*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: SupaDudz // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con for Conduct
>Reason for Decision: No debate was had, so I can not give any points
CONDUCT goes CON due to RM not even making an argument and going off topic to stir away the moral of the debate, which is a bad conduct and extremely rude
>Reason for Mod Action: Most of this RFD is borderline, and so we default to considering that portion of the RFD as sufficient. What is missing from this RFD that mandates its removal is that there is no explicit comparison between the conduct of both debaters. Simply saying: "Con's conduct was unproblematic," would likely be a sufficient enough addition for this vote to pass moderation review.
************************************************************************
You write: "justifying normative ethical theories is impossible because it...runs into an infinite regress of justifications...because any starting point is necessarily a bare assertion." I don't think Con clearly articulated that argument until R2, which is why I didn't offer any type of response sooner. Even in R2 it felt like more of an afterthought, albeit one that could have proven potentially lethal. The lack on emphasis from Con on the first argument you articulate is why I chose to emphasize instead my discussion of the second.
I did try to offer *something* of a response to this line of argumentation after I saw it had appeared, writing: "There are two problems with this logic. Firstly, if a value is treated as an axiom, by definition it requires no justification. Secondly, an axiom can be justified by our moral intuitions, which was an argument that I presented last round and which Con failed to engage with at all. Just as we have eyes to see the world around us, we have a "sense" of morality which allows us to define, albeit loosely, its contours. This does not run afoul of the Is/Ought problem because it is a moral sense, not a material one." I take it this wasn't sufficient on that point?
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: vsp2019 // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to pro for arguments
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was borderline. By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 7-points to Pro
>Reason for Decision: Apologetic counter vote-bob
>Reason for Mod Action: While this is a troll debate, it is also a full-forfeit. Where these two moderation paradigms conflict, it is important for reasons of fairness to prefer the latter. Because the voter is voting for the debater that committed the full-forfeit, their vote is removable.
************************************************************************
You can basically just explain which songs you liked better and why. Some people score the songs using points. Others do it be a "who won which round" kind of thing, with the winner of most rounds being the winner overall.
Yeah, voting moderation and conduct moderation are different. Insufficient voting is not usually and issue of conduct, and therefore is not treated as a "transgression" more so as it is a "mistake."
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Pinkfreud // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: Tied.
>Reason for Decision: Honestly, this debate hurt my head overall and was too confusing for me to make a detailed decision. Honestly, neither sides convinced me, especially with RM weird conceding but also not conceding implications.
>Reason for Mod Action: To justify a no-points awarded vote, the voter must offer some reason specific to the debate itself which explains why they were unable to award points. Because this RFD could've been C/P'd to any debate on the site, it is not sufficiently context-specific.
************************************************************************
It's not a transgression per se, but it was an insufficient vote. You are free to revote so long as your vote complies fully with the rules given in the links below. If you have questions about the rules, you are always free to ask myself, Virt, or Ram for advice or feedback.
Furthermore, longstanding moderation convention, codified recently in the document linked below (PB.A2.SB.Sb1.PIII), prohibits voters from awarding the majority of points in their votes to the conceding party in a debate where a concession clearly takes place. Since Pro conceded, you are barred from awarding Pro the majority of the points in your vote.
This is not about revenge voting or whether your vote aligns with anyone else's. It's about whether your vote actually conforms to the rules, and it obviously doesn't.
You'll notice that reasons 1 and 2 had nothing to do with why your vote was removed. Your vote in no way passed the standards required to award points which are required in the site's voting policy. That voting policy can be found here: https://www.debateart.com/rules To briefly summarize that policy:
> To award argument points, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.
> To award sources points, the voter must (1) explain how the debaters' sources impacted the debate, (2) directly assess the strength/utility of at least one source in particular cited in the debate, and (3) explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's.
> To award S/G points, the voter must (1) give specific examples of S/G errors, (2) explain how these errors were excessive, and (3) compare each debaters' S/G.
> To award conduct points, the voter must (1) identify specific instances of misconduct, (2) explain how this misconduct was excessive, unfair, or in breach of the debate's rules, and (3) compare each debater's conduct.
Each of the three steps for each of the point categories must be EXPLICITLY present in the vote in order for the vote to be deemed sufficient. While there are some exceptions to these rules (e.g. in the case of awarding conduct points for forfeits a voter need not perform steps 2 and 3 of the conduct points section), these steps apply to most votes. Your vote performed none of these steps in any category except conduct. I strongly urge you to read those voting policies to fully acquaint yourself with the voting standards that are in place.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: King_8 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Pro
>Reason for Decision: I agree with Pro. Plus, Con forfeited 2 rounds. Bad conduct. I'm sure my comment will get deleted by mods when it shouldn't be, I made a solid reason of Con forfeiting.
