Currently, we will take the rules of the debate into consideration, but ultimately, we only enforce the actual rules. This is something that is under review.
Polygamy is not necessarily exclusive to 1 male, many females--that would be polygyny. Polyandry, by contrast, is when a woman is married to more than one man. And polyamory does not imply any spousal relationship between the participants. Polygamy is the correct word.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Raltar // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 6 points to Pro for arguments, sources, and conduct.
>Reason for Decision: Pro used a strong and well-written opening statement which was backed up with citations. Con used no citations, had only rethorical arguments and seemed to be debating another topic entirely.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter failed to survey and weigh the main arguments in debate. The voter failed to justify conduct in any respect. The voter failed to explain how Pro's sources were relevant to the debate. The points awarded were insufficiently justified. To cast a sufficient vote, the vote should survey and weigh the main arguments in the debate, explain why conduct was awarded, and explain how Pro's sources were relevant to the debate.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Raltar // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con for arguments, 3 points to Pro for sources and conduct
>Reason for Decision: Con called Pro a "sneaky little bastard" and then forfeited several rounds, so conduct goes to Pro. Pro was also the only person who used a source, so he gets that category too. However, in spite of all that, Con still made the better argument, because he is correct. Unless Pro has the power to see the future or can conclusively prove that Tech has achieved a level of skill which is impossible for any other person to achieve, his claim cannot be proven.
>Reason for Mod Action: The justification for conduct points was sufficient. On sources, simply saying that Pro used a source does not demonstrate that source's relevance, which must be done. On arguments, the voter failed to survey and weigh the main arguments in the debate in order to render a verdict. The vote is insufficient. The voter could cast a sufficient vote by leaving the justification for conduct as-is, demonstrating the source's relevance to the debate, and surveying and weighing the main arguments in the debate.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Raltar // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con
>Reason for Decision: I do not like nor listen to rap, so although the topic is considered to be subjective, I can only vote on the basis of the actual arguments offered. Con states that his songs may have poorer delivery, but the message they convey is superior. Pro counters by saying that message doesn't matter and his songs can be listened to while ignoring their message (or lack thereof). I feel having a worthy message is important in every form of communication, or the communication has no reason to occur. Hence, I believe Con has the better argument.
>Reason for Mod Action: Troll debates are not moderated, per the site voting policy guidelines. No moderation action is appropriate on this vote.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ramshutu // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con for arguments, 1 point to Pro for conduct
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Raltar // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 6 points to Pro for arguments, sources, and conduct
>Reason for Decision: I'm a completely new user, so I don't know the backstory on all this drama (please don't tell me, either), nor do I have any grudges to settle.
But here is what I do see:
1. Pro cited a source and also claims to have evidence via private message.
2. Con merely denied everything, had no evidence, cited a random song and then engaged in a long rant before insulting Pro in the last round.
As an impartial observer, Pro made a good argument on his own and Con's bad behavior pushed the argument across the finish line to an obvious win for Pro.
>Reason for Mod Action: In order to award sources points, the voter must "explain how the sources were relevant to the debate. This requires that the voter explain how the sources impacted the debate, directly assessing the strength of at least one source, and explaining how it either strengthened or weakened the argument it was utilized for." The voter did not do this. In order to award argument points, the voter must identify the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate and weigh them to produce a result. The voter did not sufficiently did survey the main arguments of the debate. Finally, to award conduct points, the voter must show that one side was excessively rude (excessive = very frequent or severe). The voter provided no analysis as to the excessiveness of the conduct violations. The voter could cast a sufficient vote by explaining how the sources were relevant to the debate, analyzing at least one source, surveying and weighing the main arguments of the debate, and demonstrating how the conduct violations were excessive.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ramshutu // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro for arguments
>Reason for Decision: Pro offered a justification for their position regarding colonizing Venus for fuel. Con didn’t really present an argument of any substance, there was little justification given other than a throwaway statement about running out of resources. As a result, pro wins on arguments.
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
************************************************************************
These were the three main arguments raised, though there were a couple of main offshoots (and a deteriorating debate) which were ancillary at best, given the issues above. I will note: that pro argued pros claims were “correlation is not causation” then inferred correlation is causation in his next point, he also pointed out that a single study is not proof, after citing a single example is proof in the post before. After the second set of responses the debate was really poor on both sides, but didn’t factor in to my weighting as the opening arguments were strong and unrefuted. Both sides could have done better.
1.) Con argues that crime doesn’t decrease with more guns. Pro dismisses this as a flawed NCVS study, but looking at cons source, this doesn’t seem to be the case: thus pros argument here is invalid, con goes on to site another study (his original link had multiple cited studies) which was dismissed as only a single study, which is a very poor rebuttal. 1-0 Con.
2.) Con argues that mass shootings occur because of the glorification of guns, and the volume of guns in the US, this seems reasonable on its face. Pro shifts again to crime in general and doesn’t offer a clear rebuttal of this position. He then appears to blame gun free zones - without offering a causal reason or argument to support this position, and offers solution. As a result pros response was more a deflection than a rebuttal and leaves cons original argument unrefuted. 2-0 Con.
3.) Con argues (with a source) that gun control actually works, citing a vox article (which itself cites research), that gun control actually works. Pro dismisses this as mostly Australia, and mostly revolving around crime rates which were already falling - but that isn’t what the source is talking about - the source cites multiple countries law changes before and after various controls were enacted. As a result, pros rebuttal can be discounted, as he isn’t rebutting the claims made by con. 3-0 Con.
Good use of sources both sides. However after writing my vote, I’m giving sources to con. Both his sources fully demonstrated cons point, and were not just individual data points, but covered most of his position in detail. Pro didn’t read these sources, and attacked a straw man of what he thought they said: which effectively gave Con the win on arguments. The Stanford example was similar. The sources here fully underpinned cons entire argument, and I felt they were incredibly effective. Whilst pro backed up individual small claims - nothing he cited was as broad or as solid in underpinned his argument as these from con. And as such sources gave cons initial argument a rock solid foundation that was almost unassailable - whereas pros did not.
Pro forfeited a round, which warrants a loss of conduct. Conduct deteriorated in the last post - instigated by pro - but I would warn both sides about such snarky behavior.
Arguments (in no particular order)
In general con talks about gun crime, gun crime stats, etc, pro throughout attempts to shift the argument to talking about crime in general. He mentions knives and illegally acquired firearms, but makes no real attempt to show they are translatable. IE, everyone commiting a crime with a gun today, would commit one with a knife or illegal gun tomorrow. Leaving that part unargued makes the shift to crime in general invalid.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ramshutu // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 6 points to Con for arguments, sources, and conduct
>Reason for Decision: [posted above]
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Raltar // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con for arguments, 2 points to Pro for sources and conduct
>Reason for Decision: Con never actually responded or said anything, but the argument made by Pro was simply wrong. Even diehard leftists don't claim that "sex" is non-binary. They claim "gender" is non-binary. By not distinguishing between the two, this argument seems like an overreach.
