*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Sparrow // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Pro
>Reason for Decision: See above.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter insufficiently justifies argument, sources, and grammar points. 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. The voter completes none of these steps. To award sources points, even where one side did not use sources, the voter must (1) explain how the side which did use them used them well (how the sources impacted the debate), (2) directly evaluate at least one source from the debate, and (3) state that one side did not use sources (comparison). The voter completes just one of these steps. Finally, 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. The voter completes just one of these steps.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Scott_Manning // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Con for arguments and conduct
>Reason for Mod Action: Troll debates are not moderated, per the site voting policy guidelines. No moderation action is appropriate on this vote.
************************************************************************
So, there are a couple ways to conceive of the force. I don't feel like getting into them all now, but there is no reasonable interpretation of any of them which would suggest it is evil. If you're interested in talking about this further, perhaps we could debate it some time.
I haven't read this. Does it contain spoilers? I haven't seen any of season 8 yet...and it's KILLING me, but I don't want to read this if there are spoilers, either.
The interpretation moderation uses of that rule automatically deletes (that is, moderates) votes which vote for the forfeiting side of the full forfeit. It is prohibited to vote for the FFing side. You may dislike the rule, but it is going to be enforced. This is not really up for debate, RM.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro for arguments
>Reason for Decision: Pro clearly communicated their theory but both sides seemed ambiguous. It felt like Con was playing semantic games and just overloading me with information and trying too hard, I just couldn't grasp it. Pro clearly states how sharing the means of production rather than leaving it to a select few is optimal.
>Reason for Mod Action: This debate is a full forfeit debate. Per the site's voting policy, full-forfeit debates are not moderated unless the voter voted for the forfeiting side. Because the voter voted for the forfeiting side, this vote will be removed.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>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: Virtuoso // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Con
>Reason for Mod Action: Troll debates are not moderated, per the site voting policy guidelines. No moderation action is appropriate on this vote.
*******************************************************************
This debate is not being allowed to stand because it's a troll debate per se. In order to ensure that users feel able to "speak truth to power" or to protest moderation, moderation does not enforce the entire conduct policy against those who insult members of the moderation team. This position also prevents moderation from having to deal with the headache of some user accusing us of silencing those who would criticize moderation. This policy ensures that users feel maximally free in their ability to talk about moderation.
Ultimately, you can insult myself and Virt however you want with no repercussions, period. We accepted that when we took the jobs we did. The *only* things you cannot do to myself and Virt are doxx us, hack us, genuinely attempt to impersonate us, or seriously threaten us. For other, less senior moderators, similar standards apply, except that (a) threats of any kind are prohibited and (b) particularly serious or unceasing personal attacks against them are prohibited.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Noodle // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: Tied.
>Reason for Decision: Based on the new Testament vs Old Testament obviously no. Bias from the start but Christians have a variety of apologetics to employ so this is innately a very interesting topic since so many arguments are out there... good logic on both sides.
I'll read
>Reason for Mod Action: No reason is given, rooted in the debate itself, as to why a tie was awarded. While it is good to hear that the voter is interested in the topic, mere interest is best expressed in the comments section.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Our_Boat_is_Right // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Pro for conduct
>Reason for Decision: Con forfeited the 1st round and posted a half argument and did not address all the points thoroughly in round 2 because he ran out of time. This is poor conduct. Pro addressed all of the points, did not forfeit, and made substantial arguments the whole time. The forfeits were unfair because it interfered with the debate arguments and made a less productive debate. According to the Rules, "a debater may award conduct points solely for forfeited rounds, but only if one debater forfeited half or more of their rounds." Con forfeited 2/3 rounds, which is more than half. Good job pro.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter fails to explain why the conduct violation was "excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate." The voter must perform this step to award conduct points. Only 1 round was actually forfeited, and so this vote cannot make use of the cited exemption. Since the points here must be awarded on a issue separate to the forfeit, it is necessary to demonstrate the excessiveness of this other conduct.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Dr.Franklin // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Pro for conduct
>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: Virtuoso // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Pro
>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: Pinkfreud08 // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Pro for conduct
>Reason for Mod Action: Troll debates are not moderated, per the site voting policy guidelines. No moderation action is appropriate on this vote.