>Reason for Mod Action: Contrary to the voter's assertion that their vote shouldn't be removed, their vote is a textbook case of what is not acceptable in a vote. Not only did Pro concede the debate (meaning that it is not permitted that the voter give Pro the balance of points), but the voter makes no attempt to justify the points they award based on anything that transpired in the debate. The only point here that the voter justified was the awarding of conduct points based on the forfeit, but those points can only be awarded if the same or more points are also awarded to Con in some other category(ies), given the rules regarding conceded debates. This vote is entirely insufficient.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ragnar // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points to Con for arguments, S/G, and conduct
>Reason for Decision: Unmoderated due to forfeitures...
Arguments: No contest.
Sources: Well I prefer links, pro did some bible research, resulting in this being within the tied range.
S&G: Pro, next time put spaces between your paragraphs. Website writing and school papers follow different conventions. (I would not normally do this, but to help pro improve, I am doing this on an FF).
Conduct: FF.
>Reason for Mod Action: This is not a full-forfeit debate, as there are at least two rounds in which each debater posted. The voter must therefore explain the points they chose to award.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ramshutu // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro for arguments, 1 point to Con for conduct
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: Tied.
>Reason for Mod Action: Troll debates are not moderated, per the site voting policy guidelines. No moderation action is appropriate on this vote.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Ragnar // Mod Action: Not Removed
Points awarded: Con
Reason for mod action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
*******************************************************************
I am actually going to suspend moderation on this debate temporarily until Virt and I can talk more about this ruling. I am starting to second-guess my original position.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Oromagi // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con for arguments, 1 point to Pro for conduct
>Reason for Decision: Informal debate, original subject
ASIDE: I'm not sure I like seeing two debaters discussing another debater's profile choices. The dynamic was very readable, even enjoyable here but it also gives me visions of much uglier versions. I prefer that metabates like this one become rarer as we progress.
Pro's got a real turd of a thesis here- full on subjective, no authority, no stakes.
Pro leads with an appeal for continuity, Con argues that the change is made, therefore any new change is less continuity.
"JUDO CHOP!"
Pro admires Ralph's previous pic as simple and meaningless. Con awesomely, succinctly demonstrates that Ralph's previous pic was complex and meaningful.
"KUNG FU KICK!"
Con blows off R2, R3
"OH! MY EYE! " (thud)
Pro virtually played rabbit to Con's coyote, Arguments to Con.
Conduct to Pro for Con's forfeit.
>Reason for Mod Action: Before Virt or I moderated any votes on this topic, we discussed whether this should be a troll debate or not. We determined that seemingly non-serious topics could still have serious argumentative content. While I am open to reconsidering my ruling on this, for now, we will treat the debate as moderatable. Your vote fails to contain any weighing analysis and so has been removed. Conduct was fine.
************************************************************************
>> The objective truth, however, is that whether or not you're allowed to do it in a debate does not change the fact that you're roleplaying might cause someone to hurt the trees that you love. How can that not bother you?
Because anyone who took my debates seriously on that level would be gravely mistaken, and because I doubt my debates are silver-tongued enough to be the decisive force in how they come down on a particular issue. Most of the time, people understand that debates are just all in good fun, and nothing more.
So, I think I've been fairly conciliatory and patient in my responses to you here in the comments, because I understand you are upset or frustrated. Please understand that this was not the way either of us wanted the debate to turn out.
However, it seems that you are largely unwilling to try to understand where I am coming from, despite my efforts to explain my position. I am also not keen on having prolonged conversations in which people insinuate falsely that I am a liar or a jerk or lack integrity. Given that I have thoroughly explained my stance and addressed yours, I see no further need to carry on with this conversation. I feel as if I have met my obligation to try to assuage your concerns and then some, so I am done with this ancillary debate.
I will allow my comments to speak for themselves, and I continue to hope to get some good feedback from voters moving forward.
I think you are missing an important difference between "debate" broadly and "competitive debate." This is competitive debate--it is literally about scoring points.
I genuinely believe that we have a moral obligation to protect our forests, and I act on that obligation to the extent I am able to in real life. But, when I enter a space like debate, where it is generally understood that we do not have to argue for our own beliefs, then I am not being dishonest in taking up the position of the industrialist. I am not being dishonest precisely because I am not advocating that people *actually* take up that position, but rather I am trying to outdo my opponent within the bubble of the debate. It's roleplaying. Actors on stage are not being dishonest when they portray people who are not them; they are roleplaying in a context where it is understood that roleplay is going on.
