stance on demographics.
Con claimed Trump is not a good leader. His evidence is that many people have resigned under his leadership. People leaving does not automatically make someone a bad leader. Pro points this out. Pro failed to prove Trump is intelligent or that he does not need to be intelligent, but at this point, according to con's rule ("This means I only need to outline four that the President doesn’t meet to win the resolution."), pro failing to represent only one point is not enough for con to win the debate. Con rebuts pro's claims regarding NK well. Con disregards pro's graphic behind a paywall rather than addressing the points provided in the debate by pro. Con also claims that because Trump eventually gave up on something, he is not tough. This is an unsubstantiated opinion.
It was a close one, but due to con dropping several of pro's rebuttals, the rebuttals stand. Since it seems con only successfully rebutted one of pro's 3 claims in R1 (NK, but not Middle Class or Toughness), pro seems to win this debate.
Sources: Both used reputable sources.
S&G: No major errors
Conduct: Con forfeited.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter meets the minimum requirements under the Voting Guidelines.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Patmos // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 4 points awarded to SupaDudz
>Reason for Decision:
"Con didn't dispute pro's new definition of good leaving it the definition in the debate.
Con dropped several of pro's arguments including Trump being an honest person or that Trump doesn't need to be kind in order to be a good president.
Con forfeited round 4."
>Reason for Mod Action: To fulfill the minimum voting requirements, the voter must:
"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"
While some arguments were mentioned, the bulk of them remained unaddressed. The conduct point due to the forfeit was fine insofar as an argument point was awarded, so I recommend voting again and addressing the other arguments.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Dr.Franklin // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: Tied
>Reason for Decision: "T"
>Reason for Mod Action: Under the extended mod guidelines for passing tied votes, the voter must:
"...clearly explain why, based on what transpired in the debate, they chose not to award points." See here for more: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1718."
Posting "T" is not sufficient under these standards because none of the arguments were addressed. Additionally, there was no justification given for the tie.
>Reported Vote: Harleygator // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 7 points were awarded to each side.
>Reason for Decision:Neither player really deserves points in this debate - PRO obviously failed to engage and forfeited most of the rounds, but CON presented little more than an aggressive and insulting diatribe, most of which had little if anything to do with the actual motion. While CON is likely to take a technical victory in the voting, there was no notable superiority in their arguments, articulation or conduct.
>Reason for Mod Action: The user could not vote at this time as he has not fulfilled the necessary requirements to be granted voting privileges. Under section A of the Voting Guidelines:
"In order for users to be eligible to vote on debates, user's current accounts must reflect that they have read the site's COC AND either completed at least 2 non-troll debates without any forfeits or posted 100 forum posts. Any user who attempts to vote without having these criteria met will have their vote removed."
************************************************************************
There was a bottle thrown, but there were cross-provocations from both groups beforehand. Also, I can't imagine that throwing one bottle is justification to start decking people in the face, especially those who were simply standing by and minding their own business. There were other incidents in which the Proud Boys instigated attacks though. There was one who was arrested for their part in assaulting DeAndre Harris. Another hit a counterprotestor over the head with a wooden dowel during the Berkely protests. The group made a showreel of the violence they committed in Portland.
I've known alleged members of both Proud Boys and Antifa. They both seem like d****.
There was one at a Republican Club Event in which some members started a fight. They don't seem to be a pleasant group at all. The founder seems to support political violence in some capacity as well. There have been plenty of members arrested for assault, but none yet for murder. The thing is, it's hard to ascertain whether violence was politically motivated sans a manifesto of some kind. They tried to pin the Antifa label on a killer from Dayton. While his social media suggested far left leanings and perhaps an appreciation for Antifa in some respect, he wasn't a member. It's such a loose organization anyway that it hardly resembles a political group. Perhaps it is the same for some of the crimes attributed to the Proud Boys, but it doesn't make them any better. Just as I resent Antifa, I too resent Proud Boys as the epitome of what's wrong with politics and why it only makes sense to be wholly apathetic to everything political. Why would I care when practically all political pundits are slurping down a piss stew of generalizations and bitter indignation for everyone who doesn't match their ideology exactly?
Yes, I am bitter because the meds haven't kicked in yet, thanks for asking.
