Something I did not factor in to my reason for decision, but which I found tremendously off-putting, was the overtly cocky and somewhat arrogant tone Con adopted throughout this debate. If the goal is to woo the voters, Con would be best served by adopting a more professional, or at least a more humbly convivial, tone. As someone who myself does not always implement my own advice in this respect, I can sympathize with Con (I can, on occasion, be a trifle brusque or snarky). Nonetheless, it is something worth being conscious of so that, hopefully, improvements can be made. The more stream-of-consciousness flow to Con's remarks made them harder to track. Also, as a gay man myself, I found it a bit demeaning that LGBTQ+ people were constantly referred to as the "gays" by Con. While I understand his desire to be politically incorrect, perhaps some political correctness might go a long way to establishing a good rapport with your voters. Again, I do not count any of this in my reason for decision, but I bring it up in order to make Con more mindful of the presentational and identification-forming elements of the activity.
In terms of notes for improvement, Pro, your medical evidence in your case felt like in belonged all together, and not spread out between contentions. I think I would also have preferred some explication of what justice and equality really are. I liked your flow and your concision; highly professional and dense prose. I am really impressed with how much you've grown as a debater since you first joined DDO.
============
Full Disclosure: I was asked to vote on this debate by Pro.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: JCEurovision96 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Pro for arguments and conduct; 1 point to Con on spelling
>Reason for Decision: This debate presented very considerable arguments for both parties on the question of whether Americans shall pass citizenship tests for suffrage, applicable only in Senate and Presidential elections. Despite having elaborate sources, the Proposition made more compelling arguments than the Opposition because the latter didn't acknowledge, failed to rephrase on his own idea, or just forfeited to dodge himself from the question, which he did on my debate on Abercrombie & Fitch's shirtless models. The Proposition also made conclusions which clarified the stated argument. Therefore, I give points to the Proposition on arguments and conduct, Opposition to spelling and grammar, and both on resources.
>Reason for Mod Action: This RFD has several problems. (1) The voter failed to voter reference specific arguments and/or counter-arguments from both sides. (2) The voter failed to do any weighing analysis. (3) The voter failed to justify (in any sense) the points he awarded for S/G and conduct. For the record, a debater's activity in other debates is not relevant to a vote on this debate; though it was not immediately clear what bearing the other debate that was mentioned had on this RFD, if any. Ultimately, this vote is insufficient because it is overly vague and lacks any real analytical reflection on what transpired in the debate itself.
************************************************************************
Like I get your point about "right places," but there isn't much evidence out there to support that, partly because there isn't much empirical evidence period.
I probably would have structured my case that way had I not wanted to include the Dworkin evidence, which I find really intriguing.
My failure to extend my case was an unintentional mistake on my part; I was rushing to get my speech up and forgot it was the last round. Won't do that again, lol. Also had no idea that speech was 19,000 characters...that's nuts.
I did read your RFD. But, I still wonder why you shifted your position. Presumably, you analyzed the arguments the first time you voted, so why the shift?
> It has continually been said that "merely referencing sources" is why my weighing analysis is insufficient
Perhaps, but it has not been said that sourcing issues was the *only* reason your weighing analysis was insufficient (and, judging from the offered notices, it was not even the primary reason your weighing analysis was insufficient). To repeat: "As we have both noted repeatedly, the issue is primarily an issue of weighing. You can see that objection in my most recent comment in this thread and in both vote removal notices authored by Tej. The sources complaint your making here is thus largely a red-herring; it doesn't address the substance of why your vote was removed." If you look at both vote removal notices, plus many of our subsequent comments, the sourcing issue was not raised, but rather, moderation raised your failure to (quoting vote removal notice): "(1) analyze any other issue or have weighing analysis that compares different issues and (2) track the trajectory of this argument through the entire round." Your focus on this issue, Drafter, in a red-herring designed to obfuscate and draw attention from the real issue: a lack of substantive analysis in your vote.
> Then it shouldn't be used or referenced in any moderator action
It is better to proceed from tested policies with amendments made as needed than to not. In that context, of course mods should reference DDO, even if it DDO is not binding precedent.
> You're right, they have
Let me, at the risk of being repetitious, define again what weighing analysis is and requires. Weighing entails a discussion of how the relative strength of one set of arguments/counterarguments happened to outweigh another set of them, and then, in turn, ***how this strength imbalance led to the decision to give one debater a win as opposed to a loss. To weigh is to explain how certain arguments were stronger than others, and how winning these arguments was sufficient to win the debate.***
I definitely have sympathy for the feeling of intransigence against policies which you think are unfair or being misapplied. I have certainly had words with Airmax over disagreements on moderation activity which I believed to be unfair (or encouraging unfairness). That said, I have to disagree with your characterization of what moderation has been doing, so let me address your points directly.
