*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // 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: K_Michael // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro 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. In this case, Con, having forfeited most, is the forfeiting side.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Our_Boat_is_Right // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 6 points to Con for arguments, sources, and conduct
>Reason for Decision: Con provided arguments and statistics to back up his claims, while pro forfeited and when he did debate, he barely responded to con and went on his own tangent, which is not a proper debating technique.
>Reason for Mod Action: Argument and sources points are not sufficiently justified. The voter completes none of the three steps to award argument points and none of the three steps to award sources points. Those steps can be located here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
************************************************************************
Your opinions do matter. Any voter can vote however they choose so long as they adequately explain their voting decision and so long as they are not engaged in cheating. There are site rules (linked below) which determine what constitutes and adequate or sufficient explanation for a voting decision. These rules are fairly broad, and they are broad precisely because we do not wish to circumscribe the range of opinions open to voters. To put it another way, moderation does not adjudicate voters on how they voted (which is the "opinion") but rather the extent to which their articulation of their voting decision met the baselines rules for sufficiency. We do not moderate against opinions, only how well they were explained.
Comments are not judged to be part of an voting decision unless so stated explicitly within the vote itself. Therefore, I was not permitted to include them in my review of your vote. The adjustment I encouraged you to make for your vote was relatively minor, and could have been accomplished in a sentence or two.
I am sorry that you find this to be an abuse of power, but, in fact, it was a simple application of the rules of the site, and was clearly explained in my moderation verdict post. Quitting the site over this is an overreaction, and I hope you will reconsider. Nevertheless, the decision stands. You are always free to re-vote if you wish to comply with site rules.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Our_Boat_Is_Right // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con for conduct
> Reason for Decision: "Now he can shut up about me not accepting a debate on the topic and realise that unfair rules in a debate can rig it for a winner easily.
Please stop harasssing me with your bullshit 'waaa waa you rap too well' votes in all troll debates too."
This use of profanity and toxicity towards con was rude and disrespectful because pro attacks con half-mockingly. This was also unacceptable because in the rules it says "con waives first round, pro waives final round." RM does not waive final round, makes a couple rebuttals, and mocks pro without pro having the chance to respond.
>Reason for Mod Action: This is mostly sufficient, and there is an easy fix to bring it in full compliance with the standards for awarding conduct. The voter must simply compare Con's conduct with Pro's. That's probably another sentence, so it's no biggie.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: omar2345 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con for sources and conduct
>Reason for Decision: The instigator used sources so basically a source is better than no source.
Pro also kept it to the debate while the contender called Pro a "Jew". Bad conduct.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter does not sufficiently justify any of the points they award. If one debater offers no sources, the comparative analysis between sources is not necessary, but it remains necessary to perform the other steps required to award sources points, namely: explaining how the sources that were used impacted the debate and assessing at least one source specifically for its strengths or weaknesses. On the conduct point, there is no comparative analysis between the debaters' conduct, and the voter does not "demonstrate 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."
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: omar2345 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con for arguments
>Reason for Decision: "The fastest way to become an atheist is to be born to atheist parents who force it upon you from a young age."
I don't think I need to say any-more.
>Reason for Mod Action: Unfortunately, the voter does need to say more. 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.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ramshutu // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: Only con offered an argument. Arguments 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.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Club // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro for arguments
>Reason for Decision: Con failed to state many arguments that could've possible helped him.
>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
************************************************************************
The voter does not need to award all points on the ballot, nor do they need to provide any reason for not awarding points, generally speaking. Lacking the "attention span" to do so is perfectly permissible.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Our_Boat_Is_Right // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: Pro did not waive the last round and used profanity towards Con. All the others were tied because I don't have the attention span to completely analyze a full debate.
>Reason for Mod Action: Upon review, the voter did not (1) references specific instances of poor conduct or (2) explain how that poor conduct was "excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate." To cast a sufficient vote, the voter should cite a specific use of profanity and should then briefly explain why the use of profanity was excessively rude.
************************************************************************
4) Pros rebuttals of the historicity of Pythagoras, Alexander the Great, etc for me fell short for one reason: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (Carl Sagan). If Pythagoras never existed, I could care less - the math still works. If Jesus never existed, there is an entire indoctrinated world view that would collapse and have enormous impacts on society. His argument just isn't convincing when we're referring to a messianic figure.