Thats an overgeneralization and not related to culture. There was culture during the Civil War in which half the country died. I agree that drug addiction and suicide is a problem, but we've been through worse and still had "culture." Very few would say that the Great Depression was a good time in America. Yet, the culture of America continued. For future reference, I would define what "cultural death" is at the beginning of the debate.
I didn't die, but I lost my soul to the shadow realm. I suppose, in a way, that is spiritual death. Seriously, listening to Imagine Dragons is like having an ice pick wedged in your brain and letting it wriggle around before being dislodged and swung directly to your gonads. I don't know who sets out to make that kind of music, but it sure doesn't appeal to me. No offense to Imagine Dragons fans.
Perhaps, but you need to explicitly link to the topic. How does death lead to a decline in Western culture? You could say that the death tarnishes Western Democracy and is indicative of civilization's slow descent into destruction, but that needs to be proven. Just saying that young people are dying isn't empirical proof of that, especially if we survived civil war, pandemics, and Imagine Dragon songs.
I didn't see their other debates, actually. I make it a habit not to judge anybody too soon. Perhaps they'll shock me. Also, the topic intrigued me. It isn't too often that I debate something related to society as opposed to nuts-and-bolts policy. Incidentally, nice debate on the death penalty. It is nice to see a death penalty debate not about outright banning it, lest the topic become tired.
I wouldn't penalize it. If they don't respond with their case or rebuttals, then simply type "extend." That means you extend your impacts throughout the entirety of the debate. For normative resolutions that don't explicitly burden one side, the BOP is usually shared. In your case, your burden would be to prove that the harms of outlawing gambling outweigh the benefits, and your opponent's burden would be the converse. Specific debate styles have different rules on how the burden should be split and there is a bit of grey area sometimes as to who receives the bulk of the BOP.
In short, sharing the BOP would be the expected response here. There is ground for arguing the BOP, but splitting the burden is generally accepted in most debate styles, most of the time.
That's unfair. It's a quick debate done at the last minute. This is realistic as many college and high school programs have extemporaneous debate categories. It is quite good by those standards.
Good debate folks! Is this done in a particular style that I could search up? I am kind of familiar with World Schools, but this seems to be a type of debate I'm unfamiliar with.
I don't think that's how PTSD works. It's not that someone is "scared." It's that someone has recurring mental trauma that seeps into their daily lives. Some people may be more resistant to PTSD than others, but it can affect others regardless of perceived "empathy." In fact, comorbid diagnoses, previous childhood tragedies, lacking social support, and a slew of other factors can affect the likelihood that someone develops PTSD. Even GAD or other conditions related to anxiety could develop under routine methods of execution.
https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/post-traumatic-stress-disorder-ptsd
In the end, I'd be curious as to who this benefits. A person is still dead regardless of the crime they commit. Rubbing it in by chucking the killer into a bond-villain death pit seems redundant and hard to clean up. Also, as dustryder pointed out, this could violate the 8th amendment. (See cruel and unusual punishment clause.)
In the event that a person is posthumously proven innocent, it would be an awkward thing to discuss with the family.
"Hey, uh, remember that time I threw your husband/wife into the pit of deadly fish? It turns out we might have been to presumptuous. Don't worry. When we find the guy we'll throw him in the piranha tank to avenge you!"
Also, The Shining is a movie directed by Stanley Kubrick. Look it up.
BTW, wouldn't the person who has to overlook the execution to make sure it actually works would still suffer from psychological trauma with or without robots? Or are we just going to assume it worked?
In general, violent media can desensitize. However, people generally can differentiate between what is real and what isn't. Those that can't are already suffering from immense psychological issues. The bulk of studies on the subject seem to indicate that perhaps violent people play more disturbing video games, but there is still a plethora of perfectly healthy people who enjoy violent content. There is correlation, but causal links between violence and video games are not well established. There is a similar argument often made which implicates porn as a primary cause of sex crimes, which is not convincing to me either.
I think man has distanced themselves from their fellow man. This could be a legitimate good as people become more independent. It could also mean we are losing the ability to empathize with others. In the context of the death penalty though, I have a few concerns with administering such a final penalty at all. Systemic problems related to finding competent indigent legal counsel and implicit racial bias in jury selection has tarnished the criminal justice system with erroneous, fatal verdicts. Even with the amount of experts, DNA testing, and resources dedicated to finding the truth, many still slip through the proverbial cracks and into an electric chair if you catch my drift. But I'm ranting. Good luck! Whiteflame is tough.