> My vote has repeatedly been mischaracterized as existing solely on references to number of sources.
That analysis was my own, and was offered only after Tej made the call to remove your vote. If you felt that there was mischaracterization, then focus your ire in that respect on me. However, it is similarly disingenuous to boil moderation's objections to your vote down to sources. As we have both noted repeatedly, the issue is primarily an issue of weighing. You can see that objection in my most recent comment in this thread and in both vote removal notices authored by Tej. The sources complaint your making here is thus largely a red-herring; it doesn't address the substance of why your vote was removed.
> This. Isn't. DDO.
You're right. This isn't DDO, it's DART. The references to DDO practices and to the various voting guides on DDO served two functions: (a) they demonstrated that these policies work on a similar site (going to their functionality), and (b) they demonstrate how you can cast better votes in general, and thus, in general, can help you grow as a voter. Let me be clear: DDO is not binding precedent for DART, but it is a useful point of reference and it also contains great information materials that can help voters improve on any website, or even IRL.
=============
Basically, what this boils down to is that the mods have explained their interpretation of "weighing analysis" to you. We have further noted that "weighing analysis" is required by the COC, and that the COC empowers us to interpret it. You must weigh for your vote to stand.
Drafter, it seems at this point you are deliberately going in circles. The requirements you must meet a part of the notion of "weighing." As I said before: weighing entails a discussion of "how the relative strength of one set of arguments/counterarguments happened to outweigh another set of them, and then, in turn, ***how this strength imbalance led to the decision to give one debater a win as opposed to a loss. To weigh is to explain how certain arguments were stronger than others, and how winning these arguments was sufficient to win the debate.***" Insofar as the COC requires a voter to provide weigh analysis, it requires a debater to do those things I noted. Moreover, doing those things is not especially difficult and would strengthen your vote in addition to making it likely compliant with site voting policy. But, ultimately, this entire fracas comes down to your suggestion that moderators cannot interpret what weighing means, which is a patently absurd contention to have. Either update your RFD, or your votes will continue to be removed.
The guideline does entail answering those questions because that is what weighing means. I will be recommending an update to the guidelines to clarify that definition, but it seems pretty common sense to me as it stands.
Regardless, if you can explain why it was the most important argument in the debate, perhaps in a sentence or two, and add that to your RFD, I will ask Tej to re-evaluate it. I think it would make your RFD substantially stronger and more likely to pass muster.
It also seems odd that you want us to enforce the COC as written, but then accuse us of "quibbling" when we point to the actual text of the COC to delineate arguments contra counterarguments.
So, the following restates what happened in the debate: "a retributive model does not bring relief to victims and is counterproductive toward a restorative model which does. Con attempted to shift the goal posts." How does this lead to the conclusion that Pro won, and Con did not? This only considers one argument--there were many. Was this, for you, the most important argument? If so, why? The answers to these questions are part weighing the debate.
Recall what I said earlier, namely, that weighing entails a discussion of "how the relative strength of one set of arguments/counterarguments happened to outweigh another set of them, and then, in turn, ***how this strength imbalance led to the decision to give one debater a win as opposed to a loss. To weigh is to explain how certain arguments were stronger than others, and how winning these arguments was sufficient to win the debate.***"
Drafter, you need to actually *weigh* arguments. Provide some genuine weighing analysis, and your vote will pass muster.
I can only repeat: merely saying X was sourced but Y isn't, isn't really "weighing." There's no discussion of any substance as to how the sources contributed to the strength of a particular argument, and how the relative strength of one set of arguments/counterarguments happened to outweigh another set of them, and then, in turn, how this strength imbalance led to the decision to give one debater a win as opposed to a loss.
To weigh is to explain how certain arguments were stronger than others, and how winning these arguments was sufficient to win the debate.
******************************************************************
>Reported vote: drafterman // Moderator action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro for Arguments
>Reasons for voting decision: In strict adherence to the Voting Guidelines of this site, a vote for arguments requires: 1. A reference to arguments or counter arguments from each side of the debate. 2. Some kind of weighing analysis. Criteria #1 - Reference to arguments. I hereby formally reference the following argument on Con's side of the debate: (1).a. "No scope for justice, and for retribution for victims" - wherein Con describes that allowance of Jury Nullification would remove, as an aspect of the criminal justice system the attainment of retribution for victims. I hereby formally reference the following rebuttal on Pro's side of the debate: II.a. "Retribution" - wherein Pro claims what we should outright reject a retributive model of justice. Criteria #2 - Weighing analysis. Pro substantively sourced their rebuttal, arguing that a retributive model does not bring relief to victims and is counterproductive toward a restorative model which does. Con's initial argument was not sourced (noted by pro) and consisted of bare assertions. Con attempted to shift goal posts, which Pro noted.