In the end, pro's arguments all came down to unverifiable non-contemporary testimony. This is not extraordinary evidence and it is not compelling for the existence of Jesus. I feel that pro failed on every attempt to meet the burden of proof, and that is why I have to give this debate to con. I tied them on sources and spelling/grammar because I think they both did a good job of conveying their arguments.
Ok, so this is a subject I'm fairly familiar with, and I enjoyed reading their arguments & rebuttals. That being said, I feel this was a clear win for con, for many reasons which I will outline below.
1) Pro came into this argument citing a source with known historical interpolation issues, which I find either dishonest or lazy. The Josephus account is clearly an interpolation made by a Christian who is transcribing the text from a previous source. Even numerous Christian scholars agree this is not a good extra-biblical account for Jesus's historicity. Answers in Genesis also recommends not using Josephus as a source. Furthermore, historians such as Robert Price, DM Murdock, Richard Carrier and others have argued that the writing style is different from Josephus, once again, demonstrating its failures in authenticity. I did not in any way find this argument compelling or creative. I do wish both pro and con would have delved deeper into this, but I certainly had to side with con on this. Because of these sources, I gave con the point for conduct.
2) Pro cited Tacitus as another source. Even if it is a legit source, it was not contemporary, as con pointed out.
3) Con required pro to cite a more parsimonious explanation as to the rise of Christianity, assuming it did not come from a literal Christ figure. As con, pointed out, providing a new hypothesis is not a requirement in order to disprove an existing one, but he provided one anyways. I think con's example of how it was derived from Judaism as a product of active attempts to fulfill a prophecy goal makes more sense and actually is more parsimonious. New religions popped up constantly in this area and it's neighboring tribes; many of the ideas were amalgamated. Using Occam's razor, I find this option much more parsimonious than pros failed attempts to show that his was the one of many that were actually true.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: killshot // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Con for arguments and conduct
>Reason for Decision: Posted above.
>Reason for Mod Action: The justification of argument points is sufficient. However, the point awarded for conduct is not explained in sufficiently-conduct related terms. The voter's explanation makes the issue one more central to sources than conduct. The voter can re-cast a sufficient vote by awarding sources points instead of conduct points for the Josephus issue, or by rewording the justification to make it more centrally an issue of conduct.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Our_Boat_Is_Right // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 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: Omar2345 // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con for arguments
>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: Omar2345 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con for conduct
>Reason for Decision: The instigator did not forfeit which is why he is winning the conduct point and the contender is losing it.
>Reason for Mod Action: Per the site's voting policy: "a debater may award conduct points solely for forfeited rounds, but only if one debater forfeited half or more of their rounds or if the voter also awards argument points." Since the voter only awarded conduct points (and not also arguments) and since only 1 out of 4 rounds was forfeited, the voter is not entitled to award conduct points solely on the basis of the forfeit.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: omar2345 // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con for conduct
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was borderline. By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Pinkfreud08 // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 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: Pinkfreud08 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Pro for conduct
>Reason for Decision: Con waived the last round
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter erroneously states that Con waived. In fact, Pro waived. The voter can recast a correct vote by assigning points to the non-waiving debater.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Pinkfreud08 // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 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: Pinkfreud08 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con for conduct
>Reason for Decision: Pro ff a round, this is poor conduct
>Reason for Mod Action: Per the site's voting policy: "a debater may award conduct points solely for forfeited rounds, but only if one debater forfeited half or more of their rounds or if the voter also awards argument points." Since the voter only awarded conduct points (and not also arguments) and since only 1 out of 4 rounds was forfeited, the voter is not entitled to award conduct points solely on the basis of the forfeit.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Pinkfreud08 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con for arguments
>Reason for Decision: Pro FF a round in the middle of the debate which entirely brought the debate to a halt which hindered the pace and the conversation.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter does not meet any of the three criteria for awarding argument points, which are: surveying the main arguments, weighing those arguments, producing a verdict.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: omar2345 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Pro for arguments and conduct
>Reason for Decision: The instigator did not forfeit.
The only one to substantiate their point was the instigator while the contender was staking making claims with no explanation. This is why the instigator made the more convincing argument. I can't fill in the gaps of the contender's argument. It is up to the contender to explain his side which the instigator was perfectly capable of doing.
>Reason for Mod Action: I get the temptation to, in a round of this length, not survey the main arguments specifically, but that urge does not negate the voter's responsibility to do so. The voter does engage in weighing to the extent the seem to find one side's arguments better warranted and thus of greater weight. The voter can re-cast a sufficient vote by simply stating what the main (counter)arguments were in the debate, inasmuch as Con did make some arguments. This is an easy fix.