************************************************************************
My argument would've been: "Obviously I don't *guzzle* jizz. Clearly I lick it off...things...sexily. Why? Because I'm an expensive, classy bish, not some cheap-ass street corner hoe."
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Pinkfreud08 // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Pro for arguments and conduct
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Scott_Manning // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Pro for conduct
>Reason for Decision: They both had decent arguments. No sources. Both had acceptable spelling and grammar. For the conduct, Con forfeited the first round and did not address all the points thoroughly, as Our_Boat_is_RIght has correctly stated.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter fails to explain why the conduct violation was "excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate." The voter also failed to compare the conduct of both debaters. The voter must perform these steps to award conduct points. The voter cannot, in lieu of providing their own reasoning in their own words, cite other RFDs. Voting is not an activity to be farmed out.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Our_Boat_is_Right // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Pro for conduct
>Reason for Decision: Arguments, spelling+grammar, and sources are tied.
Conduct--
Con forfeited the 1st round and posted a half argument and did not address all the points thoroughly in round 2 because he ran out of time. This is poor conduct. Pro addressed all of the points, did not forfeit, and made substantial arguments the whole time.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter fails to explain why the conduct violation was "excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate." The voter must perform this step to award conduct points. Otherwise, the vote is fine.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Wrick-It-Ralph // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro for arguments
>Reason for Decision: Argument point.
Con conceded his position by stating that he holds beliefs as a Christian. The beliefs that he holds are, by definition, political, so point to Pro.
I've actually already explained this is greater detail. But the dictator that moderates the votes has decided that censorship is the path to good voting.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter may not like moderation's ruling on the issue (which they are, of course, free to protest), but posting *less* reasoning in the RFD is not going to make the vote *more* sufficient. The voter fails to sufficiently justify the points they award. The voter has now voted 3 times with an insufficient RFD, despite being clearly told what must be done to make it sufficient: using the original RFD they cast + analyzing counterargument(s) from Con.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con for arguments
>Reason for Decision: Con Forfeits every Round after Round 1. Pro does not. This is FF on Con's part under CoC definition of FF and not FF on Pro's part.
>Reason for Mod Action: As both debaters forfeited an equal number of rounds, it is not appropriate to award points to either debater. The voter cannot vote for the forfeiting side of a full forfeit. In this case, both are the "forfeiting sides."
************************************************************************
The substantive wording of your justification for the argument point changed the second time around, thereby changing its permissibility. Dusty is correct in the sense that if you re-cast your first RFD exactly as it was, but with some analysis of Our's counterpoint(s), your vote would stand.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Pinkfreud // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Pro for arguments and conduct
>Reason for Decision: RFD in comments
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote sufficiently justifies argument points. The voter seems to misunderstand why their previous vote was removed. The voter writes "due to my previous vote not elaborating onto why this is poor conduct" as a précis to their discussion of the conduct point. The issue isn't that they did not elaborate, the issue is that actions which take place in the comments are not legitimate grounds for awarding conduct except in extreme cases, which this isn't. That being said, the actions in the comments section are only one reason the voter awarded conduct points, the second reasoning being that the voter feels some strategies/points were "misleading." That is acceptable grounds for awarding conduct, but only if all three criteria to award conduct (as listed in the voting policy) are met. As the voter does not explain how "this poor conduct was either excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate," the awarding of conduct points was insufficiently warranted.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Pinkfreud08 // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con for arguments
>Reason for Decision: Pro waived.
>Reason for Mod Action: As both debaters forfeited an equal number of rounds, it is not appropriate to award points to either debater. The voter cannot vote for the forfeiting side of a full forfeit. In this case, both are the "forfeiting sides."
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Pinkfreud08 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: Tied.
>Reason for Decision: Meh on the fence
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote does not clearly link itself to the content of the debate. It could have been C/P'd to any debate on DART. This does not meet the standard for casting no points votes, which requires that the voter " clearly explain why, based on what transpired in the debate, they chose not to award points." See here for more: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1718
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: King_8 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Con
>Reason for Decision: I like Con's more.
