*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Pinkfreud08 // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: Tie
>Reason for Mod Action: Troll debates are not moderated, per the site voting policy guidelines. No moderation action is appropriate on this vote.
************************************************************************
You literally misinterpreted what Our said, and did so clearly. I can understand how what I said may come across harshly; it's not meant that way. Nothing I said attributed any bad intention to you. In the end, your analysis of the BOP was ruled borderline sufficient.
If your contention is that Our conceded the point, therefore relieving you of any need to examine counterarguments, I would reply that Our dispute his concession of the point in the debate, and that this needs to be analyzed. You don't need to analyze arguments outside of the BOP debate, but you do need to analyze both sides of the BOP debate.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Dr.Franklin // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Pro
>Reason for Decision: I like trains
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter fails to sufficiently justify the argument points they award. 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, when, in fact, they needed to complete each of them. The voter can cast a sufficient vote by completing each of these three steps. The voter can access site voting policy here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: Con
>Reason for Mod Action: Troll debates are not moderated, per the site voting policy guidelines. No moderation action is appropriate on this vote.
************************************************************************
You did not respond to my question. I would appreciate a response.
The rules on sources are clearly stated and self-evidently necessary. If you have specific objections to any of the three points, please state them. Merely repeating that the sources are awful is not an argument and does not provide me any insight into exactly why you feel that way.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Our_Boat_is_Right // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 2 to Pro for sources
>Reason for Decision: Con used known conspiracy theory sources like all about world view.org and literallydevices.net. Pro used RELIABLE sources like logicalfallacies.net. All others tied.
>Reason for Mod Action: In conceded debates, voters are required by the site voting policy to give the balance of points to the non-conceding debater (or award a tie). For this reason alone, the vote can be removed. That being said, the vote is insufficient in that it satisfies just two of the three required criteria to award sources points: identifying specific sources and comparing the uses of sources between debaters. It does not complete the other step: explaining how each debater's sources impact the debate. The vote is thus also insufficient.
************************************************************************
I will reflect on the issue. It has been debated significantly within moderation as well. I am well aware of the reasons why it is bad, and, in general, I agree with those reasons, but much of the debate I am having is over how to read the COC. For now, tied votes will continued to be unmoderatable, but that's in no way my last word on the question.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: Tied.
>Reason for Mod Action: Votes which do not award points are not subject to review because no standard exists in the COC against by which they can be removed.
************************************************************************
I am fairly certain that, as per what I've been told by the mods in the past, that I am allowed to sum up the burden of proof and why I am allowed to disregard certain points, I will attempt this now and see if my vote holds.
So I believe that I only have to bring up one point to demonstrate that Pro won the argument point.
Con says
"I literally say "AS A CHRISTIAN, however, I am against it." I specifically say "as a christian" to denote a separate belief from politics."
I actually reread this several times because I thought for sure that I must have been reading it incorrectly. But I wasn't. Con outright admitted the debate topic here. Since at least one of his professed political views directly matches his professed Christian views, Con has effectively given the debate to Pro.
Just for completeness, I will also mention that Pro laid the groundwork for this admission in the first round by rightly pointing out specific instances of political views that tend to match Christian values. Most notably, the point about civil unions was damning. this by itself was not enough for the argument point, but combined with Con's admission, it's sufficient.
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 is a tough decision to render. It is not moderation's job to judge the rightness or wrongness of the verdict reached. That means that interpretive differences (including what meanings can be deduced or inferred from the text) are not with the scope of reviewable content in a vote. There is one exception to this: the voter actually lying about or blatantly misstating (intentionally or not) what transpired in the debate such that no reasonable person, reading carefully, could reach the conclusion they reached. This could be one of those times. The voter reaches a meaning based on a particular sentence, the literal meaning of which in no way matches the voter's interpretation thereof. The difficulty for moderation, however, comes when the voter talks about alignment or matching of views, which may be supported by that sentence (among others). If the voter is 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. The BOP analysis is borderline enough that moderation must default to treating it as sufficient. That being said, the voter does not address any counterarguments made by Con, which the voter must do. Therefore, the vote as a whole is insufficient. The voter may re-vote sufficiently by addressing counterarguments made by Con.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Wrick-It-Ralph // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Con
>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.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Wrick-It-Ralph // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: Tied.