>Reason for Mod Action: This debate has no content whatsoever. Awarding points of any kind is therefore inappropriate, since no debater presented any kind of content which could be evaluated. No argument was ever made by Pro or by Con, contrary to the voter's statement.
************************************************************************
The final point was more of an alternative plan from con: Con didn’t explain this well enough so I didn’t fully follow what he meant, but it appeared to be a similar argument whereby people could have an opportunity to earn more in other jobs if they were available. Pro rightly points out that the low paying jobs still need to be done, and so this wouldn’t solve the problem con says it would.
As a result, the main arguments from con are fully eclipsed by what was presented by pro.
Sources to pro: con uses two sources in two arguments as a reference to the point he’s making. But pro cites all his main facts presented throughout. This make pros source more relevant. The selection chosen by pro (research and news), makes these sources more reliable. This makes pros primary contentions more reliable. Specifically: pros sources directly support his primary contentions (eg: he cites a source to show how many jobs needed to earn a living wage to show how poor the current minimum wage is), in multiple cases - bolstering his position, whereas only one of cons two sources directly supports his primary contention
Arguments to pro. Con starts with one main argument - that without a minimum wage, workers would end up earning more money anyway. Pros argument is a direct rebuttal to this (though it was not phrased as such), by showing that the money earner right now is not sufficient to live on, and individuals require on average 2.5 jobs to live on. This indicates to me that the data doesn’t support cons contention that workers would earn enough if there was a minimum wage. In addition: pros arguments about de facto corporate welfare, and poverty were much more compelling as reasons to support a minimum wage, and con did not offer any rebuttal.
The second set of arguments, primarily about the economic impact, con implied it would damage the economy, pro pointed out the research is flawed. As it was the last point, pro cast more than enough doubt on cons claim for me to discount it.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ramshutu // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points to Pro for arguments and sources
>Reason for Decision: [posted above]
>Reason for Mod Action: Arguments are sufficiently explained. The main arguments are surveyed and weighed to reach a decision. Sources are sufficiently explained. The voter, improving on the vote's previous iteration, sufficiently describes the impact of the sources on the debate.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Armoredcat // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con for arguments
>Reason for Decision: Full FF by Pro. By not forwarding an argument, he didn't meet his Burden of Proof.
>Reason for Mod Action: This debate is a full forfeit. FF debates are not moderated unless the voter voted for the conceding side. This did not occur, so this vote is not actionable.
************************************************************************
2.) Trump and Republicans are engaging in voter suppression and gerrymandering. Cons main defense was not that this was not happening, but that everyone does it. Admitting that your opponents primary factual claims are correct on their face concedes the argument unless con attempted to show these actions do not undermine democracy - which he did not. Pro caveated “Trump and the republicans”, while con correctly points out Trump isn’t The instigator of these policies, cons argument that Trump is the leader of the party is a valid rebuttal with this caveat. As a result pro was far more compelling. 2-0 pro.
3.) Trump undermines the free media. Pro explains that Trump is undermining the free media, and is a compulsive liar. Con offers very little rebuttal of the latter, and basically rejects cons source without justification. Pro wins the lies argument. On the undermining of the media, instead of really arguing the point, cons primary argument wasn’t to use a very generic argument - without any specific examples or citations - that trump is fighting back, and the media is biased against him. This appears to implicit be arguing that Trump IS undermining the free media - but they deserve it. As he implicitly concedes the point, and offers no genuine defense or argument to support the media “deserving it” other than a very generic catch all argument with no examples or specific - This rebuttal is wholly ineffective. Pro 3-0
Pro wins arguments on all three points.
Sources: pro supported his first primary contention with sources, and supported a requested contention. Con supported none of his primary arguments with sources or references. As a result, sources go to pro.
Spelling + grammar. Con made several grammatical and spelling errors that tripped me up l. I didn’t notice any from pro: examples: “You did not rebuttal to this.” “no where”, “completely false left wing agenda's”.
Conduct to pro. Con forfeited, pro deliberately ceded a round to make it fair: that’s good form - I would have awaded this point for cons forfeit alone, but must also stare that Con was also rude in the comments. Being rude, snide during a debate, even in the comments, is bad form.
Arguments. There were three main points raised. In the opening round pro met the basic burden of proof on all three - and I hoped the rest of the debate would revolve on defense and tear down of these points. The were:
1.) Trump is undermining the rule of law by his usage of the justice department. Cons rebuttal focused on the single example raised by pro - which was reasonable. However pro went on to list several other actions, and con did not present a cohesive rebuttal, making a limited reference to the attorney general being weak and then changing the subject to talk about Hillary clinton. Cons defense fell far short of rebutting pros contention. 1-0 pro.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ramshutu // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Pro
>Reason for Decision: [posted above]
>Reason for Mod Action: Arguments and conduct were sufficiently explained. However, sources and S/G were not. To award sources, the voter must "explain how the sources were relevant to the debate. This requires that the voter explain how the sources impacted the debate, directly assessing the strength of at least one source." The voter does not do this. To award S/G, "a voter must start by giving specific references to the mistakes made by the debater(s). More importantly though, these spelling and/or grammatical mistakes need to be excessive. A good rule of thumb is that if the spelling or grammar render the arguments incoherent or incomprehensible, the coherent side is awarded these points." The voter does not sufficiently ground the excessiveness of the S/G violations; where excessive means very frequent or severe. To cast a sufficient vote, the voter may keep his existing argument and conduct analysis, and must add information on the excessiveness of S/G violations and on how the sources *impacted* the debate while also analyzing at least one source example. Alternatively, the voter could keep their RFD as-is but simply not award S/G and/or Sources points.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Polytheist-Witch // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro for arguments
>Reason for Decision: Con did not present a good enough argument or plan to keep companies from dropping the wages to almost nothing anyone could live on.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter fails to survey the main arguments and to weigh those arguments to arrive at a decision. Essentially, more detail is required here. To cast a sufficient vote, the voter should survey (state) the main arguments, analyze those arguments (who won them and why?), and then put that all together (weigh) to produce a verdict.
************************************************************************
Sources to pro: con uses two sources in two arguments as a reference to the point he’s making. But pro cites all his main facts presented throughout. This make pros source more relevant. The selection chosen by pro (research and news), makes these sources more reliable.
