Yeah. Part of me dislikes leaving with stats not divisible by 5, so I want 15 debates. It's one of those little things that would nag me if I didn't take action...Plus, I think this should be interesting.
I would also ask that you post your rounds as promptly as is conveniently possible for you, as I would like to retire from the site in a timely fashion. Thanks!
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: AvoidDeath // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 points to Con for conduct
>Reason for Decision: Forfeiture on PRO.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter improperly awarded conduct points by not also awarding argument points. According to the site's voting policy: "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."
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: AvoidDeath // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Con for arguments and conduct
>Reason for Decision: Amazing debate, sad to see it not being completed. Arguments go to con for providing more convincing rebuttals and points. Conduct to con for obvious forfeit s
>Reason for Mod Action: This vote fails to adequately justify awarding argument points. To award argument points, the voter must (a) survey the main arguments in the debate, (b) weigh the main arguments against one another, and (c) indicate how the weighing process produced a winner. Importantly, "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." This vote lacks demonstrable surveying and weighing, presenting only the voter's conclusions.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Lazarous // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points to Con for arguments, conduct, and S/G; 2 points to Pro for sources
>Reason for Decision: Pro – Fabricated logical inconsistencies that in and of themselves included logical inconsistencies.
Con – Did make a pore choice in citation. This pore choice was overly extorted by Pro however.
>Reason for Mod Action: This vote is removable for two reasons. First, the voter fails to justify any of the points they award specifically. Reasoning must be provided for each category of points awarded and that reasoning must meet the criteria set out in the site's voting policy (see COC for details). Second, the voter is ineligible to vote. According to site rules: "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." The COC can be found here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Drogon // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Con
>Reason for Decision: It's rational
>Reason for Mod Action: This vote is removable for two reasons. First, the voter fails to justify any of the points they award. Second, the voter is ineligible to vote. According to site rules: "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." The COC can be found here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
************************************************************************
>> The rule change isn't what bothered me, it's the lack of openness about it that bothers me.
Again, no rule was changed. Existing rules were interpreted to decide how to resolve a novel case. The interpretation of the rules was novel, but that necessarily follows from the novelty of the case at hand. Nothing was concealed from you, and you were told about moderation's ruling at the moment it was made.
>> If the standard is different on this site then you should have told me, which you didn't.
Two responses: (a) no, because you shouldn't have assumed that the rules were the same given that this is not DDO, and (b) as I said before: "in cases which are novel--like this one--the rulings made will be novel (this novelty is necessary to establish precedent which can later be referenced)." Novelty may be inconvenient precisely for the reasons you mention, but making novel rulings is nevertheless vital and unavoidable.
>> And yes, this isn't a court case. But maybe you should alter your policies so that the concepts apply.
Two responses. First, your analogy makes no sense. I am not finding anyone guilty or innocent, and therefore I should not be using a standard that is only applied when finding someone guilty or innocent. What I am doing here is making a ruling about what kinds of votes are permissible--which requires me to interpret the rules, NOT to apply a standard of proof. Rules interpretations are not evidentiary questions, and so they are not concerned with those kinds of standards. Second, you should not fairly expect to deserve a win without making any arguments. This is the basic principle I am applying, and it is unquestionably a good principle. Even if you feel as if this particular application of that principle has led to an unfair outcome, you cannot argue against the principle itself. So, if a good principle is being used to render a decision which is unfair only because the decision is novel, then I don't see any valid objection to the decision because the principle is sound and novelty is unavoidable.
This is not DDO, and the way rules are interpreted on DDO has no bearing on how they will be interpreted here.
You can complain that you didn't know you needed to put forward arguments, but there are three reasons to reject that line of argument: (a) you should not fairly expect to deserve a win without making arguments even if your opponent conceded, (b) in cases which are novel--like this one--the rulings made will be novel (this novelty is necessary to establish precedent which can later be referenced), and (c) the reasonable inference based on your prior forfeits is that you were unlikely to contribute in rounds 4 and 5. This is not a court of law, nor even is this a case of me finding anyone guilty or innocent; therefore, I do not need to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Making reasonable inferences based on context is perfectly acceptable.
You "had no idea" that you needed to post arguments in Rounds 1, 2, and 3, BEFORE you opponent's concession? Give me a break. As I said below: "At that point, you had shown no interest in the debate, and so there is no reason to believe that you would have actually posted an argument had your opponent not conceded, and given you a chance to rescue what otherwise would've been a loss."