>Reason for Mod Action: Votes which do not award points are not subject to review because no standard exists in the COC against by which they can be removed.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Wrick-It-Ralph // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: Tied.
>Reason for Mod Action: Votes which do not award points are not subject to review because no standard exists in the COC against by which they can be removed.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Wrick-It-Ralph // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: Tied.
>Reason for Mod Action: Votes which do not award points are not subject to review because no standard exists in the COC against by which they can be removed.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Wrick-It-Ralph // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: Tied.
>Reason for Mod Action: Votes which do not award points are not subject to review because no standard exists in the COC against by which they can be removed.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Wrick-It-Ralph // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: Tied.
>Reason for Mod Action: Votes which do not award points are not subject to review because no standard exists in the COC against by which they can be removed.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Wrick-It-Ralph // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: Tied.
>Reason for Mod Action: Votes which do not award points are not subject to review because no standard exists in the COC against by which they can be removed.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Wrick-it-Ralph // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Con for arguments and conduct
>Reason for Decision: See Ramshutu's vote
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter may not copy and paste votes or parts of votes cast by other voters. Doing so is essentially spam voting, and allowing such votes to stand would facilitate such wrongful practices as votebombing and vote rigging.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Wrick-it-Ralph // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con for arguments
>Reason for Decision: See Pinkfreud08's vote
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter may not copy and paste votes or parts of votes cast by other voters. Doing so is essentially spam voting, and allowing such votes to stand would facilitate such wrongful practices as votebombing and vote rigging.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Our_Boat_is_Right // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con for conduct
>Reason for Decision: Pro forfeited first, which perhaps led con to think pro wasn't interested in debating, and hence, forfeited. Pro initiated it..
>Reason for Mod Action: As both debaters forfeited all 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: RationalMadman // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Pro for conduct
>Reason for Decision: Conduct to Type1 because he forfeited for being away but Sparrow was here online during the last Round and as evidenced by site-activity in other debates and comments.
Sparrow actively forfeited, oh how horrendous!
>Reason for Mod Action: As both debaters forfeited all 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: Our_Boat_is_Right // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: None.
>Reason for Mod Action: Votes which do not award points are not subject to review because no standard exists in the COC against by which they can be removed.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con for arguments
>Reason for Mod Action: This debate is a concession. Per the site's voting policy, conceded debates are not moderated unless the voter voted for the conceding side.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Isaiahdude543 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Pro for arguments and conduct, 2 points to Con for sources
>Reason for Decision: Both arguments were convincing but pro was better
>Reason for Mod Action: 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 conduct points, the voter must (1) give explicit examples of misconduct, (2) show how this misconduct was either excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate, and (3) compare each debater's conduct in the debate. For all points awarded, the voter performs none of the requisite steps to award those points. The voter can access site voting policy here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: IsaiahDude543 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Pro
>Reason for Decision: Big V all the way
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter re-voted in a way that can only be interpreted as a deliberate choice to ignore site voting policy, which was explained to him when his previous vote was removed. Further attempts to vote without making any genuine effort to meet the standards set out in the site's voting policy will result in the loss of the voter's voting privileges.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Dustandashes // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro for arguments
>Reason for Decision: So I came to this debate with a totally open mind, I didn't have a particular opinion about this matter. This was a fantastic debate and both debaters cleary know what they are talking about. In honestly, I believe blamonkey did a fantastic job of working within the framework of consequentialism. Dare I say he might have done a better job at this than virtuoso... On the surface. What was not negated however was the resolution. I feel virtuoso conclusively proved in his opening statement that plea bargaining is indeed a miscarriage of justice. Regardless of what would happen to this prison system if we were to abolish plea bargaining is not nearly as bad a consequence as innocent people going to prison. So I feel, although this debate was really close, virtuoso took this one. Thank you guys
>Reason for Mod Action: 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 performs none of these steps; therefore, their vote is insufficient. The voter may re-vote by performing these steps. The voter can access site voting policy here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: IsaiahDude543 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Pro for arguments and conduct, 2 points to Con for sources
>Reason for Decision: I feel that this is the right choice
>Reason for Mod Action: 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 conduct points, the voter must (1) give explicit examples of misconduct, (2) show how this misconduct was either excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate, and (3) compare each debater's conduct in the debate. For all points awarded, the voter performs none of the requisite steps to award those points. The voter can access site voting policy here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Virtuoso // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Pro for conduct, 3 points to Con for arguments
>Reason for Mod Action: Conceded debates are not moderated unless the voter votes for the conceding debate. Since the balance of points in this vote is going to the non-conceding party, this vote is not eligible for moderation.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ramshutu // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Con
>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.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Pro for conduct
>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.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ramshutu // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Pro
>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.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Pro
>Reason for Decision: Today is a great day. Speedrace's rap felt forced. The fact Wrick would concede was such a great metaphor for how little he has to try vs speedrace.