I won't add much to the argument since you are debating it. I was actually refer bring Alec's plan of using carnivorous fish to execute people and using scary movies to desensitize executioners. Good point though.
If my job were to end people's lives on a daily basis, I'd imagine that scary movies wouldn't do much to alleviate the psychological torment of actually experiencing someone eaten by carnivorous fish. If it worked so well, we would have been subjecting soldiers to "The Shining" years before active service to stave off PTSD. There is a severe disconnect between contrived, virtual violence and real executions of living, breathing people. People who, for instance, may be posthumously be granted innocence after an executioner got acquainted with his/her pulpy corpse.
Also, it's not just one "scary thing" happening that can influence someone's mental state. Doing these executions on a regular basis could cause PTSD or related psychosis. This isn't even mentioning the constitutional challenges that would emerge. Death row inmates havebless rights than other people, but they still have rights.
Congratulations on perhaps the most flummoxing, bemusing round I have ever witnessed. I don't know what the correct response is here, given the fact that the debate veered into oncoming traffic only to become a pile of twisted debris and pancaked people dribbling blood and confusion on the pavement, but I can approximate my emotional state with the following image.
https://peopledotcom.files.wordpress.com/2019/06/cory-booker-1.jpg
Which one do I represent? Perhaps all 3.
In other words, I can't wait to see where this is going, because so far this is perhaps the most out of left field response I ever saw. We need to have this kritik run in real policy debate on the college circuit. That way judges can stave of boredom by mustering all their willpower to let the kritik fly without comment.
Interesting challenge. I haven't debated something like this before. I don't know if I want to accept yet due to some IRL stuff, but I am considering it. Especially if no one else is interested.
Cool. Thanks. You're not bad. After the debate, since you asked, I'll offer some advice to make your case a bit stronger. Nothing major, but just a few things. Sorry my response was so long. I had to rebut and defend in the same post.
As a reminder, don't add any more refutations your next round. I can't respond to them. You can defend your positions from my refutations and make your final reminder to the judges why they should vote for you.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: ethang5 // Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Points Awarded: 3 points awarded to Nemiroff
>Reason for Decision: "Pro seems to have based his argument on his assumptions of how God should be. That is not grounds for a logical case against God. Pro's foundational claim is that the existence of evil is impossible if God exists. But his reason for this belief is based on his personal taste, not logic.
Con makes a convincing argument that there is no inherent contradiction between the existence of evil and the existence of God, and he offers several examples of such a situation when he says...
"My stance is that there is no contradiction. A good god may logically make 2 choices: 1. Free will, the result of which was moral evil. And 2. A knowable reality that is stable, with knowable rules, which resulted in natural evil."
Pro never overcomes these credible possibilities and thus con's argument does establish that a good God can be compatible with the existence of evil."
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter has proffered a borderline vote. It is by no means a comprehensive evaluation of the debate, but it doesn't explicitly violate the Voting Guidelines to my mind.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: WhoPutYouOnThePlanet // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: [7 points awarded to Virtuoso]
>Reason for Decision:"Pro clearly has a more sound argument"
>Reason for Mod Action: a) The voter is not eligible to vote per the Voting Guidelines because he has not completed 2 debates nor has he made 100 forum posts. b) The RFD does not adhere to the minimum standards used to award points in any category (i.e. arguments, S&G, etc.) For more information, please consult the Voting Guidelines located in the CoC:
https://www.debateart.com/rules
************************************************************************
Also, I can only remove votes that have been reported anyway, so I couldn't remove it even if I wanted to.
Per the Voting Guidelines, you had to summarize Con's and Pro's argument. If you explained how Con justified his stance by positing that god's actions aren't immoral, but granting free will to humans brings about evil (which was his central contention), then your vote would be justified. Your new vote essentially meets this standard to my mind, so there is nothing to worry about. Thank you for changing it.