Because of omar's bias when I clearly won my debate in the rap battle: "Rapp Battle Omega" https://www.debate.org/debates/Rapp-Battle-Omega/1/ and he stated "I like Pro's more" his vote was inaccurate and was bias because 1. My bars were way better and 2. My opponent conceded in Round 5. How are you going to give the win to someone who conceded? Want to be bias and let your feelings and emotions get in the way just because you dislike someone instead voting fairly, then alright. Gave you a taste of your own medicine.
>Reason for Mod Action: Revenge voting is not permitted. This is not only a violation of the site's voting policy, but it is a violation of the site's conduct policy. Because it is a violation of the site's voting policy, the vote will be deleted. Because it is a violation of the site's conduct policy, the voter will have their voting privileges revoked for three days as a slap on the wrist to demonstrate how seriously moderation views retaliatory voting.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Our_Boat_is_Right // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points to Pro for arguments, sources, and S/G; 1 point to Con for conduct
>Reason for Decision: i'll give pro 3 points cuz i feel bad
>Reason for Mod Action: This debate is a full forfeit debate. Per the site's voting policy, full-forfeit debates are not moderated unless the voter voted for the forfeiting side. Because the voter voted to the give the balance of points the forfeiting side, their vote has been removed.
************************************************************************
Because RM's vote preceded the implementation of the new rules for tied debates, and rules are not applied retroactively (according to the general principle that ex post facto laws are unethical).
Virtuoso examined Ragnar's vote, and ruled it to be sufficient. I have not taken the time to examine Ragnar's vote as a result. If you would like to appeal Virt's decision, then I will examine it. Unless you are seeking such an appeal, the best person to talk to is Virt.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Dr.Franklin // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: Tied.
>Reason for Decision: Both sides just sucked and it wasnt really much of a debate. Both sides had poor conduct. Meh
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote does not clearly link itself to the content of the debate. It could have been C/P'd to any debate on DART. This does not meet the standard for casting no points votes, which requires that the voter " clearly explain why, based on what transpired in the debate, they chose not to award points." See here for more: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1718
************************************************************************
“ Problem here is that prostitution is: The practice or occupation of engaging in sexual activity with someone for payment.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/prostitution
The instigator has failed to state that prostitution is enslavement since the definition no way states enslavement.
Enslavement: The action of making someone a slave; subjugation.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/enslavement
Slave: a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/slave”
This baseless statement goes to show how Con has little understanding of the definition of prostitution.
Another poor argument con made was,
“ My opponent is making an argument and using where morality and politics stems from. This is not a valid example since my particular views themselves are not based on this.”
To which Pro responded with,
“ My opponent basically said I am wrong because he said so. The problem here is that he never explained it instead said "my particular views themselves are not based on this". The reason why this is bad is because this is no way rebuts my claims instead adds his opinion without supporting it with an explanation. If he explained why morals are not the basis to do anything then he might have a point but he doesn't even try.”
So essentially Con does little to elaborate this point and never explained his claim.
To conclude I have to award arguments and conduct to pro since Con posted arguments in the comment section several times, claimed DDO was accurate to his views and then pivoted to stating they weren’t accurate, and he avoided arguments and gave poor rebuttals.
If anyone has a problem with my vote, than I urge you to report it so it may be examined by the mods. My goal is to provide an accurate and unbiased depitiction of a debate through my vote. If it does get removed I will reexamine the debate and change my vote.
“ I"as a Christian, I am against them" is basically admitting his political beliefs is based on Religion. If this wasn't the case Our_Boat_Is_Right would be able to provide a non-theist reason for his political beliefs but he couldn't.”
Here Con literally concedes the entire debate since he is admitting that he is basing this political belief based on religion.
“Note that he has provided no proof of this claim instead his opinion. He was so adamant to call me out in the comments for what I did but here he refuses to accuse. I wonder why. Maybe because he is not able to defend that position instead he much rather relegate it to the comment section.”
Con giving a rebuttal in the comment section is a very coward move and isn’t very well debate conduct since voters most likely wouldn’t think to look in the comment section for arguments.