Wow speedrace, you tried too hard.
#ramshuturapbattlevotes
#speedrace
#trolldebatevotesarenotmoderated
>Reason for Mod Action: This vote presents a bit of a quandary. On the one hand, it is a troll debate, and they are not moderated. On the other hand, it is a conceded debate which, according to the site's voting policy, "are not moderated unless a voter votes for the side that concedes." Clearly, most votes on this debate would not be moderated, but depending on whether it should be classified first as a troll debate or first as a concede debate, there may or may not be cause to moderate certain votes on the debate itself. The question then becomes: which model of interpretation (troll or concession) takes precedence when they conflict? Given the principle that a concession equates to a loss, albeit a gracious one, which is rooted in a basic notion of fairness, moderation rules that the concession model takes precedence. Therefore, because the voter voted for the conceding side, the vote is moderatable and removable.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: coal // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro
>Reason for Decision: PRO won the debate because he successfully showed that based on what is good for the US militarily and economically, and the international community more generally; is best served by Israel's alliance with the US. Very few of the harms cited by CON were attributable to the US-Israel alliance. Most of CON's rebuttals talked past PRO.
>Reason for Mod Action: To award argument points, a voter must complete all three steps set out in the site's voting 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. The voter completes none of these steps. It is not clear how Pro "successfully showed" that Israel is a good ally from this vote due to a lack of analysis of the main arguments and due to a lack of any explicit weighing based on such analysis. While the voter may have performed these steps in their own reasoning, these steps must be detailed explicitly in the vote itself. The voter can find the site's complete voting policy here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: K_Michael // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Con
>Reason for Decision: "mash potatoes are gross" isn't a debate. It could have been put in the comments. R2 was effectively forfeited/waived by Pro. Combined with R3 forfeit, 2/3 forfeits; conduct to Con.
Pro mostly named traits and characteristics of animals that suited their environments, coupled with a claim that a being had to have intelligently created those animals with their features. His claim is unfounded, and all traits, as far as I could tell, had equal claims to natural selection. BoP requires a claim with more basis than an opposite claim. Even if there is a basis, Pro needs to show them. Argument to Con.
Pro's sources described animal characteristics, not corroborated claims. Con's sources showed relevant theories and definitions. Sources to Con.
Pro leaves off proper capitalizations and punctuation.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter fails to sufficiently justify awarding sources and S/G points. To award sources, the voter must (1) explain how the sources impacted the debate, (2) analyze at least one source specifically, and (3) compare each debaters' source and use of them. The voter only performs the third task. To award S/G, the voter must (1) give specific examples of S/G errors, (2) explain how these errors were excessive, and (3) compare each debater's S/G. The voter does none of these tasks. Argument points were borderline, which means we default to treating them as sufficient. Conduct points were sufficient.
************************************************************************
The vote was not moderated. The handle sign was ticked after the period closed. I am aware of the dubiousness of the vote, and it should not happen again.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con for arguments
>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.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 6 points to Con for arguments, sources, and conduct
>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.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Pro for arguments and conduct
>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.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Pinkfreud08 // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: Tie
>Reason for Mod Action: Troll debates are not moderated, per the site voting policy guidelines. No moderation action is appropriate on this vote.
************************************************************************
My ruling addresses your question specifically.