There was no rule change; there was a rule interpretation. You full forfeited, and your opponent conceded. Both of these would normally result in auto-losses, but you can both auto-lose, so there has to be some interpretation to resolve that tension. The obvious way to resolve that tension is to reward the person who actually made arguments over the person who made none. Your full forfeit trumps his concession, resulting in you losing this debate.
It was your choice to forfeit Round 1, 2, and 3, before your opponent "conceded." At that point, you had shown no interest in the debate, and so there is no reason to believe that you would have actually posted an argument had your opponent not conceded, and given you a chance to rescue what otherwise would've been a loss.
You cannot honestly and reasonably assert that you should win a debate in which you made NO arguments. Your full forfeit predates and outweighs his concession for that precise reason.
People on DART are free to express racist views if they wish. Racism is not something we moderate unless it is aimed at a specific user. So, it would be against the rules to say "User123 is a dumb n***er," but it is not against the rules to say "N***ers are dumb."
About a year ago, I had a discussion/debate with a friend of mine on this subject, and got thoroughly walloped. She argued the atheist position, and I argued the "suspension of belief" position. Since then, it's been on my mind a lot. It's a fascinating question, to be sure. Great for armchair philosophers like myself, particularly when one cannot find an answer one is satisfied with.
I don't think I'll be doing any more god debates, unless I take a devil's advocate position for one. I wanted to do a few solid debates on the question, and then move on to topics more traditionally in my wheelhouse. I mean, I studiously avoided theological debates on DDO because I didn't consider myself to be good at them. Now I can check them off the box.
So, I guess I did them for two reasons. To satisfy my newfound interest in the subject, and to expand the range of debates I could do/have done. I don't really want to be a one trick pony, debate-wise.
That is why I almost always post arguments in the first 24 hours I have to post them. I did take the chance to remind you, and, esp. after you were short on time the first round, I find it extremely disappointing that you were not more conscious of the clock. I mean, it is what it is...but still.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Virtuoso // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Con for arguments
>Reason for Decision: Pro forfeited 3/5 rounds. Conduct to con as he did not forfeit.
Arguments also go to con. I consider any dropped arguments as concessions. Because pro forfeited 3/5 rounds while con forfeited none, Pro’s arguments should be considered dropped
>Reason for Mod Action: This RFD has proved a bit vexing to me to adjudicate. On the one hand, I agree that drops are concessions. On the other hand, allowing this vote to stand would mean that any forfeits could be used to automatically justify argument points, turning forfeits from a conduct issue into a conduct *and* argument issue. I think that when voters are asked to award argument points, there is an implicit understanding that they will actually evaluate the arguments. I am going to rule, then, that the argument points are insufficient. The voter must still check off each of the three criteria established for awarding argument points, which they do not (no survey of main points), and the voter cannot use the forfeit as a way to auto-weigh the arguments. The conduct points were clearly sufficient.
************************************************************************
Just because I am debating for something does not mean it is my actual position. I am taking, in this debate, a position with which I personally disagree.
Please post soon so that I can post my waive message in the final round. I don't want to have to forfeit it, or be accused of forfeiting.
Good debate. It was fun.
Hopefully it lives up to that potential. I've no doubt that Bla will do a great job.
Hopefully it lives up to that potential. I've no doubt that Bla will do a great job.
Your move.
Yeah. Part of me dislikes leaving with stats not divisible by 5, so I want 15 debates. It's one of those little things that would nag me if I didn't take action...Plus, I think this should be interesting.
I would also ask that you post your rounds as promptly as is conveniently possible for you, as I would like to retire from the site in a timely fashion. Thanks!
Should be fun :) Your move.
Also, if any links are inaccessible, I would be happy to screenshot relevant portions for you at your request. Let me know if that becomes necessary.
I know :P Thanks! It's always exciting to get a debate included.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: AvoidDeath // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 points to Con for conduct
>Reason for Decision: Forfeiture on PRO.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter improperly awarded conduct points by not also awarding argument points. According to the site's voting policy: "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."
************************************************************************
It has been removed.