Giving rebuttals in the comment section in and of itself, is a poor way to format an argument.
“ I prefer to use my more in depth stance on "gay marriage".”
Pro pointed out this is strawman which is true since the argument was about civil unions, not gay marriage both of which are two completely separate issues.
Con gave a rebuttal regarding prostitution which was,
“ Principles of right and wrong are among societal standards and existing laws.”
Pro then pointed out that,
“ Christianity dictates societal standards so it neither rebuts or even attempts to rebut my claims. Laws are created based on morals and also does not rebut my claims. This comment is a non-sequitur.”
This is true since societal standards are mostly based around morals which christianity dictates.
Meaning that by default Cons views on politics are based around his christianity morals.
This is sort of irrelevant however Con made an absurd statement against prostitution,
“ It is wrong to enslave a human being and to treat them less than another human being.”
To which Pro expertly replied that,
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Pinkfreud // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Pro for arguments and conduct
>Reason for Decision: See above.
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote is cluttered, hard to read, and poorly organized. Nevertheless, it sufficiently justifies argument points. It insufficiently justifies conduct points. Misconduct must be located within the debate unless it so severe that it is a COC issue. Points may not be awarded for squabbles in the comments section.
************************************************************************
Argument point.
As per voting policy. I am judging that I can disregard every argument made except for one by Con. Con said.
"My opponent is saying I admit to it being religious, however, I literally say "AS A CHRISTIAN, however, I am against it." I specifically say "as a christian" to denote a separate belief from politics. From a religious belief, I am against gay marriage. I explained my political belief before that last sentence. It is not based on religion. I even say "If you want to be gay and get married, that is fine." I simply BELIEVE(a belief is my opinion, so don't use a technical definition "often one with no proof") government shouldn't regulate which genders marry each other. Marriage is a cultural and religious matter do be decided privately by the parties, and gov. controlling it goes directly against separation of church and state. Nothing about this opinion of mine is religious either. Next."
Con expressly admits to being a Christian and having Christian values. This concedes the debate topic. No further arguments changed this and therefore the argument point goes to con.
All other points tied.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Wrick-it-Ralph // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro
>Reason for Decision: See above.
>Reason for Mod Action: This vote is even less sufficient than the last. Not only does it not survey any counterarguments made, but the voter is literally and clearly misinterpreting the meaning of the quote he excerpts from the debate to justify his decision. In his previous RFD, there was the possibility that the voter was "concluding that the volume of matching views suggests the truth of the Pro position, that is an interpretive issue that is beyond moderation's purview." In this RFD, this line of reasoning vanishes, placing the vote squarely within the exception that allows moderation to delete the voter for literally and obviously misunderstanding/misstating what transpired in the debate.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Pinkfreud08 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: Tied.
>Reason for Decision: REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>Reason for Mod Action: No points awarded votes must now explain, based on the content of the vote, why the voter chose not to award points. For more details, see here: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1718
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Wrick-it-Ralph // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: Tied.
>Reason for Decision: Hume's Guillotine, therefore, Is can't imply ought, therefore, there is no correct life priority of the selected options.
>Reason for Mod Action: No points awarded votes must now explain, based on the content of the vote, why the voter chose not to award points. For more details, see here: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1718
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Pinkfreud08 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: Tied.
>Reason for Decision: REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>Reason for Mod Action: No points awarded votes must now explain, based on the content of the vote, why the voter chose not to award points. For more details, see here: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1718
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Pinkfreud08 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: Tied.
>Reason for Decision: REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>Reason for Mod Action: No points awarded votes must now explain, based on the content of the vote, why the voter chose not to award points. For more details, see here: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1718
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Sparrow // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Pro
>Reason for Decision: See above.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter insufficiently justifies argument, sources, and grammar points. 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. The voter completes none of these steps. To award sources points, even where one side did not use sources, the voter must (1) explain how the side which did use them used them well (how the sources impacted the debate), (2) directly evaluate at least one source from the debate, and (3) state that one side did not use sources (comparison). The voter completes just one of these steps. Finally, 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. The voter completes just one of these steps.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Scott_Manning // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Con for arguments and conduct
>Reason for Mod Action: Troll debates are not moderated, per the site voting policy guidelines. No moderation action is appropriate on this vote.