You literally misinterpreted what Our said, and did so clearly. I can understand how what I said may come across harshly; it's not meant that way. Nothing I said attributed any bad intention to you. In the end, your analysis of the BOP was ruled borderline sufficient.
If your contention is that Our conceded the point, therefore relieving you of any need to examine counterarguments, I would reply that Our dispute his concession of the point in the debate, and that this needs to be analyzed. You don't need to analyze arguments outside of the BOP debate, but you do need to analyze both sides of the BOP debate.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Dr.Franklin // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Pro
>Reason for Decision: I like trains
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter fails to sufficiently justify the argument points they award. 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, when, in fact, they needed to complete each of them. The voter can cast a sufficient vote by completing each of these three steps. The voter can access site voting policy here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
************************************************************************
He may have listened beforehand.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: Con
>Reason for Mod Action: Troll debates are not moderated, per the site voting policy guidelines. No moderation action is appropriate on this vote.
************************************************************************
You did not respond to my question. I would appreciate a response.
The rules on sources are clearly stated and self-evidently necessary. If you have specific objections to any of the three points, please state them. Merely repeating that the sources are awful is not an argument and does not provide me any insight into exactly why you feel that way.
Which vote are you referencing?
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Our_Boat_is_Right // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 2 to Pro for sources
>Reason for Decision: Con used known conspiracy theory sources like all about world view.org and literallydevices.net. Pro used RELIABLE sources like logicalfallacies.net. All others tied.
>Reason for Mod Action: In conceded debates, voters are required by the site voting policy to give the balance of points to the non-conceding debater (or award a tie). For this reason alone, the vote can be removed. That being said, the vote is insufficient in that it satisfies just two of the three required criteria to award sources points: identifying specific sources and comparing the uses of sources between debaters. It does not complete the other step: explaining how each debater's sources impact the debate. The vote is thus also insufficient.
************************************************************************
I will reflect on the issue. It has been debated significantly within moderation as well. I am well aware of the reasons why it is bad, and, in general, I agree with those reasons, but much of the debate I am having is over how to read the COC. For now, tied votes will continued to be unmoderatable, but that's in no way my last word on the question.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: Tied.
>Reason for Mod Action: Votes which do not award points are not subject to review because no standard exists in the COC against by which they can be removed.
************************************************************************
Ralph's RFD:
I am fairly certain that, as per what I've been told by the mods in the past, that I am allowed to sum up the burden of proof and why I am allowed to disregard certain points, I will attempt this now and see if my vote holds.
So I believe that I only have to bring up one point to demonstrate that Pro won the argument point.
Con says
"I literally say "AS A CHRISTIAN, however, I am against it." I specifically say "as a christian" to denote a separate belief from politics."
I actually reread this several times because I thought for sure that I must have been reading it incorrectly. But I wasn't. Con outright admitted the debate topic here. Since at least one of his professed political views directly matches his professed Christian views, Con has effectively given the debate to Pro.
Just for completeness, I will also mention that Pro laid the groundwork for this admission in the first round by rightly pointing out specific instances of political views that tend to match Christian values. Most notably, the point about civil unions was damning. this by itself was not enough for the argument point, but combined with Con's admission, it's sufficient.
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 is a tough decision to render. It is not moderation's job to judge the rightness or wrongness of the verdict reached. That means that interpretive differences (including what meanings can be deduced or inferred from the text) are not with the scope of reviewable content in a vote. There is one exception to this: the voter actually lying about or blatantly misstating (intentionally or not) what transpired in the debate such that no reasonable person, reading carefully, could reach the conclusion they reached. This could be one of those times. The voter reaches a meaning based on a particular sentence, the literal meaning of which in no way matches the voter's interpretation thereof. The difficulty for moderation, however, comes when the voter talks about alignment or matching of views, which may be supported by that sentence (among others). If the voter is 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. The BOP analysis is borderline enough that moderation must default to treating it as sufficient. That being said, the voter does not address any counterarguments made by Con, which the voter must do. Therefore, the vote as a whole is insufficient. The voter may re-vote sufficiently by addressing counterarguments made by Con.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Wrick-It-Ralph // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Con
>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.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Wrick-It-Ralph // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: Tied.