************************************************************************
What I am saying is that you cannot cast votes based only on someone forfeiting a minority of a debate's rounds. It has nothing to do with which category the points come from.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Pinkfreud08 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Pro for conduct
>Reason for Decision: Con ff a round, this is poor conduct
>Reason for Mod Action: Per the site's voting policy: "a debater may award conduct points solely for forfeited rounds, but only if one debater forfeited half or more of their rounds or if the voter also awards argument points." Since the voter only awarded conduct points (and not also arguments) and since only 1 out of 4 rounds was forfeited, the voter is not entitled to award conduct points solely on the basis of the forfeit.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Omar2345 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con for conduct
>Reason for Decision: The instigator forfeited the last Round. The contender did not forfeit any Round which is why the contender wins the conduct point.
>Reason for Mod Action: Per the site's voting policy: "a debater may award conduct points solely for forfeited rounds, but only if one debater forfeited half or more of their rounds or if the voter also awards argument points." Since the voter only awarded conduct points (and not also arguments) and since only 1 out of 4 rounds was forfeited, the voter is not entitled to award conduct points solely on the basis of the forfeit.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Pinkfreud08 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con for conduct
>Reason for Decision: Pro ff the last round, this is poor conduct
>Reason for Mod Action: Per the site's voting policy: "a debater may award conduct points solely for forfeited rounds, but only if one debater forfeited half or more of their rounds or if the voter also awards argument points." Since the voter only awarded conduct points (and not also arguments) and since only 1 out of 4 rounds was forfeited, the voter is not entitled to award conduct points solely on the basis of the forfeit.
************************************************************************
I don't need to delete it, since a tie vote is not net-harmful to either side. If you're willing to leave it a tie vote, I can keep it. If you want it gone, I can delete it.
Did you intend to cast a straight tie vote? Seems like you wanted to award conduct, but forgot to. Do you want me to delete it so that you can re-cast it?
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Oromagi // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Pro
>Reason for Decision: Full forfeit
>Reason for Mod Action: It is not a full forfeit--Con did make arguments in Round 2. In order to award points beyond conduct, Con's R2 remarks must be addressed.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Pinkfrued08 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con for conduct
>Reason for Decision: Con FF half of the rounds, this is poor conduct
>Reason for Mod Action: This RFD would be fine, except that Con, who the voter says engaged in poor conduct, is the one who gets the conduct point. This was likely just a mistake by the voter. Awarding the point to Pro would correct the vote.
************************************************************************
>> There’s no discussion on how it impacted the debate
I already addressed this in comment 138. I said: "He argues that the anecdotal nature of the evidence you presented undermined your argument. So, yes, he does explain how sources impacted the debate." This was for the voter both an issue of sourcing/evidence and argumentation. The vote is borderline, but I do not believe there is a clear-cut case for removing it.
Rule changes aren't indicated at this time. The rules are not there to ensure that all votes are "good," but merely to curb the most egregious kinds of failures voters can commit. In that respect, the standards constitute a floor, not a ceiling--a bare minimum--of what a vote must do.
Besides, you're shifting the goalposts. At first you allege that the voter wasn't properly justifying sources. That allegation was incorrect. Now you allege that the voter was "lying." These are not the same objections. That you are changing your objections to overcome my responses to them suggests your issue is more about the verdict that the voter reached and less about the RFD itself. That's a dispute properly left to you and the voter to navigate, and is not the legitimate purview of moderation to review.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: omar2345 // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro for arguments
>Reason for Decision: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
*******************************************************************
>> He does not explain how my sources impacted the debate
He argues that the anecdotal nature of the evidence you presented undermined your argument. So, yes, he does explain how sources impacted the debate.
>> The voter does not directly evaluate one source.
The voter directly evaluates several sources. The voter made these evaluations when they wrote: "PRO provided highly questionable sources like infowars, stonecoldtruth and project veritas. Each one of these are known conspiracy theory websites."
Your definition of source is overly narrow. "Source" does not necessarily mean the underlying data, but at a minimum means the reporter of the information. CNN is a news "source," even if it is not itself the underlying data it reports.
The voter surveyed those arguments that they judged to be the main arguments, met all 3 criteria for awarding sources, and justified the conduct points. It may or may not be a good vote, but it is not a removable one.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // 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.
************************************************************************
Did you forget to award points again, lol?