Arguments to pro. Con starts with one main argument - that without a minimum wage, workers would end up earning more money anyway. Pros argument is a direct rebuttal to this (though it was not phrased as such), by showing that the money earner right now is not sufficient to live on, and individuals require on average 2.5 jobs to live on. This indicates to me that the data doesn’t support cons contention that workers would earn enough if there was a minimum wage. In addition: pros arguments about de facto corporate welfare, and poverty were much more compelling as reasons to support a minimum wage, and con did not offer any rebuttal.
The second set of arguments, primarily about the economic impact, con implied it would damage the economy, pro pointed out the research is flawed. As it was the last point, pro cast more than enough doubt on cons claim for me to discount it.
The final point was more of an alternative plan from con: Con didn’t explain this well enough so I didn’t fully follow what he meant, but it appeared to be a similar argument whereby people could have an opportunity to earn more in other jobs if they were available. Pro rightly points out that the low paying jobs still need to be done, and so this wouldn’t solve the problem con says it would.
As a result, the main arguments from con are fully eclipsed by what was presented by pro.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ramshutu // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points to Pro for arguments and sources
>Reason for Decision: [posted above]
>Reason for Mod Action: Arguments are sufficiently explained. The main arguments are surveyed and weighed to reach a decision. The sources justification was nearly sufficient, but there lacks a clear analysis of how "the sources impacted the debate." If the effect on the debate was merely to make one side more trustworthy, that should be stated. The voter can make the vote sufficient by copying his existing vote and adding a brief explanation of how the sources impacted the debate.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Earth // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Con
>Reason for Decision: Only people with bad taste like chicken wings with bones
>Reason for Mod Action: This debate is a full forfeit. FF debates are no moderated unless the voter voted for the conceding side. This did not occur, so this vote is not actionable.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Virtuoso // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Con
>Reason for Decision: What they said
>Reason for Mod Action: This debate is a full forfeit. FF debates are no moderated unless the voter voted for the conceding side. This did not occur, so this vote is not actionable.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ramshutu // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Con
>Reason for Decision: Full forfeit
>Reason for Mod Action: This debate is a full forfeit. FF debates are no moderated unless the voter voted for the conceding side. This did not occur, so this vote is not actionable.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ramshutu // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points to Con for arguments, S/G, and conduct
>Reason for Decision: Full forfeit by Pro for conduct. All cons arguments went unrefuted, and he used a wider breadth of sources (YouTube And
Other website links).
>Reason for Mod Action: This debate is a full forfeit. FF debates are not moderated unless the voter voted for the conceding side. This did not occur, so this vote is not actionable.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Zedvictor4 // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points to Con for arguments, S/G, and conduct
>Reason for Decision: At least Con debated, albeit limitedly.
>Reason for Mod Action: This debate is a full forfeit. FF debates are not moderated unless the voter voted for the conceding side. This did not occur, so this vote is not actionable.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Earth // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con for conduct
>Reason for Decision: kfc kfc nac pac
>Reason for Mod Action: This debate is a full forfeit. FF debates are not moderated unless the voter voted for the conceding side. This did not occur, so this vote is not actionable.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Virtuoso // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Con
>Reason for Decision: Full forfeit
>Reason for Mod Action: This debate is a full forfeit. FF debates are not moderated unless the voter voted for the conceding side. This did not occur, so this vote is not actionable.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ramshutu // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Con for arguments and conduct
>Reason for Decision: Conduct to con for pros forfeit.
After “surveying the arguments”, it seems that pro didn’t provide a meaningful argument, and instead his opening argument appeared to be more of an incoherently rambling opinion: there was little in the way of an attempt on pros part to establish his position logically, or provide any walk through of the supporting logic. Con arguments are therefore more convincing because he correctly points out how con falls well short of his burden of proof. That some is sufficient to win the debate. Con goes further, by pointing out how the tenuous argument pro made was wrong: pointing out that the 1:0 alternatives are arbitrary and subjective.
Grammar and spelling go to con too: “Every something has to have something at it's core that makes it something”, “to it beyond it's discernible” - both should be its. General poor use of grammar, that make the arguments made hard to follow eg: statements like “many intellectually smart people” (redundancy), “How can I possibly know this you might ask?” Too short, needs a comma between this and you, breaks up the flow of the debate, and the choice of grammar in examples such as this makes it harder to read.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter surveys the main arguments and weighs them to arrive at a decision. Forfeiting is sufficient grounds to award conduct so long as arguments are explained, which they are. The vote is sufficient.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ramshutu // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Con
>Reason for Decision: Forfeit/spam.
>Reason for Mod Action: This debate is a full forfeit. FF debates are not moderated unless the voter voted for the conceding side. This did not occur, so this vote is not actionable.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: DebateArt.com // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Con
>Reason for Decision: What @Virtuoso said ...
>Reason for Mod Action: This debate is a full forfeit. FF debates are not moderated unless the voter voted for the conceding side. This did not occur, so this vote is not actionable.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Virtuoso // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Con
>Reason for Decision: Full forfeit. Pro is just here to spam
>Reason for Mod Action: This debate is a full forfeit. FF debates are not moderated unless the voter voted for the conceding side. This did not occur, so this vote is not actionable.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ramshutu // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Con for arguments and conduct
>Reason for Decision: Conduct to con for forfeit.
Pros opening post contained no argument; but a series of absurd claims that I believe were either trolling or a failed attempt at comedy cons response was short and to the point, but basically pointed this out, and specifically that pro offered no evidence. Default BOP was not met by pro, so con wins on arguments.
>Reason for Mod Action: This debate is a full forfeit. FF debates are not moderated unless the voter voted for the conceding side. This did not occur, so this vote is not actionable.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con for arguments
>Reason for Decision: Full Forfeit by Pro.
>Reason for Mod Action: This debate is a full forfeit. FF debates are not moderated unless the voter voted for the conceding side. This did not occur, so this vote is not actionable.
************************************************************************
This is a full-forfeit debate; I should not have removed your vote. Feel free to re-vote using your old RFD, which you can find below in the removal notice. Apologies.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Argent_Tongue // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Con for arguments and conduct
>Reason for Decision: Pro failed to meet the BoP. Because of this, argument points awarded to Con. Sources are irrelevant, and therefore a tie. Spelling and grammar were also comparable in stature, and also resulted in a tie. Con maintained his obligation and honored his commitment to the debate. Therefore, conduct and etiquette points were awarded to Con.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter fails to survey the main arguments and fails to weigh those arguments to reach a decision. To cast a sufficient vote, the voter should explain *why* and *how* Pro met their BOP by surveying and weighing the main arguments.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Argent_Tongue // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con for conduct
>Reason for Decision: Full forfeiture by Pro. However, even though Con more or less saw the debate through, neither side presented an argument. Because of this, sources were not used by either party, and spelling and grammar is therefore non applicable. Con was polite and displayed overall etiquette because he honored his commitment to the discussion.