Remember to always keep the conversation civil.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: AvoidDeath // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Con for arguments and conduct
>Reason for Decision: Amazing debate, sad to see it not being completed. Arguments go to con for providing more convincing rebuttals and points. Conduct to con for obvious forfeit s
>Reason for Mod Action: This vote fails to adequately justify awarding argument points. To award argument points, the voter must (a) survey the main arguments in the debate, (b) weigh the main arguments against one another, and (c) indicate how the weighing process produced a winner. Importantly, "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." This vote lacks demonstrable surveying and weighing, presenting only the voter's conclusions.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Lazarous // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points to Con for arguments, conduct, and S/G; 2 points to Pro for sources
>Reason for Decision: Pro – Fabricated logical inconsistencies that in and of themselves included logical inconsistencies.
Con – Did make a pore choice in citation. This pore choice was overly extorted by Pro however.
>Reason for Mod Action: This vote is removable for two reasons. First, the voter fails to justify any of the points they award specifically. Reasoning must be provided for each category of points awarded and that reasoning must meet the criteria set out in the site's voting policy (see COC for details). Second, the voter is ineligible to vote. According to site rules: "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." The COC can be found here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Drogon // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Con
>Reason for Decision: It's rational
>Reason for Mod Action: This vote is removable for two reasons. First, the voter fails to justify any of the points they award. Second, the voter is ineligible to vote. According to site rules: "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." The COC can be found here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
************************************************************************
>> The rule change isn't what bothered me, it's the lack of openness about it that bothers me.
Again, no rule was changed. Existing rules were interpreted to decide how to resolve a novel case. The interpretation of the rules was novel, but that necessarily follows from the novelty of the case at hand. Nothing was concealed from you, and you were told about moderation's ruling at the moment it was made.
>> If the standard is different on this site then you should have told me, which you didn't.
Two responses: (a) no, because you shouldn't have assumed that the rules were the same given that this is not DDO, and (b) as I said before: "in cases which are novel--like this one--the rulings made will be novel (this novelty is necessary to establish precedent which can later be referenced)." Novelty may be inconvenient precisely for the reasons you mention, but making novel rulings is nevertheless vital and unavoidable.
>> And yes, this isn't a court case. But maybe you should alter your policies so that the concepts apply.
Two responses. First, your analogy makes no sense. I am not finding anyone guilty or innocent, and therefore I should not be using a standard that is only applied when finding someone guilty or innocent. What I am doing here is making a ruling about what kinds of votes are permissible--which requires me to interpret the rules, NOT to apply a standard of proof. Rules interpretations are not evidentiary questions, and so they are not concerned with those kinds of standards. Second, you should not fairly expect to deserve a win without making any arguments. This is the basic principle I am applying, and it is unquestionably a good principle. Even if you feel as if this particular application of that principle has led to an unfair outcome, you cannot argue against the principle itself. So, if a good principle is being used to render a decision which is unfair only because the decision is novel, then I don't see any valid objection to the decision because the principle is sound and novelty is unavoidable.
This is not DDO, and the way rules are interpreted on DDO has no bearing on how they will be interpreted here.
You can complain that you didn't know you needed to put forward arguments, but there are three reasons to reject that line of argument: (a) you should not fairly expect to deserve a win without making arguments even if your opponent conceded, (b) in cases which are novel--like this one--the rulings made will be novel (this novelty is necessary to establish precedent which can later be referenced), and (c) the reasonable inference based on your prior forfeits is that you were unlikely to contribute in rounds 4 and 5. This is not a court of law, nor even is this a case of me finding anyone guilty or innocent; therefore, I do not need to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Making reasonable inferences based on context is perfectly acceptable.
You "had no idea" that you needed to post arguments in Rounds 1, 2, and 3, BEFORE you opponent's concession? Give me a break. As I said below: "At that point, you had shown no interest in the debate, and so there is no reason to believe that you would have actually posted an argument had your opponent not conceded, and given you a chance to rescue what otherwise would've been a loss."
There was no rule change; there was a rule interpretation. You full forfeited, and your opponent conceded. Both of these would normally result in auto-losses, but you can both auto-lose, so there has to be some interpretation to resolve that tension. The obvious way to resolve that tension is to reward the person who actually made arguments over the person who made none. Your full forfeit trumps his concession, resulting in you losing this debate.