You will need to be more specific, but, from what I know, it was far more than tie votes.
Removed, per request.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: K_Michael // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro 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. In this case, Con, having forfeited most, is the forfeiting side.
************************************************************************
Plus, this is a full forfeit, so it wouldn't be moderated anyway, so long as people voted Pro.
Ties will not be removed, as they are harmful to neither debater.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Our_Boat_is_Right // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 6 points to Con for arguments, sources, and conduct
>Reason for Decision: Con provided arguments and statistics to back up his claims, while pro forfeited and when he did debate, he barely responded to con and went on his own tangent, which is not a proper debating technique.
>Reason for Mod Action: Argument and sources points are not sufficiently justified. The voter completes none of the three steps to award argument points and none of the three steps to award sources points. Those steps can be located here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
************************************************************************
Whoops! Thanks. I totally spaced.
Done.
Your opinions do matter. Any voter can vote however they choose so long as they adequately explain their voting decision and so long as they are not engaged in cheating. There are site rules (linked below) which determine what constitutes and adequate or sufficient explanation for a voting decision. These rules are fairly broad, and they are broad precisely because we do not wish to circumscribe the range of opinions open to voters. To put it another way, moderation does not adjudicate voters on how they voted (which is the "opinion") but rather the extent to which their articulation of their voting decision met the baselines rules for sufficiency. We do not moderate against opinions, only how well they were explained.
Comments are not judged to be part of an voting decision unless so stated explicitly within the vote itself. Therefore, I was not permitted to include them in my review of your vote. The adjustment I encouraged you to make for your vote was relatively minor, and could have been accomplished in a sentence or two.
I am sorry that you find this to be an abuse of power, but, in fact, it was a simple application of the rules of the site, and was clearly explained in my moderation verdict post. Quitting the site over this is an overreaction, and I hope you will reconsider. Nevertheless, the decision stands. You are always free to re-vote if you wish to comply with site rules.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Our_Boat_Is_Right // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con for conduct
> Reason for Decision: "Now he can shut up about me not accepting a debate on the topic and realise that unfair rules in a debate can rig it for a winner easily.
Please stop harasssing me with your bullshit 'waaa waa you rap too well' votes in all troll debates too."
This use of profanity and toxicity towards con was rude and disrespectful because pro attacks con half-mockingly. This was also unacceptable because in the rules it says "con waives first round, pro waives final round." RM does not waive final round, makes a couple rebuttals, and mocks pro without pro having the chance to respond.
>Reason for Mod Action: This is mostly sufficient, and there is an easy fix to bring it in full compliance with the standards for awarding conduct. The voter must simply compare Con's conduct with Pro's. That's probably another sentence, so it's no biggie.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: omar2345 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con for sources and conduct
>Reason for Decision: The instigator used sources so basically a source is better than no source.
Pro also kept it to the debate while the contender called Pro a "Jew". Bad conduct.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter does not sufficiently justify any of the points they award. If one debater offers no sources, the comparative analysis between sources is not necessary, but it remains necessary to perform the other steps required to award sources points, namely: explaining how the sources that were used impacted the debate and assessing at least one source specifically for its strengths or weaknesses. On the conduct point, there is no comparative analysis between the debaters' conduct, and the voter does not "demonstrate 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."
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: omar2345 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con for arguments
>Reason for Decision: "The fastest way to become an atheist is to be born to atheist parents who force it upon you from a young age."
I don't think I need to say any-more.
>Reason for Mod Action: Unfortunately, the voter does need to say more. 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.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ramshutu // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: Only con offered an argument. Arguments 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.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Club // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro for arguments
>Reason for Decision: Con failed to state many arguments that could've possible helped him.
>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
************************************************************************
No, you cannot copy and paste another person's RFD.
Also, see below.
The voter does not need to award all points on the ballot, nor do they need to provide any reason for not awarding points, generally speaking. Lacking the "attention span" to do so is perfectly permissible.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Our_Boat_Is_Right // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: Pro did not waive the last round and used profanity towards Con. All the others were tied because I don't have the attention span to completely analyze a full debate.
>Reason for Mod Action: Upon review, the voter did not (1) references specific instances of poor conduct or (2) explain how that poor conduct was "excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate." To cast a sufficient vote, the voter should cite a specific use of profanity and should then briefly explain why the use of profanity was excessively rude.
************************************************************************
Yeah, I probably did rush to judgement on that one. I'll interpret your remarks as a request to review my decision.