>Reasons for Mod Actions: The voter re-posts the vote that was already removed by moderation for being insufficient.
******************************************************************
The determination here is ultimately Tej's responsibility. But there are at least three problems with what Drafter is arguing.
Firstly, the voter must analyze "arguments." Arguments are distinguished from counterarguments when the COC says "arguments and/or counterarguments." Drafter doesn't analyze multiple arguments; by his own admission, he analyzes one argument and one counterargument.
Secondly, and more importantly, merely saying X was sourced but Y isn't, isn't really "weighing." There's no discussion of any substance as to how the sources contributed to the strength of a particular argument, and how the relative strength of one set of arguments/counterarguments happened to outweigh another set of them, and then, in turn, how this strength imbalance led to the decision to give one debater a win as opposed to a loss.
Finally, there's really nothing of substance said against what Tej says here: "I’m specifically enforcing this portion: 'The second necessity is that the voter needs to explain how those arguments impacted the outcome that the voter arrived at in the end.' Clearly, that indicates that you need to explain why you neglected a significant portion of the case – because the weighing analysis isn’t just 'this argument is important,' it is that 'this argument is important enough to lead Pro to win the debate,' which necessarily involves an analysis of the trajectory of the debate as a whole." This interpretation of the COC is entirely reasonable and one with which I happen to agree.
I am prohibited from making moderation calls on my own debates. I will therefore have to defer to Tejretics, as the point-person for this vote, in this issue.
Tej was authorized in this case to make a final decision per the rules on recusal. As I have recused myself, Tej is in a position to make such calls.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Drafterman // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points awarded for arguments and conduct
>Reason for Decision: Con really did not put forth much of an effort in what should have been a slam dunk debate. Also, forfeit.
>Reason for Mod Action: Argument points were insufficiently explained. It is not enough to simply say that Con failed to put in enough effort. Specific arguments and counterarguments must be analyzed and weighed. That is not done here.
************************************************************************
******************************************************************
>Reported vote: drafterman // Moderator action: Removed
Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro for Arguments
Reasons for voting decision: In strict adherence to the Voting Guidelines of this site, a vote for arguments requires: 1. A reference to arguments or counter arguments from each side of the debate. 2. Some kind of weighing analysis. Criteria #1 - Reference to arguments. I hereby formally reference the following argument on Con's side of the debate: (1).a. "No scope for justice, and for retribution for victims" - wherein Con describes that allowance of Jury Nullification would remove, as an aspect of the criminal justice system the attainment of retribution for victims. I hereby formally reference the following rebuttal on Pro's side of the debate: II.a. "Retribution" - wherein Pro claims what we should outright reject a retributive model of justice. Criteria #2 - Weighing analysis. Pro substantively sourced their rebuttal, arguing that a retributive model does not bring relief to victims and is counterproductive toward a restorative model which does. Con's initial argument was not sourced (noted by pro) and consisted of bare assertions. Con attempted to shift goal posts, which Pro noted.
Reasons for Mod Actions: Arguments are insufficiently explained. Referencing a single argument and a single piece of rebuttal is not sufficient. The voting guidelines explicitly state that the voter needs to reference specific *arguments* and *counter-arguments,* and compare them. The voter must have good reason to neglect a large number of arguments and counterarguments from both sides when making their decision. While this voter analyzes the issue of retribution, the voter fails to (1) analyze any other issue or have weighing analysis that compares different issues and (2) track the trajectory of this argument through the entire round.
******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Type1 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points for arguments and sources
>Reason for Decision: "Unacceptable" was the wrong choice of words for this debate, if pro had instead framed the debate around whether banning topless models was bad for business or not he would have had a much better chance. Since "unacceptable" is a completely subjective word pro pretty much has no chance to win (since you cannot actually prove an entirely opinion based narrative) unless con failed so hard it was laughable, which he didn't.
>Reason for Mod Action: For arguments, there was no analysis of specific arguments made in the debate, and no weighing analysis was conducted. There was no reasoning given whatsoever for the sources points.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Dsjpk5 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point for Conduct
>Reason for Decision: Type forfeited a round. This is poor conduct.
>Reason for Mod Action: In order for a voter to award conduct points solely for a forfeit, then, per the site voting policy, "the voter must also explain arguments, unless the debate is forfeited by half or more of its rounds."