It was your choice to forfeit Round 1, 2, and 3, before your opponent "conceded." At that point, you had shown no interest in the debate, and so there is no reason to believe that you would have actually posted an argument had your opponent not conceded, and given you a chance to rescue what otherwise would've been a loss.
You cannot honestly and reasonably assert that you should win a debate in which you made NO arguments. Your full forfeit predates and outweighs his concession for that precise reason.
Thanks. Ultimately, the goal is to produce fair verdicts.
It's gonna start early to mid October.
Oh, I think the answer is absolutely "yes." We should admit people fleeing oppression.
I am not going to comment on Wylted's ban except to say that (a) Castin made the ruling and (b) it is temporary, and he should be back soon.
People on DART are free to express racist views if they wish. Racism is not something we moderate unless it is aimed at a specific user. So, it would be against the rules to say "User123 is a dumb n***er," but it is not against the rules to say "N***ers are dumb."
This debate is fine. Just because the content is absurd or gross doesn't make it deletable.
That is a question for the voters, not moderation.
This debate is basically a full forfeit by Con.
********
Moderation Notice: Self-voting through alt accounts is strictly prohibited in all circumstances. TheGreatGameLord's vote has therefore been removed.
********
********
Moderation Notice: Self-voting through alt accounts is strictly prohibited in all circumstances. TheGreatGameLord's vote has therefore been removed.
********
********
Moderation Notice: Self-voting through alt accounts is strictly prohibited in all circumstances. TheGreatGameLord's vote has therefore been removed.
********
Virt does most of the voting moderation atm, but if I am online, I am happy to check votes which have been reported.
I'd also love a (impartial) vote from you on this, btw.
About a year ago, I had a discussion/debate with a friend of mine on this subject, and got thoroughly walloped. She argued the atheist position, and I argued the "suspension of belief" position. Since then, it's been on my mind a lot. It's a fascinating question, to be sure. Great for armchair philosophers like myself, particularly when one cannot find an answer one is satisfied with.
I don't think I'll be doing any more god debates, unless I take a devil's advocate position for one. I wanted to do a few solid debates on the question, and then move on to topics more traditionally in my wheelhouse. I mean, I studiously avoided theological debates on DDO because I didn't consider myself to be good at them. Now I can check them off the box.
So, I guess I did them for two reasons. To satisfy my newfound interest in the subject, and to expand the range of debates I could do/have done. I don't really want to be a one trick pony, debate-wise.
That is why I almost always post arguments in the first 24 hours I have to post them. I did take the chance to remind you, and, esp. after you were short on time the first round, I find it extremely disappointing that you were not more conscious of the clock. I mean, it is what it is...but still.
Edit: Vote Con.
You've got about 15hrs left to post.
Thanks for the debate. It was fun.
You only have about 19hrs left to post.
You’ve only got 18hrs or so left...
The rules require you to post references in the debate itself.
You can use a url shortener like this [https://tinyurl.com/] to help, but the references do need to be in the debate.
Keep an eye on your time.
I would post sooner rather than later, lest it slip your mind again.
Why are the responses harder?
Don't forget to post your reply (we only have two rounds until the end, so we've almost made it).
Thank you for your reply. I believe this will be a good debate, based on your reply's quality.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Virtuoso // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Con for arguments
>Reason for Decision: Pro forfeited 3/5 rounds. Conduct to con as he did not forfeit.
Arguments also go to con. I consider any dropped arguments as concessions. Because pro forfeited 3/5 rounds while con forfeited none, Pro’s arguments should be considered dropped
>Reason for Mod Action: This RFD has proved a bit vexing to me to adjudicate. On the one hand, I agree that drops are concessions. On the other hand, allowing this vote to stand would mean that any forfeits could be used to automatically justify argument points, turning forfeits from a conduct issue into a conduct *and* argument issue. I think that when voters are asked to award argument points, there is an implicit understanding that they will actually evaluate the arguments. I am going to rule, then, that the argument points are insufficient. The voter must still check off each of the three criteria established for awarding argument points, which they do not (no survey of main points), and the voter cannot use the forfeit as a way to auto-weigh the arguments. The conduct points were clearly sufficient.
************************************************************************
Please post your argument before time expires. You've got like 10 hrs. left.
Just because I am debating for something does not mean it is my actual position. I am taking, in this debate, a position with which I personally disagree.
Posted.
As a conservative in this day and age, I am surprised to see you on the Pro side.