>Reason for Mod Action: This debate is a full forfeit. FF debates are not moderated unless the voter voted for the conceding side. This did not occur, so this vote is not actionable.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Argent_Tongue // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con for arguments
>Reason for Decision: Both participants used reliable sources of some manner, therefore it was a tie in terms of sourcing information. Both the supporting and proposing sides had acceptable grammar and spelling, resulting in another tie. Both Pro and Con failed to honor their obligation in at least one round, earning an equal distribution of points to both contestants. However, in terms of argument, Pro however, made an unsupported and rather fallacious assertion that a major news network was objective in its outlook and style of presenting information to the US public.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter fails to survey all the main arguments and to then weigh them to arrive at a decision. The voter may cast a sufficient vote by (a) surveying the main arguments within the debate and (b) weighing those arguments for their relative strength in order to arrive at a verdict.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Polytheist-Witch // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con
>Reason for Decision: CNN and Fox are the two most political news sites in the US. To say one is bias and one is not is dishonest.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter seems to insert their own preexisting opinion into the RFD, which is not permitted. However, even if that is not the case, the voter fails to survey the main arguments and to then weigh them to arrive at a decision. The RFD is very myopic. The voter may cast a sufficient vote by (a) surveying the main arguments within the debate and (b) weighing those arguments for their relative strength in order to arrive at a verdict.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ramshutu // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con for arguments
>Reason for Decision: The whole debate from both pro and con break down into a discussion about infinite number series. Con makes a series of arguments about infinite number series, and argues what they actually mean, the best summary from his arguments was.
“Pro's argument here is that 0.9r = 0.0r1. This is not true. This is incorrect as it's logically inconsistent with the idea of infinity. By definition, infinity has no end and consequently there is no "after" with something infinite. There is no 1 after 0.0r because there is no "after" in the case of an infinitely long sequence. There is no "final number". Infinity goes on forever. The hypothetical 1 occurring after 0.0r supposed by Pro can't and doesn't happen as it's a logical impossibility.”
This on its own, wins the debate for con on arguments. This convincingly shows both the reason why pros arguments around number series is wrong, and demonstrates why (despite it being non intuitive), 0.9r = 1.
Pros entire argument effectively relates to variations on a theme to there being a number between 0.9r and 1, which requires them to hold different values: con shows this to be false with his explanation of infinite’s and number sequence. Pro doesn’t provide any convincing rebuttal of this silver bullet argument. Both pros mathematical and “intuitive” arguments were very, very well explained.
>Reason for Mod Action: The debate clearly surveys the main arguments and weighs them to reach a sufficient verdict.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Zedvictor4 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Con for arguments and Conduct
>Reason for Decision: Instigator was keen to stray from the limits imposed by the proposition.
Contenders rationality gives them the edge in terms of conduct.
>Reason for Mod Action: On arguments, the voter fails to survey and weigh the main arguments. On conduct, the voter fails to explain how a debater's misconduct was "excessively rude" and fails to reference instances of misconduct. Moreover, it is not at all clear how rationality is an issue of conduct--i.e. civility. The voter can cast a sufficient vote by surveying and weighing the main arguments of the debate and by identifying cases of misconduct and then explaining how any misconduct was excessive. Excessive means extreme or very frequent. Alternatively, the voter could chose not to award conduct points and focus on making their argument points sufficient.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Dustryder // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points to Pro for arguments and sources
>Reason for Decision: Sources: Con made little attempt to substantiate his counter-arguments with sources. The one source con used had little relevance to the topic at hand (CNN is left-leaning. This is irrelevant to whether Trump is "undermining one of the fundamental elements of a republic: free press")
Spelling and grammar: Con had slightly worse spelling/grammar over Pro.
lye->lie
there->their
No where->Nowhere
You did not rebuttal to this->You did not rebut this/You did not make a rebuttal to this
However this did not hurt readability
Conduct: Tie. Both were relatively polite
Arguments: Con failed to effectively address Pro's arguments. Later arguments nitpick over irrelevant details, leaving the overarching point unaddressed. I also note that Con has used instances of whataboutism and appeal to tradition which detract from his arguments.
>Reason for Mod Action: On sources, the voter fails to explain how the use of sources effected the debate itself and failed to do any comparison between both debaters' use of sources. On arguments, the voter fails to conduct any weighing analysis and fails to survey the main arguments of the debate. The voter may cast a sufficient vote by explaining how the source impacted the debate itself and by surveying and then weighing the main arguments in the debate.
************************************************************************
I would disagree that both votes were more thorough in dealing with the arguments than Ram's vote, though Ethang's certainly was more thorough in that regard. Length =/= thoroughness. But that's not the issue. The voter must sufficiently warrant EACH point they award, and therein lies the problem. Had all votes only awarded argument points, they all would have passed muster--but they didn't, and failed to justify the other points they award sufficiently. Both voters may revote--and it was clearly explained HOW they could revote sufficiently so that they could do so if they wished. If voters have questions about those explanations, they are free to ask me questions. In either case, the fix is easy.
Each vote is evaluated for sufficiency in isolation from the other votes in play. PGA's vote was evaluated on Oct. 21, but there was some question as to whether his argument points were sufficient and Tej and I both became pretty busy, hence the delayed notice and removal. So, moderation knew his vote would be taken down more than a week ago (before Ethang's vote). The delayed notices are also due in part to moderation being slightly behind on reports due to Tej's temporary absence, which has made prompt notices difficult. And, also, Ethang's vote was only reported today.
According to Mike, the revote option will come back in a few minutes. Not sure how long it takes, though. But you should 100% be able to revote, and I gave clear advice on how to do that in a way which would pass moderation standards. Explain why you found the poor conduct excessive, or simply choose not to award conduct points.
You can recast your vote in a way which makes it sufficient. I explained how to do that in my notice to you. Namely, I said that the voter "may properly revote either by not awarding conduct or by addressing the insufficiency in the justification of the awarded conduct points." Your arguments were sufficient, but the justification of conduct points was not, as I explained.
What evidence does Con have to support the accuracy? He never gave any.
While it is true that other points could be added to the trilemma the one Con chose also falls into the problem of soundness and validity, which Con failed to establish. Pro, on the other hand, did establish that these early believers looked upon Jesus as Lord. I give the edge to Pro.
If that is your belief, then why not accept the debate?
Currently, we will take the rules of the debate into consideration, but ultimately, we only enforce the actual rules. This is something that is under review.