P.S. If you have a question about a mod decision, please list me as a receiver or PM me so that I can remedy a problem if I made a mistake or if you have a pertinent question.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: ethang5 // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 5 points awarded to Nemiroff
>Reason for Decision:
"Pro seem to have based his argument on his assumptions of how God should be. That is not grounds for a logical case against God. Pro's foundational claim is that the existence of evil is impossible if God exists. But his reason for this belief is based on his personal taste, not logic.
Con makes a convincing argument that there is no inherent contradiction between the existence of evil and the existence of God, and he offers several examples of such a situation."
>Reason for Mod Action: a) The voter failed to justify the S&G and conduct points. b) The voter's recollection of Con's arguments was nebulous. What are the "several examples" presented in Con's case that disprove's Pro's premise? Why are the Con arguments incontrovertible in the context of the debate? Remember, the primary arguments need to be addressed in the RFD per the Voting Guidelines:
"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
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."
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Harleygator // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 5 points awarded to Dynasty
>Reason for Decision:"Forfeit grants a technical win to Con, though the substance of the argument was nonetheless in favor of Con regardless. Pro's failure in instigating this debate was to cite a good source, but then fail to properly define the terms he was attempting to connect. Thus, while Con's somewhat basic appeal to codified definitions - which is essentially what Pro would've been rebutting in proposing and introducing this motion, thereby rendering such an appeal fallacious - was simply stated, it defined and therefore grounded the debate in a favorable semantic framework."
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter has not earned the privilege to vote by completing 2 debates and has voted for the user who conceded the debate by accident. These are violations of the Voting Guidelines.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: DroneYoinker // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 7 points awarded to TheRealNihilist
>Reason for Decision: "I give it to con because pro did not seem like they were involved in the debate at all. Pro didn't respond to anything Con said specifically, and continued to ask irrelevant questions"
>Reason for Mod Action: The RFD is not properly substantiated per the Voting Guidelines. To meet the minimum requirements, the voter must summarize the vital arguments, weigh them, and explain how/why one side wins. In addition, the s&g, conduct, and sources points are not explained either. For further information, please consult the Voting Guidelines here:
https://www.debateart.com/rules
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: SupaDudz // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 4 points to RM
>Reason for Decision: "Forfeit is bad conduct"
>Reason for Mod Action: While the voting policy allows for conduct points to be awarded with no substantiation when a user forfeits more than half of the rounds, awarding argument points still requires justification.
"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 or if the voter also awards argument points (or explains their decision not to award argument points in a manner which meets the argument points voting standards)."
You may award argument points when more than 1/2 the rounds are forfeited, and a simple "Pro did not contest Con's CP, the semantic debate, or the "endless loop" argument," will suffice. I'm sorry if this seems like nitpicking, but I do have to enforce the Voting Policy.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Dr.Franklin // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 7 awarded to both users
>Reason for Decision: I would give it to RM, but then again it wasnt a well deserved win
>Reason for Mod Action: I've been informed that I made a mistake. All tie votes need justification as to why no points were awarded to either side. Sorry. My mistake.
************************************************************************
Nvm, I was told to remove it. I will do so.
Conceded debates aren't moderated under the extended moderation guidelines insofar as the "balance of votes" do not favor the conceded party. I cited it. The same rules are in the standard voting guidelines.
"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."
I understand your concerns and perhaps this can be a new MEEP, but I did as the guidelines suggested.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Dr.Franklin // Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Points Awarded: 7 awarded to both users
>Reason for Decision: I would give it to RM, but then again it wasnt a well deserved win
>Reason for Mod Action: Moderation Extended Policies Subsection B1 part IV states that unless the balance of points are in favor of the conceded party, the debate is not moderated. Unless something else takes precedence, (i.e. a user is voting who doesn't have voting privileges,) this vote cannot be removed.
************************************************************************
No problem. Sorry about that. I would recommend glancing over the voting guidelines and CoC. In any case, welcome to Dart!
Yeah, thanks for catching it. It is 2.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: DynamicSquid // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 4 points awarded to OoDart
>Reason for Decision: "Oh wow. This debate was so well done. Great facts on both teams, great evidence, nice organizations of text. Well done, both of you. Round of applause please."