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Dsjpk5 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point for Conduct
>Reason for Decision: Con forfeited a round.
>Reason for Mod Action: In order for a voter to award conduct points solely for a forfeit, then, per the site voting policy, "the voter must also explain arguments, unless the debate is forfeited by half or more of its rounds."
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Earth // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro for arguments
>Reason for Decision: This was a very well done debate and both parties had solid rounds. The debate was about whether or not Americans should have to pass a citizenship/civics test to be able to vote in Presidential and Senate Elections.
Arguments: Imabench contends that a lot of American voters are alarmingly ignorant about basic science and American civics/history and a simply citizenship test can weed out these voters in said elections, until they get their act together. RM, in his second round, says that such a test flies in the face of established American values and that using citizen tests in such a matter is akin to the literacy tests that America used to have that were shown to be illegal. RM drops Imabench's argument that the test should be limited to Presidential and Senate elections. Imabench responds by saying that uninformed voters are likely to vote in bad or poor politicians. RM would later drop any arguments relating to the Literacy Test bit or whether or not voting tests go against American values. I simply don't feel that RM truly addressed Imabench's arguments. Imabench proven that said citizenship tests, when used properly are not unconstitutional or illegal or run counter to American values RM says that the 15th amendment states that literacy tests are illegal/unconstitutional, but Imabench, earlier in the debate said that the Supreme Court ruled that Literacy Tests could be legal and constitutionally kosher if the tests were applied equally and without malice. As such, Imabench did a better job fulfilling his BoP. Arguments go to Imabench
Sources, Conduct and S/G: tied.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter points out specific arguments, impacts them, and weighs those impacts.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: ResurgetExFavilla // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro for arguments
>Reason for Decision: Ultimately, this whole debate swings on one point, which is whether libertarianism sees it as 'good' for the government to intervene in those areas which Gary Johnson supports. Pro consistently shows that this isn't the case, that it has never historically been the case, and that when Johnson deviates on these points (non-discrimination and welfare) he is deviating from libertarianism regardless of the merits or lack thereof of said purity. This also negates con's point on party loyalty, since the debate is about ideology not political acumen. Seeing as the resolution is about which one is a better libertarian, and is explicitly concerned with ideology and not efficacy from the getgo, arguments go to pro.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter referenced specific arguments, explained how these arguments impacted debate, and weighed those impacts to arrive at a conclusion.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: TheHammer // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con for sources and s/g
>Reason for Decision: Con not only had better formatted sources, but more sources as well. This debate isn't one of opinion, but of fact, so being well sourced is of the utmost import. In round 3, Pro said "de-facto", and putting a hyphen there is an egregious and distracting error, so s/g to Con.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voting policy requires that the voter identify excessive s/g errors which render the text incomprehensible or nearly incomprehensible. Citing a misplaced hyphen is not sufficient. Furthermore, the voting policy requires that voters "explain how the sources were relevant to the debate," including analyzing at least one specific source, the impact of the quality of sources on the debate, and a comparative analysis between both debater's sources. There was no analysis of any specific source(s) and there is no comparative analysis between both sides use of sources.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con (arguments), 2 points to Pro (sources)
>Reason for Decision: Pro used better sources than Con, you can't deny this. Con needs to source better and never claim things without referencing how he knows them. I get that this was very philosophical but why not quote reliable sources that counter aspects of God and let them speak for you? Well anyway, Pro used iffy blog-like sources, the third being a YouTube video but it's indisputably better than nothing.
Con does the correct scapegoat for the atheist and wins the debate in my eyes. The whole "but what if it just happened and no one or no thing made it happen in any consciously controlled manner?" angle is the classic cowardly atheist angle and works perfect here. Pro knew that he had met a good hider of God and forfeits the debate.
PS: God is a female and I firmly believe in her.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter does not explain how Con's arguments impacted the debate. Merely restating Con's argument and claiming that it "works perfect here" is insufficient. Why did it work perfectly there? Furthermore, the voter does not explain how the use of sources impacted the debate. Per the voting policy: "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."
************************************************************************
[RFD: Feedback]
Something I did not factor in to my reason for decision, but which I found tremendously off-putting, was the overtly cocky and somewhat arrogant tone Con adopted throughout this debate. If the goal is to woo the voters, Con would be best served by adopting a more professional, or at least a more humbly convivial, tone. As someone who myself does not always implement my own advice in this respect, I can sympathize with Con (I can, on occasion, be a trifle brusque or snarky). Nonetheless, it is something worth being conscious of so that, hopefully, improvements can be made. The more stream-of-consciousness flow to Con's remarks made them harder to track. Also, as a gay man myself, I found it a bit demeaning that LGBTQ+ people were constantly referred to as the "gays" by Con. While I understand his desire to be politically incorrect, perhaps some political correctness might go a long way to establishing a good rapport with your voters. Again, I do not count any of this in my reason for decision, but I bring it up in order to make Con more mindful of the presentational and identification-forming elements of the activity.