Polygamy is not necessarily exclusive to 1 male, many females--that would be polygyny. Polyandry, by contrast, is when a woman is married to more than one man. And polyamory does not imply any spousal relationship between the participants. Polygamy is the correct word.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Raltar // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 6 points to Pro for arguments, sources, and conduct.
>Reason for Decision: Pro used a strong and well-written opening statement which was backed up with citations. Con used no citations, had only rethorical arguments and seemed to be debating another topic entirely.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter failed to survey and weigh the main arguments in debate. The voter failed to justify conduct in any respect. The voter failed to explain how Pro's sources were relevant to the debate. The points awarded were insufficiently justified. To cast a sufficient vote, the vote should survey and weigh the main arguments in the debate, explain why conduct was awarded, and explain how Pro's sources were relevant to the debate.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Raltar // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con for arguments, 3 points to Pro for sources and conduct
>Reason for Decision: Con called Pro a "sneaky little bastard" and then forfeited several rounds, so conduct goes to Pro. Pro was also the only person who used a source, so he gets that category too. However, in spite of all that, Con still made the better argument, because he is correct. Unless Pro has the power to see the future or can conclusively prove that Tech has achieved a level of skill which is impossible for any other person to achieve, his claim cannot be proven.
>Reason for Mod Action: The justification for conduct points was sufficient. On sources, simply saying that Pro used a source does not demonstrate that source's relevance, which must be done. On arguments, the voter failed to survey and weigh the main arguments in the debate in order to render a verdict. The vote is insufficient. The voter could cast a sufficient vote by leaving the justification for conduct as-is, demonstrating the source's relevance to the debate, and surveying and weighing the main arguments in the debate.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Raltar // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con
>Reason for Decision: I do not like nor listen to rap, so although the topic is considered to be subjective, I can only vote on the basis of the actual arguments offered. Con states that his songs may have poorer delivery, but the message they convey is superior. Pro counters by saying that message doesn't matter and his songs can be listened to while ignoring their message (or lack thereof). I feel having a worthy message is important in every form of communication, or the communication has no reason to occur. Hence, I believe Con has the better argument.
>Reason for Mod Action: Troll debates are not moderated, per the site voting policy guidelines. No moderation action is appropriate on this vote.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ramshutu // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con for arguments, 1 point to Pro for conduct
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Raltar // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 6 points to Pro for arguments, sources, and conduct
>Reason for Decision: I'm a completely new user, so I don't know the backstory on all this drama (please don't tell me, either), nor do I have any grudges to settle.
But here is what I do see:
1. Pro cited a source and also claims to have evidence via private message.
2. Con merely denied everything, had no evidence, cited a random song and then engaged in a long rant before insulting Pro in the last round.
As an impartial observer, Pro made a good argument on his own and Con's bad behavior pushed the argument across the finish line to an obvious win for Pro.
>Reason for Mod Action: In order to award sources points, the voter must "explain how the sources were relevant to the debate. This requires that the voter explain how the sources impacted the debate, directly assessing the strength of at least one source, and explaining how it either strengthened or weakened the argument it was utilized for." The voter did not do this. In order to award argument points, the voter must identify the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate and weigh them to produce a result. The voter did not sufficiently did survey the main arguments of the debate. Finally, to award conduct points, the voter must show that one side was excessively rude (excessive = very frequent or severe). The voter provided no analysis as to the excessiveness of the conduct violations. The voter could cast a sufficient vote by explaining how the sources were relevant to the debate, analyzing at least one source, surveying and weighing the main arguments of the debate, and demonstrating how the conduct violations were excessive.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ramshutu // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro for arguments
>Reason for Decision: Pro offered a justification for their position regarding colonizing Venus for fuel. Con didn’t really present an argument of any substance, there was little justification given other than a throwaway statement about running out of resources. As a result, pro wins on arguments.
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
************************************************************************
Ram's RFD, part 3:
These were the three main arguments raised, though there were a couple of main offshoots (and a deteriorating debate) which were ancillary at best, given the issues above. I will note: that pro argued pros claims were “correlation is not causation” then inferred correlation is causation in his next point, he also pointed out that a single study is not proof, after citing a single example is proof in the post before. After the second set of responses the debate was really poor on both sides, but didn’t factor in to my weighting as the opening arguments were strong and unrefuted. Both sides could have done better.
Ram's RFD, part 2:
1.) Con argues that crime doesn’t decrease with more guns. Pro dismisses this as a flawed NCVS study, but looking at cons source, this doesn’t seem to be the case: thus pros argument here is invalid, con goes on to site another study (his original link had multiple cited studies) which was dismissed as only a single study, which is a very poor rebuttal. 1-0 Con.
2.) Con argues that mass shootings occur because of the glorification of guns, and the volume of guns in the US, this seems reasonable on its face. Pro shifts again to crime in general and doesn’t offer a clear rebuttal of this position. He then appears to blame gun free zones - without offering a causal reason or argument to support this position, and offers solution. As a result pros response was more a deflection than a rebuttal and leaves cons original argument unrefuted. 2-0 Con.
3.) Con argues (with a source) that gun control actually works, citing a vox article (which itself cites research), that gun control actually works. Pro dismisses this as mostly Australia, and mostly revolving around crime rates which were already falling - but that isn’t what the source is talking about - the source cites multiple countries law changes before and after various controls were enacted. As a result, pros rebuttal can be discounted, as he isn’t rebutting the claims made by con. 3-0 Con.
Ram's RFD, part 1:
Good use of sources both sides. However after writing my vote, I’m giving sources to con. Both his sources fully demonstrated cons point, and were not just individual data points, but covered most of his position in detail. Pro didn’t read these sources, and attacked a straw man of what he thought they said: which effectively gave Con the win on arguments. The Stanford example was similar. The sources here fully underpinned cons entire argument, and I felt they were incredibly effective. Whilst pro backed up individual small claims - nothing he cited was as broad or as solid in underpinned his argument as these from con. And as such sources gave cons initial argument a rock solid foundation that was almost unassailable - whereas pros did not.
Pro forfeited a round, which warrants a loss of conduct. Conduct deteriorated in the last post - instigated by pro - but I would warn both sides about such snarky behavior.
Arguments (in no particular order)
In general con talks about gun crime, gun crime stats, etc, pro throughout attempts to shift the argument to talking about crime in general. He mentions knives and illegally acquired firearms, but makes no real attempt to show they are translatable. IE, everyone commiting a crime with a gun today, would commit one with a knife or illegal gun tomorrow. Leaving that part unargued makes the shift to crime in general invalid.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ramshutu // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 6 points to Con for arguments, sources, and conduct
>Reason for Decision: [posted above]
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Raltar // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con for arguments, 2 points to Pro for sources and conduct
>Reason for Decision: Con never actually responded or said anything, but the argument made by Pro was simply wrong. Even diehard leftists don't claim that "sex" is non-binary. They claim "gender" is non-binary. By not distinguishing between the two, this argument seems like an overreach.