First, I am not advocating for it outside the context of the debate. Debate is a bubble. Much like Vegas, what happens there stays there, and should not be interpreted as real world advocacy. In debates, it is generally understood that debaters put forward arguments which may not reflect their own views, and therefore there is no presumption that these views reflect debaters beliefs. Ergo, there's no dishonesty. It's rather naive to think otherwise. Second, I never purported to represent my arguments as my beliefs, so there was no dishonesty on that level either.
You obviously do not come from a background of competitive debate, which is fine. But it does mean we're going to see things differently. That we don't see eye-to-eye does not make either one of us dishonest. It just means we have different paradigms for conceptualizing the activity, what is or is not appropriate in the activity, and so on.
Full liberty is not fairness either, it's anarchy. Fairness implies rules, which in turn implies restrictions on liberty.
Besides, a debate requiring you to argue something which you do not personally believe is hardly revolutionary. *Most* competitive debating require debaters to argue things they don't believe. I did not argue my own beliefs in this debate, but that doesn't mean I was dishonest, because I never purported to represent my arguments as my beliefs.
I'll send you a challenge.
Prop/Opp is very APDA- or Parliamentary-style. More British than American.
Instigator and Contender refer to "person who started the debate" and "person who accepted the debate" respectively.
Pro and Con refer to "person who is for the topic" and "person who is against the topic" respectively.
I am BOTH the Instigator and Con.
Good luck! They've used this topic before at NSDA nationals, so they're should be plenty of material out there for you.
A good, old-fashioned LD topic...They don't make 'em like they used to. I'll think about voting on this.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: SupaDudz // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con for Conduct
>Reason for Decision: No debate was had, so I can not give any points
CONDUCT goes CON due to RM not even making an argument and going off topic to stir away the moral of the debate, which is a bad conduct and extremely rude
>Reason for Mod Action: Most of this RFD is borderline, and so we default to considering that portion of the RFD as sufficient. What is missing from this RFD that mandates its removal is that there is no explicit comparison between the conduct of both debaters. Simply saying: "Con's conduct was unproblematic," would likely be a sufficient enough addition for this vote to pass moderation review.
************************************************************************
Okay. I haven't read it, but I will once you post the RFD.
This is not an FF, so all points needed to be justified.
I can always review moderation decisions, but generally I trust Virt's judgement. I'll reexamine it, but don't hold your breath.
Timewarp has to consent to the deletion.
Sure
Thanks.
But I do take your point re: having a normative theory. I considered that option, and in hindsight it might have been a better choice.
You write: "justifying normative ethical theories is impossible because it...runs into an infinite regress of justifications...because any starting point is necessarily a bare assertion." I don't think Con clearly articulated that argument until R2, which is why I didn't offer any type of response sooner. Even in R2 it felt like more of an afterthought, albeit one that could have proven potentially lethal. The lack on emphasis from Con on the first argument you articulate is why I chose to emphasize instead my discussion of the second.
I did try to offer *something* of a response to this line of argumentation after I saw it had appeared, writing: "There are two problems with this logic. Firstly, if a value is treated as an axiom, by definition it requires no justification. Secondly, an axiom can be justified by our moral intuitions, which was an argument that I presented last round and which Con failed to engage with at all. Just as we have eyes to see the world around us, we have a "sense" of morality which allows us to define, albeit loosely, its contours. This does not run afoul of the Is/Ought problem because it is a moral sense, not a material one." I take it this wasn't sufficient on that point?
Thank you all for voting :)
Also, 100 comments.
Still would love some more votes with feedback on my case or my handling of the Is/Ought debate...
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: vsp2019 // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to pro for arguments
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was borderline. By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient.
************************************************************************
You'll notice that, in fact, it was removed and a newer vote was cast almost immediately after by the same voter.
I love some more votes with feedback on my case or my handling of the Is/Ought debate...
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 7-points to Pro
>Reason for Decision: Apologetic counter vote-bob
>Reason for Mod Action: While this is a troll debate, it is also a full-forfeit. Where these two moderation paradigms conflict, it is important for reasons of fairness to prefer the latter. Because the voter is voting for the debater that committed the full-forfeit, their vote is removable.
************************************************************************
Speaking as a moderator, however, you are not strictly required to offer any RFD at all, because this is a troll debate.