************************************************************************
So, there are a couple ways to conceive of the force. I don't feel like getting into them all now, but there is no reasonable interpretation of any of them which would suggest it is evil. If you're interested in talking about this further, perhaps we could debate it some time.
The force is neither good nor evil. It just is.
Bummer...
I haven't read this. Does it contain spoilers? I haven't seen any of season 8 yet...and it's KILLING me, but I don't want to read this if there are spoilers, either.
Arguments, like the force, can help the wise (or annoyed) practitioner achieve true greatness.
Congrats, Omar.
I wondered about that, lol...
The interpretation moderation uses of that rule automatically deletes (that is, moderates) votes which vote for the forfeiting side of the full forfeit. It is prohibited to vote for the FFing side. You may dislike the rule, but it is going to be enforced. This is not really up for debate, RM.
How? Because it is prohibited. You may dislike the rule, but it will be enforced nonetheless.
In a full forfeit situation, you are never allowed to vote for the forfeiting side.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro for arguments
>Reason for Decision: Pro clearly communicated their theory but both sides seemed ambiguous. It felt like Con was playing semantic games and just overloading me with information and trying too hard, I just couldn't grasp it. Pro clearly states how sharing the means of production rather than leaving it to a select few is optimal.
>Reason for Mod Action: This debate is a full forfeit debate. Per the site's voting policy, full-forfeit debates are not moderated unless the voter voted for the forfeiting side. Because the voter voted for the forfeiting side, this vote will be removed.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>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: Virtuoso // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Con
>Reason for Mod Action: Troll debates are not moderated, per the site voting policy guidelines. No moderation action is appropriate on this vote.
*******************************************************************
Technically, it doesn't allow either. Mods just don't enforce violations of the COC which are made against mods.
This debate is not being allowed to stand because it's a troll debate per se. In order to ensure that users feel able to "speak truth to power" or to protest moderation, moderation does not enforce the entire conduct policy against those who insult members of the moderation team. This position also prevents moderation from having to deal with the headache of some user accusing us of silencing those who would criticize moderation. This policy ensures that users feel maximally free in their ability to talk about moderation.
Ultimately, you can insult myself and Virt however you want with no repercussions, period. We accepted that when we took the jobs we did. The *only* things you cannot do to myself and Virt are doxx us, hack us, genuinely attempt to impersonate us, or seriously threaten us. For other, less senior moderators, similar standards apply, except that (a) threats of any kind are prohibited and (b) particularly serious or unceasing personal attacks against them are prohibited.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Noodle // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: Tied.
>Reason for Decision: Based on the new Testament vs Old Testament obviously no. Bias from the start but Christians have a variety of apologetics to employ so this is innately a very interesting topic since so many arguments are out there... good logic on both sides.
I'll read
>Reason for Mod Action: No reason is given, rooted in the debate itself, as to why a tie was awarded. While it is good to hear that the voter is interested in the topic, mere interest is best expressed in the comments section.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Our_Boat_is_Right // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Pro for conduct
>Reason for Decision: Con forfeited the 1st round and posted a half argument and did not address all the points thoroughly in round 2 because he ran out of time. This is poor conduct. Pro addressed all of the points, did not forfeit, and made substantial arguments the whole time. The forfeits were unfair because it interfered with the debate arguments and made a less productive debate. According to the Rules, "a debater may award conduct points solely for forfeited rounds, but only if one debater forfeited half or more of their rounds." Con forfeited 2/3 rounds, which is more than half. Good job pro.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter fails to explain why the conduct violation was "excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate." The voter must perform this step to award conduct points. Only 1 round was actually forfeited, and so this vote cannot make use of the cited exemption. Since the points here must be awarded on a issue separate to the forfeit, it is necessary to demonstrate the excessiveness of this other conduct.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Pinkfreud08 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con for arguments
>Reason for Decision: Concession
>Reason for Mod Action: As far as I can tell, no one conceded.
************************************************************************
>> So pretty much he is still wrong.
Totally, lol.