In terms of notes for improvement, Pro, your medical evidence in your case felt like in belonged all together, and not spread out between contentions. I think I would also have preferred some explication of what justice and equality really are. I liked your flow and your concision; highly professional and dense prose. I am really impressed with how much you've grown as a debater since you first joined DDO.
============
Full Disclosure: I was asked to vote on this debate by Pro.
You've got about 20 hours left to post.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: JCEurovision96 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Pro for arguments and conduct; 1 point to Con on spelling
>Reason for Decision: This debate presented very considerable arguments for both parties on the question of whether Americans shall pass citizenship tests for suffrage, applicable only in Senate and Presidential elections. Despite having elaborate sources, the Proposition made more compelling arguments than the Opposition because the latter didn't acknowledge, failed to rephrase on his own idea, or just forfeited to dodge himself from the question, which he did on my debate on Abercrombie & Fitch's shirtless models. The Proposition also made conclusions which clarified the stated argument. Therefore, I give points to the Proposition on arguments and conduct, Opposition to spelling and grammar, and both on resources.
>Reason for Mod Action: This RFD has several problems. (1) The voter failed to voter reference specific arguments and/or counter-arguments from both sides. (2) The voter failed to do any weighing analysis. (3) The voter failed to justify (in any sense) the points he awarded for S/G and conduct. For the record, a debater's activity in other debates is not relevant to a vote on this debate; though it was not immediately clear what bearing the other debate that was mentioned had on this RFD, if any. Ultimately, this vote is insufficient because it is overly vague and lacks any real analytical reflection on what transpired in the debate itself.
************************************************************************
Like I get your point about "right places," but there isn't much evidence out there to support that, partly because there isn't much empirical evidence period.
I probably would have structured my case that way had I not wanted to include the Dworkin evidence, which I find really intriguing.
I posted my argument.
Just a reminder that you've got like 12 hours left.
My failure to extend my case was an unintentional mistake on my part; I was rushing to get my speech up and forgot it was the last round. Won't do that again, lol. Also had no idea that speech was 19,000 characters...that's nuts.
Thanks for the vote!
Thanks for the vote
I posted my argument.
You've only got about 5 hours to post.
Thanks!
Lol. Cool beans.
I posted my argument.
I did read your RFD. But, I still wonder why you shifted your position. Presumably, you analyzed the arguments the first time you voted, so why the shift?
Just curious as to why you changed your verdict on who won the debate.
> It has continually been said that "merely referencing sources" is why my weighing analysis is insufficient
Perhaps, but it has not been said that sourcing issues was the *only* reason your weighing analysis was insufficient (and, judging from the offered notices, it was not even the primary reason your weighing analysis was insufficient). To repeat: "As we have both noted repeatedly, the issue is primarily an issue of weighing. You can see that objection in my most recent comment in this thread and in both vote removal notices authored by Tej. The sources complaint your making here is thus largely a red-herring; it doesn't address the substance of why your vote was removed." If you look at both vote removal notices, plus many of our subsequent comments, the sourcing issue was not raised, but rather, moderation raised your failure to (quoting vote removal notice): "(1) analyze any other issue or have weighing analysis that compares different issues and (2) track the trajectory of this argument through the entire round." Your focus on this issue, Drafter, in a red-herring designed to obfuscate and draw attention from the real issue: a lack of substantive analysis in your vote.
> Then it shouldn't be used or referenced in any moderator action
It is better to proceed from tested policies with amendments made as needed than to not. In that context, of course mods should reference DDO, even if it DDO is not binding precedent.
> You're right, they have
Let me, at the risk of being repetitious, define again what weighing analysis is and requires. Weighing entails a discussion of how the relative strength of one set of arguments/counterarguments happened to outweigh another set of them, and then, in turn, ***how this strength imbalance led to the decision to give one debater a win as opposed to a loss. To weigh is to explain how certain arguments were stronger than others, and how winning these arguments was sufficient to win the debate.***
I definitely have sympathy for the feeling of intransigence against policies which you think are unfair or being misapplied. I have certainly had words with Airmax over disagreements on moderation activity which I believed to be unfair (or encouraging unfairness). That said, I have to disagree with your characterization of what moderation has been doing, so let me address your points directly.
> My vote has repeatedly been mischaracterized as existing solely on references to number of sources.