You can basically just explain which songs you liked better and why. Some people score the songs using points. Others do it be a "who won which round" kind of thing, with the winner of most rounds being the winner overall.
Yeah, voting moderation and conduct moderation are different. Insufficient voting is not usually and issue of conduct, and therefore is not treated as a "transgression" more so as it is a "mistake."
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Pinkfreud // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: Tied.
>Reason for Decision: Honestly, this debate hurt my head overall and was too confusing for me to make a detailed decision. Honestly, neither sides convinced me, especially with RM weird conceding but also not conceding implications.
>Reason for Mod Action: To justify a no-points awarded vote, the voter must offer some reason specific to the debate itself which explains why they were unable to award points. Because this RFD could've been C/P'd to any debate on the site, it is not sufficiently context-specific.
************************************************************************
It's not a transgression per se, but it was an insufficient vote. You are free to revote so long as your vote complies fully with the rules given in the links below. If you have questions about the rules, you are always free to ask myself, Virt, or Ram for advice or feedback.
Furthermore, longstanding moderation convention, codified recently in the document linked below (PB.A2.SB.Sb1.PIII), prohibits voters from awarding the majority of points in their votes to the conceding party in a debate where a concession clearly takes place. Since Pro conceded, you are barred from awarding Pro the majority of the points in your vote.
This is not about revenge voting or whether your vote aligns with anyone else's. It's about whether your vote actually conforms to the rules, and it obviously doesn't.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZqYSEOjJlTjFBlrodKEn5UeHBROyCMktyxoa3OWfIR8/edit
You'll notice that reasons 1 and 2 had nothing to do with why your vote was removed. Your vote in no way passed the standards required to award points which are required in the site's voting policy. That voting policy can be found here: https://www.debateart.com/rules To briefly summarize that policy:
> To award argument points, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.
> To award sources points, the voter must (1) explain how the debaters' sources impacted the debate, (2) directly assess the strength/utility of at least one source in particular cited in the debate, and (3) explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's.
> To award S/G points, the voter must (1) give specific examples of S/G errors, (2) explain how these errors were excessive, and (3) compare each debaters' S/G.
> To award conduct points, the voter must (1) identify specific instances of misconduct, (2) explain how this misconduct was excessive, unfair, or in breach of the debate's rules, and (3) compare each debater's conduct.
Each of the three steps for each of the point categories must be EXPLICITLY present in the vote in order for the vote to be deemed sufficient. While there are some exceptions to these rules (e.g. in the case of awarding conduct points for forfeits a voter need not perform steps 2 and 3 of the conduct points section), these steps apply to most votes. Your vote performed none of these steps in any category except conduct. I strongly urge you to read those voting policies to fully acquaint yourself with the voting standards that are in place.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: King_8 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Pro
>Reason for Decision: I agree with Pro. Plus, Con forfeited 2 rounds. Bad conduct. I'm sure my comment will get deleted by mods when it shouldn't be, I made a solid reason of Con forfeiting.
>Reason for Mod Action: Contrary to the voter's assertion that their vote shouldn't be removed, their vote is a textbook case of what is not acceptable in a vote. Not only did Pro concede the debate (meaning that it is not permitted that the voter give Pro the balance of points), but the voter makes no attempt to justify the points they award based on anything that transpired in the debate. The only point here that the voter justified was the awarding of conduct points based on the forfeit, but those points can only be awarded if the same or more points are also awarded to Con in some other category(ies), given the rules regarding conceded debates. This vote is entirely insufficient.
************************************************************************
Thanks! You too.
Thanks for the debate.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ragnar // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points to Con for arguments, S/G, and conduct
>Reason for Decision: Unmoderated due to forfeitures...
Arguments: No contest.
Sources: Well I prefer links, pro did some bible research, resulting in this being within the tied range.
S&G: Pro, next time put spaces between your paragraphs. Website writing and school papers follow different conventions. (I would not normally do this, but to help pro improve, I am doing this on an FF).
Conduct: FF.
>Reason for Mod Action: This is not a full-forfeit debate, as there are at least two rounds in which each debater posted. The voter must therefore explain the points they chose to award.
************************************************************************
I do that on most of my debates--it's gotten to be habit. I'll try not to over-ping you going forward.
I posted.
Which is precisely why this is judge-only...
You've only got about a day left to post.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ramshutu // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro for arguments, 1 point to Con for conduct
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: Tied.
>Reason for Mod Action: Troll debates are not moderated, per the site voting policy guidelines. No moderation action is appropriate on this vote.