Because criticisms of moderation are almost entirely exempt from moderation.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Dr.Franklin // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Pro for conduct
>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: Virtuoso // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Pro
>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: Pinkfreud08 // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Pro for conduct
>Reason for Mod Action: Troll debates are not moderated, per the site voting policy guidelines. No moderation action is appropriate on this vote.
************************************************************************
My argument would've been: "Obviously I don't *guzzle* jizz. Clearly I lick it off...things...sexily. Why? Because I'm an expensive, classy bish, not some cheap-ass street corner hoe."
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Pinkfreud08 // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Pro for arguments and conduct
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Scott_Manning // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Pro for conduct
>Reason for Decision: They both had decent arguments. No sources. Both had acceptable spelling and grammar. For the conduct, Con forfeited the first round and did not address all the points thoroughly, as Our_Boat_is_RIght has correctly stated.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter fails to explain why the conduct violation was "excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate." The voter also failed to compare the conduct of both debaters. The voter must perform these steps to award conduct points. The voter cannot, in lieu of providing their own reasoning in their own words, cite other RFDs. Voting is not an activity to be farmed out.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Our_Boat_is_Right // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Pro for conduct
>Reason for Decision: Arguments, spelling+grammar, and sources are tied.
Conduct--
Con forfeited the 1st round and posted a half argument and did not address all the points thoroughly in round 2 because he ran out of time. This is poor conduct. Pro addressed all of the points, did not forfeit, and made substantial arguments the whole time.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter fails to explain why the conduct violation was "excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate." The voter must perform this step to award conduct points. Otherwise, the vote is fine.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Wrick-It-Ralph // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro for arguments
>Reason for Decision: Argument point.
Con conceded his position by stating that he holds beliefs as a Christian. The beliefs that he holds are, by definition, political, so point to Pro.
I've actually already explained this is greater detail. But the dictator that moderates the votes has decided that censorship is the path to good voting.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter may not like moderation's ruling on the issue (which they are, of course, free to protest), but posting *less* reasoning in the RFD is not going to make the vote *more* sufficient. The voter fails to sufficiently justify the points they award. The voter has now voted 3 times with an insufficient RFD, despite being clearly told what must be done to make it sufficient: using the original RFD they cast + analyzing counterargument(s) from Con.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con for arguments
>Reason for Decision: Con Forfeits every Round after Round 1. Pro does not. This is FF on Con's part under CoC definition of FF and not FF on Pro's part.
>Reason for Mod Action: As both debaters forfeited an equal number of rounds, it is not appropriate to award points to either debater. The voter cannot vote for the forfeiting side of a full forfeit. In this case, both are the "forfeiting sides."
************************************************************************
Same reason as Pink. I guess I forgot to hit the create comment. Sorry.
The substantive wording of your justification for the argument point changed the second time around, thereby changing its permissibility. Dusty is correct in the sense that if you re-cast your first RFD exactly as it was, but with some analysis of Our's counterpoint(s), your vote would stand.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Pinkfreud // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Pro for arguments and conduct
>Reason for Decision: RFD in comments
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote sufficiently justifies argument points. The voter seems to misunderstand why their previous vote was removed. The voter writes "due to my previous vote not elaborating onto why this is poor conduct" as a précis to their discussion of the conduct point. The issue isn't that they did not elaborate, the issue is that actions which take place in the comments are not legitimate grounds for awarding conduct except in extreme cases, which this isn't. That being said, the actions in the comments section are only one reason the voter awarded conduct points, the second reasoning being that the voter feels some strategies/points were "misleading." That is acceptable grounds for awarding conduct, but only if all three criteria to award conduct (as listed in the voting policy) are met. As the voter does not explain how "this poor conduct was either excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate," the awarding of conduct points was insufficiently warranted.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Pinkfreud08 // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con for arguments
>Reason for Decision: Pro waived.
>Reason for Mod Action: As both debaters forfeited an equal number of rounds, it is not appropriate to award points to either debater. The voter cannot vote for the forfeiting side of a full forfeit. In this case, both are the "forfeiting sides."
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Pinkfreud08 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: Tied.