That analysis was my own, and was offered only after Tej made the call to remove your vote. If you felt that there was mischaracterization, then focus your ire in that respect on me. However, it is similarly disingenuous to boil moderation's objections to your vote down to sources. As we have both noted repeatedly, the issue is primarily an issue of weighing. You can see that objection in my most recent comment in this thread and in both vote removal notices authored by Tej. The sources complaint your making here is thus largely a red-herring; it doesn't address the substance of why your vote was removed.
> This. Isn't. DDO.
You're right. This isn't DDO, it's DART. The references to DDO practices and to the various voting guides on DDO served two functions: (a) they demonstrated that these policies work on a similar site (going to their functionality), and (b) they demonstrate how you can cast better votes in general, and thus, in general, can help you grow as a voter. Let me be clear: DDO is not binding precedent for DART, but it is a useful point of reference and it also contains great information materials that can help voters improve on any website, or even IRL.
=============
Basically, what this boils down to is that the mods have explained their interpretation of "weighing analysis" to you. We have further noted that "weighing analysis" is required by the COC, and that the COC empowers us to interpret it. You must weigh for your vote to stand.
Drafter, it seems at this point you are deliberately going in circles. The requirements you must meet a part of the notion of "weighing." As I said before: weighing entails a discussion of "how the relative strength of one set of arguments/counterarguments happened to outweigh another set of them, and then, in turn, ***how this strength imbalance led to the decision to give one debater a win as opposed to a loss. To weigh is to explain how certain arguments were stronger than others, and how winning these arguments was sufficient to win the debate.***" Insofar as the COC requires a voter to provide weigh analysis, it requires a debater to do those things I noted. Moreover, doing those things is not especially difficult and would strengthen your vote in addition to making it likely compliant with site voting policy. But, ultimately, this entire fracas comes down to your suggestion that moderators cannot interpret what weighing means, which is a patently absurd contention to have. Either update your RFD, or your votes will continue to be removed.
The guideline does entail answering those questions because that is what weighing means. I will be recommending an update to the guidelines to clarify that definition, but it seems pretty common sense to me as it stands.
Regardless, if you can explain why it was the most important argument in the debate, perhaps in a sentence or two, and add that to your RFD, I will ask Tej to re-evaluate it. I think it would make your RFD substantially stronger and more likely to pass muster.
It also seems odd that you want us to enforce the COC as written, but then accuse us of "quibbling" when we point to the actual text of the COC to delineate arguments contra counterarguments.
So, the following restates what happened in the debate: "a retributive model does not bring relief to victims and is counterproductive toward a restorative model which does. Con attempted to shift the goal posts." How does this lead to the conclusion that Pro won, and Con did not? This only considers one argument--there were many. Was this, for you, the most important argument? If so, why? The answers to these questions are part weighing the debate.
Recall what I said earlier, namely, that weighing entails a discussion of "how the relative strength of one set of arguments/counterarguments happened to outweigh another set of them, and then, in turn, ***how this strength imbalance led to the decision to give one debater a win as opposed to a loss. To weigh is to explain how certain arguments were stronger than others, and how winning these arguments was sufficient to win the debate.***"
Drafter, you need to actually *weigh* arguments. Provide some genuine weighing analysis, and your vote will pass muster.
I can only repeat: merely saying X was sourced but Y isn't, isn't really "weighing." There's no discussion of any substance as to how the sources contributed to the strength of a particular argument, and how the relative strength of one set of arguments/counterarguments happened to outweigh another set of them, and then, in turn, how this strength imbalance led to the decision to give one debater a win as opposed to a loss.
To weigh is to explain how certain arguments were stronger than others, and how winning these arguments was sufficient to win the debate.
Adjudicated by Tej.
******************************************************************
>Reported vote: drafterman // Moderator action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro for Arguments
>Reasons for voting decision: In strict adherence to the Voting Guidelines of this site, a vote for arguments requires: 1. A reference to arguments or counter arguments from each side of the debate. 2. Some kind of weighing analysis. Criteria #1 - Reference to arguments. I hereby formally reference the following argument on Con's side of the debate: (1).a. "No scope for justice, and for retribution for victims" - wherein Con describes that allowance of Jury Nullification would remove, as an aspect of the criminal justice system the attainment of retribution for victims. I hereby formally reference the following rebuttal on Pro's side of the debate: II.a. "Retribution" - wherein Pro claims what we should outright reject a retributive model of justice. Criteria #2 - Weighing analysis. Pro substantively sourced their rebuttal, arguing that a retributive model does not bring relief to victims and is counterproductive toward a restorative model which does. Con's initial argument was not sourced (noted by pro) and consisted of bare assertions. Con attempted to shift goal posts, which Pro noted.