>Reason for Mod Action: This debate has no content whatsoever. Awarding points of any kind is therefore inappropriate, since no debater presented any kind of content which could be evaluated. No argument was ever made by Pro or by Con, contrary to the voter's statement.
************************************************************************
OMG. So many spelling errors. Gonna delete and fix and repost.
Ram's RFD, Part 2:
The final point was more of an alternative plan from con: Con didn’t explain this well enough so I didn’t fully follow what he meant, but it appeared to be a similar argument whereby people could have an opportunity to earn more in other jobs if they were available. Pro rightly points out that the low paying jobs still need to be done, and so this wouldn’t solve the problem con says it would.
As a result, the main arguments from con are fully eclipsed by what was presented by pro.
Ram's RFD, Part 1:
Sources to pro: con uses two sources in two arguments as a reference to the point he’s making. But pro cites all his main facts presented throughout. This make pros source more relevant. The selection chosen by pro (research and news), makes these sources more reliable. This makes pros primary contentions more reliable. Specifically: pros sources directly support his primary contentions (eg: he cites a source to show how many jobs needed to earn a living wage to show how poor the current minimum wage is), in multiple cases - bolstering his position, whereas only one of cons two sources directly supports his primary contention
Arguments to pro. Con starts with one main argument - that without a minimum wage, workers would end up earning more money anyway. Pros argument is a direct rebuttal to this (though it was not phrased as such), by showing that the money earner right now is not sufficient to live on, and individuals require on average 2.5 jobs to live on. This indicates to me that the data doesn’t support cons contention that workers would earn enough if there was a minimum wage. In addition: pros arguments about de facto corporate welfare, and poverty were much more compelling as reasons to support a minimum wage, and con did not offer any rebuttal.
The second set of arguments, primarily about the economic impact, con implied it would damage the economy, pro pointed out the research is flawed. As it was the last point, pro cast more than enough doubt on cons claim for me to discount it.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ramshutu // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points to Pro for arguments and sources
>Reason for Decision: [posted above]
>Reason for Mod Action: Arguments are sufficiently explained. The main arguments are surveyed and weighed to reach a decision. Sources are sufficiently explained. The voter, improving on the vote's previous iteration, sufficiently describes the impact of the sources on the debate.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Armoredcat // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con for arguments
>Reason for Decision: Full FF by Pro. By not forwarding an argument, he didn't meet his Burden of Proof.
>Reason for Mod Action: This debate is a full forfeit. FF debates are not moderated unless the voter voted for the conceding side. This did not occur, so this vote is not actionable.
************************************************************************
Ram's RFD, Part 2:
2.) Trump and Republicans are engaging in voter suppression and gerrymandering. Cons main defense was not that this was not happening, but that everyone does it. Admitting that your opponents primary factual claims are correct on their face concedes the argument unless con attempted to show these actions do not undermine democracy - which he did not. Pro caveated “Trump and the republicans”, while con correctly points out Trump isn’t The instigator of these policies, cons argument that Trump is the leader of the party is a valid rebuttal with this caveat. As a result pro was far more compelling. 2-0 pro.
3.) Trump undermines the free media. Pro explains that Trump is undermining the free media, and is a compulsive liar. Con offers very little rebuttal of the latter, and basically rejects cons source without justification. Pro wins the lies argument. On the undermining of the media, instead of really arguing the point, cons primary argument wasn’t to use a very generic argument - without any specific examples or citations - that trump is fighting back, and the media is biased against him. This appears to implicit be arguing that Trump IS undermining the free media - but they deserve it. As he implicitly concedes the point, and offers no genuine defense or argument to support the media “deserving it” other than a very generic catch all argument with no examples or specific - This rebuttal is wholly ineffective. Pro 3-0
Pro wins arguments on all three points.
Ram's RFD, Part 1:
Sources: pro supported his first primary contention with sources, and supported a requested contention. Con supported none of his primary arguments with sources or references. As a result, sources go to pro.
Spelling + grammar. Con made several grammatical and spelling errors that tripped me up l. I didn’t notice any from pro: examples: “You did not rebuttal to this.” “no where”, “completely false left wing agenda's”.
Conduct to pro. Con forfeited, pro deliberately ceded a round to make it fair: that’s good form - I would have awaded this point for cons forfeit alone, but must also stare that Con was also rude in the comments. Being rude, snide during a debate, even in the comments, is bad form.
Arguments. There were three main points raised. In the opening round pro met the basic burden of proof on all three - and I hoped the rest of the debate would revolve on defense and tear down of these points. The were:
1.) Trump is undermining the rule of law by his usage of the justice department. Cons rebuttal focused on the single example raised by pro - which was reasonable. However pro went on to list several other actions, and con did not present a cohesive rebuttal, making a limited reference to the attorney general being weak and then changing the subject to talk about Hillary clinton. Cons defense fell far short of rebutting pros contention. 1-0 pro.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ramshutu // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Pro
>Reason for Decision: [posted above]
>Reason for Mod Action: Arguments and conduct were sufficiently explained. However, sources and S/G were not. To award sources, the voter must "explain how the sources were relevant to the debate. This requires that the voter explain how the sources impacted the debate, directly assessing the strength of at least one source." The voter does not do this. To award S/G, "a voter must start by giving specific references to the mistakes made by the debater(s). More importantly though, these spelling and/or grammatical mistakes need to be excessive. A good rule of thumb is that if the spelling or grammar render the arguments incoherent or incomprehensible, the coherent side is awarded these points." The voter does not sufficiently ground the excessiveness of the S/G violations; where excessive means very frequent or severe. To cast a sufficient vote, the voter may keep his existing argument and conduct analysis, and must add information on the excessiveness of S/G violations and on how the sources *impacted* the debate while also analyzing at least one source example. Alternatively, the voter could keep their RFD as-is but simply not award S/G and/or Sources points.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Polytheist-Witch // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro for arguments
>Reason for Decision: Con did not present a good enough argument or plan to keep companies from dropping the wages to almost nothing anyone could live on.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter fails to survey the main arguments and to weigh those arguments to arrive at a decision. Essentially, more detail is required here. To cast a sufficient vote, the voter should survey (state) the main arguments, analyze those arguments (who won them and why?), and then put that all together (weigh) to produce a verdict.
************************************************************************
Ram's RFD:
Sources to pro: con uses two sources in two arguments as a reference to the point he’s making. But pro cites all his main facts presented throughout. This make pros source more relevant. The selection chosen by pro (research and news), makes these sources more reliable.