>Reason for Mod Action: Under the voting guidelines, only those with 3, non-forfeited, non-troll debates are eligible to vote. At this time, the user is precluded from voting. I apologize for the inconvenience.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: DynamicSquid // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 4 points awarded to OoDart
>Reason for Decision: "Oh wow, tough decision guys. This was one of the better debates that I have seen. Well done to both of you. But in the end, sadly I would have to go with Dart on this one. He provided much more sources and facts, and organized too. Madman, you actually also did great, but forfeiting a round did you no good. If you were to continue, you might of just won this debate, or at the very least tied it up. Don't get me wrong here, you did fantastic, but Dart just did an overall better job. Thank you to both of you, and I wish you guys the best of luck in the future! Later."
>Reason for Mod Action: Under the voting guidelines, only those with 3, non-forfeited, non-troll debates are eligible to vote. At this time, the user is precluded from voting. I apologize for the inconvenience.
************************************************************************
No problem! I'm glad you took something from it. By the way, I hope I don't sound to bitter in my RFD, I wrote it after having a bad day.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: OoDart // Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Points Awarded: 4 points awarded to SupaDudz
>Reason for Decision: Con and pro seemed to have different ideas of what "good" meant. Despite this, after R2, pro did not seem to object to con's new definition, so I must assume that pro agreed with con's new definition.
Arguments:
Con dropped many of pro's rebuttals including: Trump's Honesty, the lack of need for Trump to be kind, Trump's stance on demographics.
Con claimed Trump is not a good leader. His evidence is that many people have resigned under his leadership. People leaving does not automatically make someone a bad leader. Pro points this out. Pro failed to prove Trump is intelligent or that he does not need to be intelligent, but at this point, according to con's rule ("This means I only need to outline four that the President doesn’t meet to win the resolution."), pro failing to represent only one point is not enough for con to win the debate. Con rebuts pro's claims regarding NK well. Con disregards pro's graphic behind a paywall rather than addressing the points provided in the debate by pro. Con also claims that because Trump eventually gave up on something, he is not tough. This is an unsubstantiated opinion.
It was a close one, but due to con dropping several of pro's rebuttals, the rebuttals stand. Since it seems con only successfully rebutted one of pro's 3 claims in R1 (NK, but not Middle Class or Toughness), pro seems to win this debate.
Sources: Both used reputable sources.
S&G: No major errors
Conduct: Con forfeited.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter meets the minimum requirements under the Voting Guidelines.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Patmos // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 4 points awarded to SupaDudz
>Reason for Decision:
"Con didn't dispute pro's new definition of good leaving it the definition in the debate.
Con dropped several of pro's arguments including Trump being an honest person or that Trump doesn't need to be kind in order to be a good president.
Con forfeited round 4."
>Reason for Mod Action: To fulfill the minimum voting requirements, the voter must:
"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"
While some arguments were mentioned, the bulk of them remained unaddressed. The conduct point due to the forfeit was fine insofar as an argument point was awarded, so I recommend voting again and addressing the other arguments.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Dr.Franklin // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: Tied
>Reason for Decision: "T"
>Reason for Mod Action: Under the extended mod guidelines for passing tied votes, the voter must:
"...clearly explain why, based on what transpired in the debate, they chose not to award points." See here for more: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1718."
Posting "T" is not sufficient under these standards because none of the arguments were addressed. Additionally, there was no justification given for the tie.
************************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Harleygator // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 7 points were awarded to each side.
>Reason for Decision:Neither player really deserves points in this debate - PRO obviously failed to engage and forfeited most of the rounds, but CON presented little more than an aggressive and insulting diatribe, most of which had little if anything to do with the actual motion. While CON is likely to take a technical victory in the voting, there was no notable superiority in their arguments, articulation or conduct.
>Reason for Mod Action: The user could not vote at this time as he has not fulfilled the necessary requirements to be granted voting privileges. Under section A of the Voting Guidelines:
"In order for users to be eligible to vote on debates, user's current accounts must reflect that they have read the site's COC AND either completed at least 2 non-troll debates without any forfeits or posted 100 forum posts. Any user who attempts to vote without having these criteria met will have their vote removed."