>Reason for Decision: Meh on the fence
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote does not clearly link itself to the content of the debate. It could have been C/P'd to any debate on DART. This does not meet the standard for casting no points votes, which requires that the voter " clearly explain why, based on what transpired in the debate, they chose not to award points." See here for more: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1718
************************************************************************
You need to stop pinging us in the comments. Hit the report button, and we'll review the vote.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: King_8 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Con
>Reason for Decision: I like Con's more.
Because of omar's bias when I clearly won my debate in the rap battle: "Rapp Battle Omega" https://www.debate.org/debates/Rapp-Battle-Omega/1/ and he stated "I like Pro's more" his vote was inaccurate and was bias because 1. My bars were way better and 2. My opponent conceded in Round 5. How are you going to give the win to someone who conceded? Want to be bias and let your feelings and emotions get in the way just because you dislike someone instead voting fairly, then alright. Gave you a taste of your own medicine.
>Reason for Mod Action: Revenge voting is not permitted. This is not only a violation of the site's voting policy, but it is a violation of the site's conduct policy. Because it is a violation of the site's voting policy, the vote will be deleted. Because it is a violation of the site's conduct policy, the voter will have their voting privileges revoked for three days as a slap on the wrist to demonstrate how seriously moderation views retaliatory voting.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Our_Boat_is_Right // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points to Pro for arguments, sources, and S/G; 1 point to Con for conduct
>Reason for Decision: i'll give pro 3 points cuz i feel bad
>Reason for Mod Action: This debate is a full forfeit debate. Per the site's voting policy, full-forfeit debates are not moderated unless the voter voted for the forfeiting side. Because the voter voted to the give the balance of points the forfeiting side, their vote has been removed.
************************************************************************
Because RM's vote preceded the implementation of the new rules for tied debates, and rules are not applied retroactively (according to the general principle that ex post facto laws are unethical).
Virtuoso examined Ragnar's vote, and ruled it to be sufficient. I have not taken the time to examine Ragnar's vote as a result. If you would like to appeal Virt's decision, then I will examine it. Unless you are seeking such an appeal, the best person to talk to is Virt.
To what are you "no way-ing"?
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Dr.Franklin // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: Tied.
>Reason for Decision: Both sides just sucked and it wasnt really much of a debate. Both sides had poor conduct. Meh
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote does not clearly link itself to the content of the debate. It could have been C/P'd to any debate on DART. This does not meet the standard for casting no points votes, which requires that the voter " clearly explain why, based on what transpired in the debate, they chose not to award points." See here for more: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1718
************************************************************************
Pink' RFD (2/2)
“ Problem here is that prostitution is: The practice or occupation of engaging in sexual activity with someone for payment.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/prostitution
The instigator has failed to state that prostitution is enslavement since the definition no way states enslavement.
Enslavement: The action of making someone a slave; subjugation.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/enslavement
Slave: a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/slave”
This baseless statement goes to show how Con has little understanding of the definition of prostitution.
Another poor argument con made was,
“ My opponent is making an argument and using where morality and politics stems from. This is not a valid example since my particular views themselves are not based on this.”
To which Pro responded with,
“ My opponent basically said I am wrong because he said so. The problem here is that he never explained it instead said "my particular views themselves are not based on this". The reason why this is bad is because this is no way rebuts my claims instead adds his opinion without supporting it with an explanation. If he explained why morals are not the basis to do anything then he might have a point but he doesn't even try.”
So essentially Con does little to elaborate this point and never explained his claim.
To conclude I have to award arguments and conduct to pro since Con posted arguments in the comment section several times, claimed DDO was accurate to his views and then pivoted to stating they weren’t accurate, and he avoided arguments and gave poor rebuttals.
If anyone has a problem with my vote, than I urge you to report it so it may be examined by the mods. My goal is to provide an accurate and unbiased depitiction of a debate through my vote. If it does get removed I will reexamine the debate and change my vote.
Pink's RFD (1/2)
“ I"as a Christian, I am against them" is basically admitting his political beliefs is based on Religion. If this wasn't the case Our_Boat_Is_Right would be able to provide a non-theist reason for his political beliefs but he couldn't.”