>Reasons for Mod Actions: The voter re-posts the vote that was already removed by moderation for being insufficient.
******************************************************************
The determination here is ultimately Tej's responsibility. But there are at least three problems with what Drafter is arguing.
Firstly, the voter must analyze "arguments." Arguments are distinguished from counterarguments when the COC says "arguments and/or counterarguments." Drafter doesn't analyze multiple arguments; by his own admission, he analyzes one argument and one counterargument.
Secondly, and more importantly, merely saying X was sourced but Y isn't, isn't really "weighing." There's no discussion of any substance as to how the sources contributed to the strength of a particular argument, and how the relative strength of one set of arguments/counterarguments happened to outweigh another set of them, and then, in turn, how this strength imbalance led to the decision to give one debater a win as opposed to a loss.
Finally, there's really nothing of substance said against what Tej says here: "I’m specifically enforcing this portion: 'The second necessity is that the voter needs to explain how those arguments impacted the outcome that the voter arrived at in the end.' Clearly, that indicates that you need to explain why you neglected a significant portion of the case – because the weighing analysis isn’t just 'this argument is important,' it is that 'this argument is important enough to lead Pro to win the debate,' which necessarily involves an analysis of the trajectory of the debate as a whole." This interpretation of the COC is entirely reasonable and one with which I happen to agree.
I am prohibited from making moderation calls on my own debates. I will therefore have to defer to Tejretics, as the point-person for this vote, in this issue.
Tej was authorized in this case to make a final decision per the rules on recusal. As I have recused myself, Tej is in a position to make such calls.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Drafterman // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points awarded for arguments and conduct
>Reason for Decision: Con really did not put forth much of an effort in what should have been a slam dunk debate. Also, forfeit.
>Reason for Mod Action: Argument points were insufficiently explained. It is not enough to simply say that Con failed to put in enough effort. Specific arguments and counterarguments must be analyzed and weighed. That is not done here.
************************************************************************
The decision below was made by Tej.
******************************************************************
>Reported vote: drafterman // Moderator action: Removed
Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro for Arguments
Reasons for voting decision: In strict adherence to the Voting Guidelines of this site, a vote for arguments requires: 1. A reference to arguments or counter arguments from each side of the debate. 2. Some kind of weighing analysis. Criteria #1 - Reference to arguments. I hereby formally reference the following argument on Con's side of the debate: (1).a. "No scope for justice, and for retribution for victims" - wherein Con describes that allowance of Jury Nullification would remove, as an aspect of the criminal justice system the attainment of retribution for victims. I hereby formally reference the following rebuttal on Pro's side of the debate: II.a. "Retribution" - wherein Pro claims what we should outright reject a retributive model of justice. Criteria #2 - Weighing analysis. Pro substantively sourced their rebuttal, arguing that a retributive model does not bring relief to victims and is counterproductive toward a restorative model which does. Con's initial argument was not sourced (noted by pro) and consisted of bare assertions. Con attempted to shift goal posts, which Pro noted.
Reasons for Mod Actions: Arguments are insufficiently explained. Referencing a single argument and a single piece of rebuttal is not sufficient. The voting guidelines explicitly state that the voter needs to reference specific *arguments* and *counter-arguments,* and compare them. The voter must have good reason to neglect a large number of arguments and counterarguments from both sides when making their decision. While this voter analyzes the issue of retribution, the voter fails to (1) analyze any other issue or have weighing analysis that compares different issues and (2) track the trajectory of this argument through the entire round.
******************************************************************
See below.
It was certainly an interesting debate. If you'd care to do another, I am usually down.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Type1 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points for arguments and sources
>Reason for Decision: "Unacceptable" was the wrong choice of words for this debate, if pro had instead framed the debate around whether banning topless models was bad for business or not he would have had a much better chance. Since "unacceptable" is a completely subjective word pro pretty much has no chance to win (since you cannot actually prove an entirely opinion based narrative) unless con failed so hard it was laughable, which he didn't.
>Reason for Mod Action: For arguments, there was no analysis of specific arguments made in the debate, and no weighing analysis was conducted. There was no reasoning given whatsoever for the sources points.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Dsjpk5 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point for Conduct
>Reason for Decision: Type forfeited a round. This is poor conduct.
>Reason for Mod Action: In order for a voter to award conduct points solely for a forfeit, then, per the site voting policy, "the voter must also explain arguments, unless the debate is forfeited by half or more of its rounds."
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Dsjpk5 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point for Conduct
>Reason for Decision: Con forfeited a round.