************************************************************************
No problem
There was a bottle thrown, but there were cross-provocations from both groups beforehand. Also, I can't imagine that throwing one bottle is justification to start decking people in the face, especially those who were simply standing by and minding their own business. There were other incidents in which the Proud Boys instigated attacks though. There was one who was arrested for their part in assaulting DeAndre Harris. Another hit a counterprotestor over the head with a wooden dowel during the Berkely protests. The group made a showreel of the violence they committed in Portland.
I've known alleged members of both Proud Boys and Antifa. They both seem like d****.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Boys
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_McInnes
There was one at a Republican Club Event in which some members started a fight. They don't seem to be a pleasant group at all. The founder seems to support political violence in some capacity as well. There have been plenty of members arrested for assault, but none yet for murder. The thing is, it's hard to ascertain whether violence was politically motivated sans a manifesto of some kind. They tried to pin the Antifa label on a killer from Dayton. While his social media suggested far left leanings and perhaps an appreciation for Antifa in some respect, he wasn't a member. It's such a loose organization anyway that it hardly resembles a political group. Perhaps it is the same for some of the crimes attributed to the Proud Boys, but it doesn't make them any better. Just as I resent Antifa, I too resent Proud Boys as the epitome of what's wrong with politics and why it only makes sense to be wholly apathetic to everything political. Why would I care when practically all political pundits are slurping down a piss stew of generalizations and bitter indignation for everyone who doesn't match their ideology exactly?
Yes, I am bitter because the meds haven't kicked in yet, thanks for asking.
Thats an overgeneralization and not related to culture. There was culture during the Civil War in which half the country died. I agree that drug addiction and suicide is a problem, but we've been through worse and still had "culture." Very few would say that the Great Depression was a good time in America. Yet, the culture of America continued. For future reference, I would define what "cultural death" is at the beginning of the debate.
I didn't die, but I lost my soul to the shadow realm. I suppose, in a way, that is spiritual death. Seriously, listening to Imagine Dragons is like having an ice pick wedged in your brain and letting it wriggle around before being dislodged and swung directly to your gonads. I don't know who sets out to make that kind of music, but it sure doesn't appeal to me. No offense to Imagine Dragons fans.
Thanks for the vote!
Perhaps, but you need to explicitly link to the topic. How does death lead to a decline in Western culture? You could say that the death tarnishes Western Democracy and is indicative of civilization's slow descent into destruction, but that needs to be proven. Just saying that young people are dying isn't empirical proof of that, especially if we survived civil war, pandemics, and Imagine Dragon songs.
I didn't see their other debates, actually. I make it a habit not to judge anybody too soon. Perhaps they'll shock me. Also, the topic intrigued me. It isn't too often that I debate something related to society as opposed to nuts-and-bolts policy. Incidentally, nice debate on the death penalty. It is nice to see a death penalty debate not about outright banning it, lest the topic become tired.
I'd be interested in debating when you specify what type of gun control you want to advocate for.
I wouldn't penalize it. If they don't respond with their case or rebuttals, then simply type "extend." That means you extend your impacts throughout the entirety of the debate. For normative resolutions that don't explicitly burden one side, the BOP is usually shared. In your case, your burden would be to prove that the harms of outlawing gambling outweigh the benefits, and your opponent's burden would be the converse. Specific debate styles have different rules on how the burden should be split and there is a bit of grey area sometimes as to who receives the bulk of the BOP.
In short, sharing the BOP would be the expected response here. There is ground for arguing the BOP, but splitting the burden is generally accepted in most debate styles, most of the time.
It allows you to keep track of live debates so that you don't need a translation.
Have you heard of the concept of flowing? It helps a lot.
http://debateclash.com/how-to-flow-in-debate/
I hope I didn't come off as harsh. It was still a wonderful debate.
No problem
That's unfair. It's a quick debate done at the last minute. This is realistic as many college and high school programs have extemporaneous debate categories. It is quite good by those standards.
15 minutes of prep? God, that is insane. That's hardly enough for a three minute speech for me. Kudos
Good debate folks! Is this done in a particular style that I could search up? I am kind of familiar with World Schools, but this seems to be a type of debate I'm unfamiliar with.