Here Con literally concedes the entire debate since he is admitting that he is basing this political belief based on religion.
“Note that he has provided no proof of this claim instead his opinion. He was so adamant to call me out in the comments for what I did but here he refuses to accuse. I wonder why. Maybe because he is not able to defend that position instead he much rather relegate it to the comment section.”
Con giving a rebuttal in the comment section is a very coward move and isn’t very well debate conduct since voters most likely wouldn’t think to look in the comment section for arguments.
Giving rebuttals in the comment section in and of itself, is a poor way to format an argument.
“ I prefer to use my more in depth stance on "gay marriage".”
Pro pointed out this is strawman which is true since the argument was about civil unions, not gay marriage both of which are two completely separate issues.
Con gave a rebuttal regarding prostitution which was,
“ Principles of right and wrong are among societal standards and existing laws.”
Pro then pointed out that,
“ Christianity dictates societal standards so it neither rebuts or even attempts to rebut my claims. Laws are created based on morals and also does not rebut my claims. This comment is a non-sequitur.”
This is true since societal standards are mostly based around morals which christianity dictates.
Meaning that by default Cons views on politics are based around his christianity morals.
This is sort of irrelevant however Con made an absurd statement against prostitution,
“ It is wrong to enslave a human being and to treat them less than another human being.”
To which Pro expertly replied that,
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Pinkfreud // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Pro for arguments and conduct
>Reason for Decision: See above.
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote is cluttered, hard to read, and poorly organized. Nevertheless, it sufficiently justifies argument points. It insufficiently justifies conduct points. Misconduct must be located within the debate unless it so severe that it is a COC issue. Points may not be awarded for squabbles in the comments section.
************************************************************************
Ralph's RFD:
Argument point.
As per voting policy. I am judging that I can disregard every argument made except for one by Con. Con said.
"My opponent is saying I admit to it being religious, however, I literally say "AS A CHRISTIAN, however, I am against it." I specifically say "as a christian" to denote a separate belief from politics. From a religious belief, I am against gay marriage. I explained my political belief before that last sentence. It is not based on religion. I even say "If you want to be gay and get married, that is fine." I simply BELIEVE(a belief is my opinion, so don't use a technical definition "often one with no proof") government shouldn't regulate which genders marry each other. Marriage is a cultural and religious matter do be decided privately by the parties, and gov. controlling it goes directly against separation of church and state. Nothing about this opinion of mine is religious either. Next."
Con expressly admits to being a Christian and having Christian values. This concedes the debate topic. No further arguments changed this and therefore the argument point goes to con.
All other points tied.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Wrick-it-Ralph // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro
>Reason for Decision: See above.
>Reason for Mod Action: This vote is even less sufficient than the last. Not only does it not survey any counterarguments made, but the voter is literally and clearly misinterpreting the meaning of the quote he excerpts from the debate to justify his decision. In his previous RFD, there was the possibility that the voter was "concluding that the volume of matching views suggests the truth of the Pro position, that is an interpretive issue that is beyond moderation's purview." In this RFD, this line of reasoning vanishes, placing the vote squarely within the exception that allows moderation to delete the voter for literally and obviously misunderstanding/misstating what transpired in the debate.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Pinkfreud08 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: Tied.
>Reason for Decision: REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>Reason for Mod Action: No points awarded votes must now explain, based on the content of the vote, why the voter chose not to award points. For more details, see here: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1718
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Wrick-it-Ralph // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: Tied.
>Reason for Decision: Hume's Guillotine, therefore, Is can't imply ought, therefore, there is no correct life priority of the selected options.
>Reason for Mod Action: No points awarded votes must now explain, based on the content of the vote, why the voter chose not to award points. For more details, see here: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1718
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Pinkfreud08 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: Tied.
>Reason for Decision: REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>Reason for Mod Action: No points awarded votes must now explain, based on the content of the vote, why the voter chose not to award points. For more details, see here: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1718
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Pinkfreud08 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: Tied.
>Reason for Decision: REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>Reason for Mod Action: No points awarded votes must now explain, based on the content of the vote, why the voter chose not to award points. For more details, see here: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1718
************************************************************************