>Reason for Mod Action: Votes which do not award points are not subject to review because no standard exists in the COC against by which they can be removed.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Wrick-It-Ralph // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: Tied.
>Reason for Mod Action: Votes which do not award points are not subject to review because no standard exists in the COC against by which they can be removed.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Wrick-It-Ralph // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: Tied.
>Reason for Mod Action: Votes which do not award points are not subject to review because no standard exists in the COC against by which they can be removed.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Wrick-It-Ralph // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: Tied.
>Reason for Mod Action: Votes which do not award points are not subject to review because no standard exists in the COC against by which they can be removed.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Wrick-It-Ralph // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: Tied.
>Reason for Mod Action: Votes which do not award points are not subject to review because no standard exists in the COC against by which they can be removed.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Wrick-It-Ralph // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: Tied.
>Reason for Mod Action: Votes which do not award points are not subject to review because no standard exists in the COC against by which they can be removed.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Wrick-it-Ralph // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Con for arguments and conduct
>Reason for Decision: See Ramshutu's vote
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter may not copy and paste votes or parts of votes cast by other voters. Doing so is essentially spam voting, and allowing such votes to stand would facilitate such wrongful practices as votebombing and vote rigging.
************************************************************************
We are aware of the issue. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Wrick-it-Ralph // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con for arguments
>Reason for Decision: See Pinkfreud08's vote
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter may not copy and paste votes or parts of votes cast by other voters. Doing so is essentially spam voting, and allowing such votes to stand would facilitate such wrongful practices as votebombing and vote rigging.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Our_Boat_is_Right // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con for conduct
>Reason for Decision: Pro forfeited first, which perhaps led con to think pro wasn't interested in debating, and hence, forfeited. Pro initiated it..
>Reason for Mod Action: As both debaters forfeited all 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: RationalMadman // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Pro for conduct
>Reason for Decision: Conduct to Type1 because he forfeited for being away but Sparrow was here online during the last Round and as evidenced by site-activity in other debates and comments.
Sparrow actively forfeited, oh how horrendous!
>Reason for Mod Action: As both debaters forfeited all 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: Our_Boat_is_Right // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: None.
>Reason for Mod Action: Votes which do not award points are not subject to review because no standard exists in the COC against by which they can be removed.
************************************************************************
Lol.
I don't do awards exactly, but I am sure your efforts are appreciated.
He needs to post it here himself.
Only Sparrow can give his consent.
PM me.
(That's not really a suggestion, btw.)
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con for arguments
>Reason for Mod Action: This debate is a concession. Per the site's voting policy, conceded debates are not moderated unless the voter voted for the conceding side.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Isaiahdude543 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Pro for arguments and conduct, 2 points to Con for sources
>Reason for Decision: Both arguments were convincing but pro was better
>Reason for Mod Action: 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 conduct points, the voter must (1) give explicit examples of misconduct, (2) show how this misconduct was either excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate, and (3) compare each debater's conduct in the debate. For all points awarded, the voter performs none of the requisite steps to award those points. The voter can access site voting policy here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: IsaiahDude543 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Pro
>Reason for Decision: Big V all the way
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter re-voted in a way that can only be interpreted as a deliberate choice to ignore site voting policy, which was explained to him when his previous vote was removed. Further attempts to vote without making any genuine effort to meet the standards set out in the site's voting policy will result in the loss of the voter's voting privileges.