I don't think that's how PTSD works. It's not that someone is "scared." It's that someone has recurring mental trauma that seeps into their daily lives. Some people may be more resistant to PTSD than others, but it can affect others regardless of perceived "empathy." In fact, comorbid diagnoses, previous childhood tragedies, lacking social support, and a slew of other factors can affect the likelihood that someone develops PTSD. Even GAD or other conditions related to anxiety could develop under routine methods of execution.
https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/post-traumatic-stress-disorder-ptsd
In the end, I'd be curious as to who this benefits. A person is still dead regardless of the crime they commit. Rubbing it in by chucking the killer into a bond-villain death pit seems redundant and hard to clean up. Also, as dustryder pointed out, this could violate the 8th amendment. (See cruel and unusual punishment clause.)
In the event that a person is posthumously proven innocent, it would be an awkward thing to discuss with the family.
"Hey, uh, remember that time I threw your husband/wife into the pit of deadly fish? It turns out we might have been to presumptuous. Don't worry. When we find the guy we'll throw him in the piranha tank to avenge you!"
Also, The Shining is a movie directed by Stanley Kubrick. Look it up.
BTW, wouldn't the person who has to overlook the execution to make sure it actually works would still suffer from psychological trauma with or without robots? Or are we just going to assume it worked?
In general, violent media can desensitize. However, people generally can differentiate between what is real and what isn't. Those that can't are already suffering from immense psychological issues. The bulk of studies on the subject seem to indicate that perhaps violent people play more disturbing video games, but there is still a plethora of perfectly healthy people who enjoy violent content. There is correlation, but causal links between violence and video games are not well established. There is a similar argument often made which implicates porn as a primary cause of sex crimes, which is not convincing to me either.
I think man has distanced themselves from their fellow man. This could be a legitimate good as people become more independent. It could also mean we are losing the ability to empathize with others. In the context of the death penalty though, I have a few concerns with administering such a final penalty at all. Systemic problems related to finding competent indigent legal counsel and implicit racial bias in jury selection has tarnished the criminal justice system with erroneous, fatal verdicts. Even with the amount of experts, DNA testing, and resources dedicated to finding the truth, many still slip through the proverbial cracks and into an electric chair if you catch my drift. But I'm ranting. Good luck! Whiteflame is tough.
I won't add much to the argument since you are debating it. I was actually refer bring Alec's plan of using carnivorous fish to execute people and using scary movies to desensitize executioners. Good point though.
If my job were to end people's lives on a daily basis, I'd imagine that scary movies wouldn't do much to alleviate the psychological torment of actually experiencing someone eaten by carnivorous fish. If it worked so well, we would have been subjecting soldiers to "The Shining" years before active service to stave off PTSD. There is a severe disconnect between contrived, virtual violence and real executions of living, breathing people. People who, for instance, may be posthumously be granted innocence after an executioner got acquainted with his/her pulpy corpse.
Also, it's not just one "scary thing" happening that can influence someone's mental state. Doing these executions on a regular basis could cause PTSD or related psychosis. This isn't even mentioning the constitutional challenges that would emerge. Death row inmates havebless rights than other people, but they still have rights.
Congratulations on perhaps the most flummoxing, bemusing round I have ever witnessed. I don't know what the correct response is here, given the fact that the debate veered into oncoming traffic only to become a pile of twisted debris and pancaked people dribbling blood and confusion on the pavement, but I can approximate my emotional state with the following image.
https://peopledotcom.files.wordpress.com/2019/06/cory-booker-1.jpg
Which one do I represent? Perhaps all 3.
In other words, I can't wait to see where this is going, because so far this is perhaps the most out of left field response I ever saw. We need to have this kritik run in real policy debate on the college circuit. That way judges can stave of boredom by mustering all their willpower to let the kritik fly without comment.
Correct, he would use the final round
Pro was supposed to crystalize and make his final remarks
Interesting challenge. I haven't debated something like this before. I don't know if I want to accept yet due to some IRL stuff, but I am considering it. Especially if no one else is interested.
Cool. Thanks. You're not bad. After the debate, since you asked, I'll offer some advice to make your case a bit stronger. Nothing major, but just a few things. Sorry my response was so long. I had to rebut and defend in the same post.
As a reminder, don't add any more refutations your next round. I can't respond to them. You can defend your positions from my refutations and make your final reminder to the judges why they should vote for you.
Don't worry, I was a noob at one point as well. You're pretty good for someone who is relatively new to the site.
That's what you are supposed to do. That is fine.