Arguments to pro. Con starts with one main argument - that without a minimum wage, workers would end up earning more money anyway. Pros argument is a direct rebuttal to this (though it was not phrased as such), by showing that the money earner right now is not sufficient to live on, and individuals require on average 2.5 jobs to live on. This indicates to me that the data doesn’t support cons contention that workers would earn enough if there was a minimum wage. In addition: pros arguments about de facto corporate welfare, and poverty were much more compelling as reasons to support a minimum wage, and con did not offer any rebuttal.
The second set of arguments, primarily about the economic impact, con implied it would damage the economy, pro pointed out the research is flawed. As it was the last point, pro cast more than enough doubt on cons claim for me to discount it.
The final point was more of an alternative plan from con: Con didn’t explain this well enough so I didn’t fully follow what he meant, but it appeared to be a similar argument whereby people could have an opportunity to earn more in other jobs if they were available. Pro rightly points out that the low paying jobs still need to be done, and so this wouldn’t solve the problem con says it would.
As a result, the main arguments from con are fully eclipsed by what was presented by pro.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ramshutu // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points to Pro for arguments and sources
>Reason for Decision: [posted above]
>Reason for Mod Action: Arguments are sufficiently explained. The main arguments are surveyed and weighed to reach a decision. The sources justification was nearly sufficient, but there lacks a clear analysis of how "the sources impacted the debate." If the effect on the debate was merely to make one side more trustworthy, that should be stated. The voter can make the vote sufficient by copying his existing vote and adding a brief explanation of how the sources impacted the debate.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Earth // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Con
>Reason for Decision: Only people with bad taste like chicken wings with bones
>Reason for Mod Action: This debate is a full forfeit. FF debates are no moderated unless the voter voted for the conceding side. This did not occur, so this vote is not actionable.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Virtuoso // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Con
>Reason for Decision: What they said
>Reason for Mod Action: This debate is a full forfeit. FF debates are no moderated unless the voter voted for the conceding side. This did not occur, so this vote is not actionable.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ramshutu // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Con
>Reason for Decision: Full forfeit
>Reason for Mod Action: This debate is a full forfeit. FF debates are no moderated unless the voter voted for the conceding side. This did not occur, so this vote is not actionable.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ramshutu // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points to Con for arguments, S/G, and conduct
>Reason for Decision: Full forfeit by Pro for conduct. All cons arguments went unrefuted, and he used a wider breadth of sources (YouTube And
Other website links).
>Reason for Mod Action: This debate is a full forfeit. FF debates are not moderated unless the voter voted for the conceding side. This did not occur, so this vote is not actionable.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Zedvictor4 // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points to Con for arguments, S/G, and conduct
>Reason for Decision: At least Con debated, albeit limitedly.
>Reason for Mod Action: This debate is a full forfeit. FF debates are not moderated unless the voter voted for the conceding side. This did not occur, so this vote is not actionable.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Earth // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con for conduct
>Reason for Decision: kfc kfc nac pac
>Reason for Mod Action: This debate is a full forfeit. FF debates are not moderated unless the voter voted for the conceding side. This did not occur, so this vote is not actionable.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Virtuoso // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Con
>Reason for Decision: Full forfeit
>Reason for Mod Action: This debate is a full forfeit. FF debates are not moderated unless the voter voted for the conceding side. This did not occur, so this vote is not actionable.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ramshutu // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Con for arguments and conduct
>Reason for Decision: Conduct to con for pros forfeit.
After “surveying the arguments”, it seems that pro didn’t provide a meaningful argument, and instead his opening argument appeared to be more of an incoherently rambling opinion: there was little in the way of an attempt on pros part to establish his position logically, or provide any walk through of the supporting logic. Con arguments are therefore more convincing because he correctly points out how con falls well short of his burden of proof. That some is sufficient to win the debate. Con goes further, by pointing out how the tenuous argument pro made was wrong: pointing out that the 1:0 alternatives are arbitrary and subjective.
Grammar and spelling go to con too: “Every something has to have something at it's core that makes it something”, “to it beyond it's discernible” - both should be its. General poor use of grammar, that make the arguments made hard to follow eg: statements like “many intellectually smart people” (redundancy), “How can I possibly know this you might ask?” Too short, needs a comma between this and you, breaks up the flow of the debate, and the choice of grammar in examples such as this makes it harder to read.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter surveys the main arguments and weighs them to arrive at a decision. Forfeiting is sufficient grounds to award conduct so long as arguments are explained, which they are. The vote is sufficient.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ramshutu // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Con
>Reason for Decision: Forfeit/spam.
>Reason for Mod Action: This debate is a full forfeit. FF debates are not moderated unless the voter voted for the conceding side. This did not occur, so this vote is not actionable.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: DebateArt.com // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Con
>Reason for Decision: What @Virtuoso said ...
>Reason for Mod Action: This debate is a full forfeit. FF debates are not moderated unless the voter voted for the conceding side. This did not occur, so this vote is not actionable.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Virtuoso // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Con
>Reason for Decision: Full forfeit. Pro is just here to spam
>Reason for Mod Action: This debate is a full forfeit. FF debates are not moderated unless the voter voted for the conceding side. This did not occur, so this vote is not actionable.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ramshutu // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Con for arguments and conduct
>Reason for Decision: Conduct to con for forfeit.
Pros opening post contained no argument; but a series of absurd claims that I believe were either trolling or a failed attempt at comedy cons response was short and to the point, but basically pointed this out, and specifically that pro offered no evidence. Default BOP was not met by pro, so con wins on arguments.
>Reason for Mod Action: This debate is a full forfeit. FF debates are not moderated unless the voter voted for the conceding side. This did not occur, so this vote is not actionable.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con for arguments
>Reason for Decision: Full Forfeit by Pro.
>Reason for Mod Action: This debate is a full forfeit. FF debates are not moderated unless the voter voted for the conceding side. This did not occur, so this vote is not actionable.
************************************************************************
Whoops!
This is a full-forfeit debate; I should not have removed your vote. Feel free to re-vote using your old RFD, which you can find below in the removal notice. Apologies.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Argent_Tongue // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Con for arguments and conduct
>Reason for Decision: Pro failed to meet the BoP. Because of this, argument points awarded to Con. Sources are irrelevant, and therefore a tie. Spelling and grammar were also comparable in stature, and also resulted in a tie. Con maintained his obligation and honored his commitment to the debate. Therefore, conduct and etiquette points were awarded to Con.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter fails to survey the main arguments and fails to weigh those arguments to reach a decision. To cast a sufficient vote, the voter should explain *why* and *how* Pro met their BOP by surveying and weighing the main arguments.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Argent_Tongue // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con for conduct
>Reason for Decision: Full forfeiture by Pro. However, even though Con more or less saw the debate through, neither side presented an argument. Because of this, sources were not used by either party, and spelling and grammar is therefore non applicable. Con was polite and displayed overall etiquette because he honored his commitment to the discussion.