>Reason for Mod Action: In order for a voter to award conduct points solely for a forfeit, then, per the site voting policy, "the voter must also explain arguments, unless the debate is forfeited by half or more of its rounds."
************************************************************************
I posted my argument.
Just a reminder that you have about a day to post.
Lol
I am not whiteflame. Whiteflame has is own account on this site and on DDO, and is not a member of DART's moderation team.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Earth // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro for arguments
>Reason for Decision: This was a very well done debate and both parties had solid rounds. The debate was about whether or not Americans should have to pass a citizenship/civics test to be able to vote in Presidential and Senate Elections.
Arguments: Imabench contends that a lot of American voters are alarmingly ignorant about basic science and American civics/history and a simply citizenship test can weed out these voters in said elections, until they get their act together. RM, in his second round, says that such a test flies in the face of established American values and that using citizen tests in such a matter is akin to the literacy tests that America used to have that were shown to be illegal. RM drops Imabench's argument that the test should be limited to Presidential and Senate elections. Imabench responds by saying that uninformed voters are likely to vote in bad or poor politicians. RM would later drop any arguments relating to the Literacy Test bit or whether or not voting tests go against American values. I simply don't feel that RM truly addressed Imabench's arguments. Imabench proven that said citizenship tests, when used properly are not unconstitutional or illegal or run counter to American values RM says that the 15th amendment states that literacy tests are illegal/unconstitutional, but Imabench, earlier in the debate said that the Supreme Court ruled that Literacy Tests could be legal and constitutionally kosher if the tests were applied equally and without malice. As such, Imabench did a better job fulfilling his BoP. Arguments go to Imabench
Sources, Conduct and S/G: tied.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter points out specific arguments, impacts them, and weighs those impacts.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: ResurgetExFavilla // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro for arguments
>Reason for Decision: Ultimately, this whole debate swings on one point, which is whether libertarianism sees it as 'good' for the government to intervene in those areas which Gary Johnson supports. Pro consistently shows that this isn't the case, that it has never historically been the case, and that when Johnson deviates on these points (non-discrimination and welfare) he is deviating from libertarianism regardless of the merits or lack thereof of said purity. This also negates con's point on party loyalty, since the debate is about ideology not political acumen. Seeing as the resolution is about which one is a better libertarian, and is explicitly concerned with ideology and not efficacy from the getgo, arguments go to pro.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter referenced specific arguments, explained how these arguments impacted debate, and weighed those impacts to arrive at a conclusion.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: TheHammer // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con for sources and s/g
>Reason for Decision: Con not only had better formatted sources, but more sources as well. This debate isn't one of opinion, but of fact, so being well sourced is of the utmost import. In round 3, Pro said "de-facto", and putting a hyphen there is an egregious and distracting error, so s/g to Con.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voting policy requires that the voter identify excessive s/g errors which render the text incomprehensible or nearly incomprehensible. Citing a misplaced hyphen is not sufficient. Furthermore, the voting policy requires that voters "explain how the sources were relevant to the debate," including analyzing at least one specific source, the impact of the quality of sources on the debate, and a comparative analysis between both debater's sources. There was no analysis of any specific source(s) and there is no comparative analysis between both sides use of sources.
************************************************************************
You only have about half a day to post an argument.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con (arguments), 2 points to Pro (sources)
>Reason for Decision: Pro used better sources than Con, you can't deny this. Con needs to source better and never claim things without referencing how he knows them. I get that this was very philosophical but why not quote reliable sources that counter aspects of God and let them speak for you? Well anyway, Pro used iffy blog-like sources, the third being a YouTube video but it's indisputably better than nothing.
Con does the correct scapegoat for the atheist and wins the debate in my eyes. The whole "but what if it just happened and no one or no thing made it happen in any consciously controlled manner?" angle is the classic cowardly atheist angle and works perfect here. Pro knew that he had met a good hider of God and forfeits the debate.
PS: God is a female and I firmly believe in her.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter does not explain how Con's arguments impacted the debate. Merely restating Con's argument and claiming that it "works perfect here" is insufficient. Why did it work perfectly there? Furthermore, the voter does not explain how the use of sources impacted the debate. Per the voting policy: "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."
************************************************************************
I posted my argument. Ball's in your court.
Just a reminder that you've got about half a day to post.
Just a reminder that you have about a day to post.
I suppose, but I do note in the short summary that I am arguing against Bolton's view.
It doesn't really matter how its framed. Burdens would be equal. I am just interested in someone defending Bolton's position as the status quo.
It's about whether international law exists. Bolton argues that what we call international law is not actually "law" as law is properly defined.
That would be standard practice, yes, but you're free to use those rounds how you would like (within the rules, ofc).