************************************************************************
Deleted. You can re-cast.
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Ragnar // Mod Action: Not Removed
Points awarded: Con
Reason for mod action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
*******************************************************************
I am actually going to suspend moderation on this debate temporarily until Virt and I can talk more about this ruling. I am starting to second-guess my original position.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Oromagi // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con for arguments, 1 point to Pro for conduct
>Reason for Decision: Informal debate, original subject
ASIDE: I'm not sure I like seeing two debaters discussing another debater's profile choices. The dynamic was very readable, even enjoyable here but it also gives me visions of much uglier versions. I prefer that metabates like this one become rarer as we progress.
Pro's got a real turd of a thesis here- full on subjective, no authority, no stakes.
Pro leads with an appeal for continuity, Con argues that the change is made, therefore any new change is less continuity.
"JUDO CHOP!"
Pro admires Ralph's previous pic as simple and meaningless. Con awesomely, succinctly demonstrates that Ralph's previous pic was complex and meaningful.
"KUNG FU KICK!"
Con blows off R2, R3
"OH! MY EYE! " (thud)
Pro virtually played rabbit to Con's coyote, Arguments to Con.
Conduct to Pro for Con's forfeit.
>Reason for Mod Action: Before Virt or I moderated any votes on this topic, we discussed whether this should be a troll debate or not. We determined that seemingly non-serious topics could still have serious argumentative content. While I am open to reconsidering my ruling on this, for now, we will treat the debate as moderatable. Your vote fails to contain any weighing analysis and so has been removed. Conduct was fine.
************************************************************************
The difference is that my pointing out a rules breach was never personal. All your insults were.
>> The objective truth, however, is that whether or not you're allowed to do it in a debate does not change the fact that you're roleplaying might cause someone to hurt the trees that you love. How can that not bother you?
Because anyone who took my debates seriously on that level would be gravely mistaken, and because I doubt my debates are silver-tongued enough to be the decisive force in how they come down on a particular issue. Most of the time, people understand that debates are just all in good fun, and nothing more.
So, I think I've been fairly conciliatory and patient in my responses to you here in the comments, because I understand you are upset or frustrated. Please understand that this was not the way either of us wanted the debate to turn out.
However, it seems that you are largely unwilling to try to understand where I am coming from, despite my efforts to explain my position. I am also not keen on having prolonged conversations in which people insinuate falsely that I am a liar or a jerk or lack integrity. Given that I have thoroughly explained my stance and addressed yours, I see no further need to carry on with this conversation. I feel as if I have met my obligation to try to assuage your concerns and then some, so I am done with this ancillary debate.
I will allow my comments to speak for themselves, and I continue to hope to get some good feedback from voters moving forward.
I think you are missing an important difference between "debate" broadly and "competitive debate." This is competitive debate--it is literally about scoring points.
I genuinely believe that we have a moral obligation to protect our forests, and I act on that obligation to the extent I am able to in real life. But, when I enter a space like debate, where it is generally understood that we do not have to argue for our own beliefs, then I am not being dishonest in taking up the position of the industrialist. I am not being dishonest precisely because I am not advocating that people *actually* take up that position, but rather I am trying to outdo my opponent within the bubble of the debate. It's roleplaying. Actors on stage are not being dishonest when they portray people who are not them; they are roleplaying in a context where it is understood that roleplay is going on.
First, I am not advocating for it outside the context of the debate. Debate is a bubble. Much like Vegas, what happens there stays there, and should not be interpreted as real world advocacy. In debates, it is generally understood that debaters put forward arguments which may not reflect their own views, and therefore there is no presumption that these views reflect debaters beliefs. Ergo, there's no dishonesty. It's rather naive to think otherwise. Second, I never purported to represent my arguments as my beliefs, so there was no dishonesty on that level either.
You obviously do not come from a background of competitive debate, which is fine. But it does mean we're going to see things differently. That we don't see eye-to-eye does not make either one of us dishonest. It just means we have different paradigms for conceptualizing the activity, what is or is not appropriate in the activity, and so on.
Full liberty is not fairness either, it's anarchy. Fairness implies rules, which in turn implies restrictions on liberty.
Besides, a debate requiring you to argue something which you do not personally believe is hardly revolutionary. *Most* competitive debating require debaters to argue things they don't believe. I did not argue my own beliefs in this debate, but that doesn't mean I was dishonest, because I never purported to represent my arguments as my beliefs.
Full liberty is not the same thing as honesty.
Thanks also to those who cast votes so far.