>Reason for Mod Action: This debate is a full forfeit. FF debates are not moderated unless the voter voted for the conceding side. This did not occur, so this vote is not actionable.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Argent_Tongue // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con for arguments
>Reason for Decision: Both participants used reliable sources of some manner, therefore it was a tie in terms of sourcing information. Both the supporting and proposing sides had acceptable grammar and spelling, resulting in another tie. Both Pro and Con failed to honor their obligation in at least one round, earning an equal distribution of points to both contestants. However, in terms of argument, Pro however, made an unsupported and rather fallacious assertion that a major news network was objective in its outlook and style of presenting information to the US public.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter fails to survey all the main arguments and to then weigh them to arrive at a decision. The voter may cast a sufficient vote by (a) surveying the main arguments within the debate and (b) weighing those arguments for their relative strength in order to arrive at a verdict.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Polytheist-Witch // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con
>Reason for Decision: CNN and Fox are the two most political news sites in the US. To say one is bias and one is not is dishonest.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter seems to insert their own preexisting opinion into the RFD, which is not permitted. However, even if that is not the case, the voter fails to survey the main arguments and to then weigh them to arrive at a decision. The RFD is very myopic. The voter may cast a sufficient vote by (a) surveying the main arguments within the debate and (b) weighing those arguments for their relative strength in order to arrive at a verdict.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ramshutu // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con for arguments
>Reason for Decision: The whole debate from both pro and con break down into a discussion about infinite number series. Con makes a series of arguments about infinite number series, and argues what they actually mean, the best summary from his arguments was.
“Pro's argument here is that 0.9r = 0.0r1. This is not true. This is incorrect as it's logically inconsistent with the idea of infinity. By definition, infinity has no end and consequently there is no "after" with something infinite. There is no 1 after 0.0r because there is no "after" in the case of an infinitely long sequence. There is no "final number". Infinity goes on forever. The hypothetical 1 occurring after 0.0r supposed by Pro can't and doesn't happen as it's a logical impossibility.”
This on its own, wins the debate for con on arguments. This convincingly shows both the reason why pros arguments around number series is wrong, and demonstrates why (despite it being non intuitive), 0.9r = 1.
Pros entire argument effectively relates to variations on a theme to there being a number between 0.9r and 1, which requires them to hold different values: con shows this to be false with his explanation of infinite’s and number sequence. Pro doesn’t provide any convincing rebuttal of this silver bullet argument. Both pros mathematical and “intuitive” arguments were very, very well explained.
>Reason for Mod Action: The debate clearly surveys the main arguments and weighs them to reach a sufficient verdict.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Zedvictor4 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Con for arguments and Conduct
>Reason for Decision: Instigator was keen to stray from the limits imposed by the proposition.
Contenders rationality gives them the edge in terms of conduct.
>Reason for Mod Action: On arguments, the voter fails to survey and weigh the main arguments. On conduct, the voter fails to explain how a debater's misconduct was "excessively rude" and fails to reference instances of misconduct. Moreover, it is not at all clear how rationality is an issue of conduct--i.e. civility. The voter can cast a sufficient vote by surveying and weighing the main arguments of the debate and by identifying cases of misconduct and then explaining how any misconduct was excessive. Excessive means extreme or very frequent. Alternatively, the voter could chose not to award conduct points and focus on making their argument points sufficient.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Dustryder // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points to Pro for arguments and sources
>Reason for Decision: Sources: Con made little attempt to substantiate his counter-arguments with sources. The one source con used had little relevance to the topic at hand (CNN is left-leaning. This is irrelevant to whether Trump is "undermining one of the fundamental elements of a republic: free press")
Spelling and grammar: Con had slightly worse spelling/grammar over Pro.
lye->lie
there->their
No where->Nowhere
You did not rebuttal to this->You did not rebut this/You did not make a rebuttal to this
However this did not hurt readability
Conduct: Tie. Both were relatively polite
Arguments: Con failed to effectively address Pro's arguments. Later arguments nitpick over irrelevant details, leaving the overarching point unaddressed. I also note that Con has used instances of whataboutism and appeal to tradition which detract from his arguments.
>Reason for Mod Action: On sources, the voter fails to explain how the use of sources effected the debate itself and failed to do any comparison between both debaters' use of sources. On arguments, the voter fails to conduct any weighing analysis and fails to survey the main arguments of the debate. The voter may cast a sufficient vote by explaining how the source impacted the debate itself and by surveying and then weighing the main arguments in the debate.
************************************************************************
I would disagree that both votes were more thorough in dealing with the arguments than Ram's vote, though Ethang's certainly was more thorough in that regard. Length =/= thoroughness. But that's not the issue. The voter must sufficiently warrant EACH point they award, and therein lies the problem. Had all votes only awarded argument points, they all would have passed muster--but they didn't, and failed to justify the other points they award sufficiently. Both voters may revote--and it was clearly explained HOW they could revote sufficiently so that they could do so if they wished. If voters have questions about those explanations, they are free to ask me questions. In either case, the fix is easy.
Each vote is evaluated for sufficiency in isolation from the other votes in play. PGA's vote was evaluated on Oct. 21, but there was some question as to whether his argument points were sufficient and Tej and I both became pretty busy, hence the delayed notice and removal. So, moderation knew his vote would be taken down more than a week ago (before Ethang's vote). The delayed notices are also due in part to moderation being slightly behind on reports due to Tej's temporary absence, which has made prompt notices difficult. And, also, Ethang's vote was only reported today.
According to Mike, the revote option will come back in a few minutes. Not sure how long it takes, though. But you should 100% be able to revote, and I gave clear advice on how to do that in a way which would pass moderation standards. Explain why you found the poor conduct excessive, or simply choose not to award conduct points.
You can recast your vote in a way which makes it sufficient. I explained how to do that in my notice to you. Namely, I said that the voter "may properly revote either by not awarding conduct or by addressing the insufficiency in the justification of the awarded conduct points." Your arguments were sufficient, but the justification of conduct points was not, as I explained.
PGA's RFD, Part 3:
What evidence does Con have to support the accuracy? He never gave any.
While it is true that other points could be added to the trilemma the one Con chose also falls into the problem of soundness and validity, which Con failed to establish. Pro, on the other hand, did establish that these early believers looked upon Jesus as Lord. I give the edge to Pro.