************************************************************************
I am the site's Chief Moderator.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Dustandashes // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro for arguments
>Reason for Decision: So I came to this debate with a totally open mind, I didn't have a particular opinion about this matter. This was a fantastic debate and both debaters cleary know what they are talking about. In honestly, I believe blamonkey did a fantastic job of working within the framework of consequentialism. Dare I say he might have done a better job at this than virtuoso... On the surface. What was not negated however was the resolution. I feel virtuoso conclusively proved in his opening statement that plea bargaining is indeed a miscarriage of justice. Regardless of what would happen to this prison system if we were to abolish plea bargaining is not nearly as bad a consequence as innocent people going to prison. So I feel, although this debate was really close, virtuoso took this one. Thank you guys
>Reason for Mod Action: 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 performs none of these steps; therefore, their vote is insufficient. The voter may re-vote by performing these steps. The voter can access site voting policy here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: IsaiahDude543 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Pro for arguments and conduct, 2 points to Con for sources
>Reason for Decision: I feel that this is the right choice
>Reason for Mod Action: 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 conduct points, the voter must (1) give explicit examples of misconduct, (2) show how this misconduct was either excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate, and (3) compare each debater's conduct in the debate. For all points awarded, the voter performs none of the requisite steps to award those points. The voter can access site voting policy here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
************************************************************************
Vsp has asked for this debate to be deleted. May I have your consent to do so.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Virtuoso // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Pro for conduct, 3 points to Con for arguments
>Reason for Mod Action: Conceded debates are not moderated unless the voter votes for the conceding debate. Since the balance of points in this vote is going to the non-conceding party, this vote is not eligible for moderation.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ramshutu // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Con
>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.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Pro for conduct
>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.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ramshutu // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Pro
>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.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Pro
>Reason for Decision: Today is a great day. Speedrace's rap felt forced. The fact Wrick would concede was such a great metaphor for how little he has to try vs speedrace.
Wow speedrace, you tried too hard.
#ramshuturapbattlevotes
#speedrace
#trolldebatevotesarenotmoderated
>Reason for Mod Action: This vote presents a bit of a quandary. On the one hand, it is a troll debate, and they are not moderated. On the other hand, it is a conceded debate which, according to the site's voting policy, "are not moderated unless a voter votes for the side that concedes." Clearly, most votes on this debate would not be moderated, but depending on whether it should be classified first as a troll debate or first as a concede debate, there may or may not be cause to moderate certain votes on the debate itself. The question then becomes: which model of interpretation (troll or concession) takes precedence when they conflict? Given the principle that a concession equates to a loss, albeit a gracious one, which is rooted in a basic notion of fairness, moderation rules that the concession model takes precedence. Therefore, because the voter voted for the conceding side, the vote is moderatable and removable.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: coal // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro
>Reason for Decision: PRO won the debate because he successfully showed that based on what is good for the US militarily and economically, and the international community more generally; is best served by Israel's alliance with the US. Very few of the harms cited by CON were attributable to the US-Israel alliance. Most of CON's rebuttals talked past PRO.
>Reason for Mod Action: To award argument points, a voter must complete all three steps set out in the site's voting 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. The voter completes none of these steps. It is not clear how Pro "successfully showed" that Israel is a good ally from this vote due to a lack of analysis of the main arguments and due to a lack of any explicit weighing based on such analysis. While the voter may have performed these steps in their own reasoning, these steps must be detailed explicitly in the vote itself. The voter can find the site's complete voting policy here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: K_Michael // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Con
>Reason for Decision: "mash potatoes are gross" isn't a debate. It could have been put in the comments. R2 was effectively forfeited/waived by Pro. Combined with R3 forfeit, 2/3 forfeits; conduct to Con.
Pro mostly named traits and characteristics of animals that suited their environments, coupled with a claim that a being had to have intelligently created those animals with their features. His claim is unfounded, and all traits, as far as I could tell, had equal claims to natural selection. BoP requires a claim with more basis than an opposite claim. Even if there is a basis, Pro needs to show them. Argument to Con.
Pro's sources described animal characteristics, not corroborated claims. Con's sources showed relevant theories and definitions. Sources to Con.
Pro leaves off proper capitalizations and punctuation.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter fails to sufficiently justify awarding sources and S/G points. To award sources, the voter must (1) explain how the sources impacted the debate, (2) analyze at least one source specifically, and (3) compare each debaters' source and use of them. The voter only performs the third task. To award S/G, the voter must (1) give specific examples of S/G errors, (2) explain how these errors were excessive, and (3) compare each debater's S/G. The voter does none of these tasks. Argument points were borderline, which means we default to treating them as sufficient. Conduct points were sufficient.
************************************************************************
This is not a full forfeit.
The vote was not moderated. The handle sign was ticked after the period closed. I am aware of the dubiousness of the vote, and it should not happen again.
Done.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con for arguments
>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.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 6 points to Con for arguments, sources, and conduct
>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.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Pro for arguments and conduct
>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.
************************************************************************