Killshots RFD (2/2)
4) Pros rebuttals of the historicity of Pythagoras, Alexander the Great, etc for me fell short for one reason: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (Carl Sagan). If Pythagoras never existed, I could care less - the math still works. If Jesus never existed, there is an entire indoctrinated world view that would collapse and have enormous impacts on society. His argument just isn't convincing when we're referring to a messianic figure.
In the end, pro's arguments all came down to unverifiable non-contemporary testimony. This is not extraordinary evidence and it is not compelling for the existence of Jesus. I feel that pro failed on every attempt to meet the burden of proof, and that is why I have to give this debate to con. I tied them on sources and spelling/grammar because I think they both did a good job of conveying their arguments.
Killshot's RFD (1/2)
Ok, so this is a subject I'm fairly familiar with, and I enjoyed reading their arguments & rebuttals. That being said, I feel this was a clear win for con, for many reasons which I will outline below.
1) Pro came into this argument citing a source with known historical interpolation issues, which I find either dishonest or lazy. The Josephus account is clearly an interpolation made by a Christian who is transcribing the text from a previous source. Even numerous Christian scholars agree this is not a good extra-biblical account for Jesus's historicity. Answers in Genesis also recommends not using Josephus as a source. Furthermore, historians such as Robert Price, DM Murdock, Richard Carrier and others have argued that the writing style is different from Josephus, once again, demonstrating its failures in authenticity. I did not in any way find this argument compelling or creative. I do wish both pro and con would have delved deeper into this, but I certainly had to side with con on this. Because of these sources, I gave con the point for conduct.
2) Pro cited Tacitus as another source. Even if it is a legit source, it was not contemporary, as con pointed out.
3) Con required pro to cite a more parsimonious explanation as to the rise of Christianity, assuming it did not come from a literal Christ figure. As con, pointed out, providing a new hypothesis is not a requirement in order to disprove an existing one, but he provided one anyways. I think con's example of how it was derived from Judaism as a product of active attempts to fulfill a prophecy goal makes more sense and actually is more parsimonious. New religions popped up constantly in this area and it's neighboring tribes; many of the ideas were amalgamated. Using Occam's razor, I find this option much more parsimonious than pros failed attempts to show that his was the one of many that were actually true.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: killshot // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Con for arguments and conduct
>Reason for Decision: Posted above.
>Reason for Mod Action: The justification of argument points is sufficient. However, the point awarded for conduct is not explained in sufficiently-conduct related terms. The voter's explanation makes the issue one more central to sources than conduct. The voter can re-cast a sufficient vote by awarding sources points instead of conduct points for the Josephus issue, or by rewording the justification to make it more centrally an issue of conduct.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Our_Boat_Is_Right // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 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: Omar2345 // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con for arguments
>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: Omar2345 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con for conduct
>Reason for Decision: The instigator did not forfeit which is why he is winning the conduct point and the contender is losing it.
>Reason for Mod Action: Per the site's voting policy: "a debater may award conduct points solely for forfeited rounds, but only if one debater forfeited half or more of their rounds or if the voter also awards argument points." Since the voter only awarded conduct points (and not also arguments) and since only 1 out of 4 rounds was forfeited, the voter is not entitled to award conduct points solely on the basis of the forfeit.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: omar2345 // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con for conduct
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was borderline. By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Pinkfreud08 // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 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: Pinkfreud08 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Pro for conduct
>Reason for Decision: Con waived the last round
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter erroneously states that Con waived. In fact, Pro waived. The voter can recast a correct vote by assigning points to the non-waiving debater.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Pinkfreud08 // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 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: Pinkfreud08 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con for conduct
>Reason for Decision: Pro ff a round, this is poor conduct
>Reason for Mod Action: Per the site's voting policy: "a debater may award conduct points solely for forfeited rounds, but only if one debater forfeited half or more of their rounds or if the voter also awards argument points." Since the voter only awarded conduct points (and not also arguments) and since only 1 out of 4 rounds was forfeited, the voter is not entitled to award conduct points solely on the basis of the forfeit.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Pinkfreud08 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con for arguments
>Reason for Decision: Pro FF a round in the middle of the debate which entirely brought the debate to a halt which hindered the pace and the conversation.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter does not meet any of the three criteria for awarding argument points, which are: surveying the main arguments, weighing those arguments, producing a verdict.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: omar2345 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Pro for arguments and conduct
>Reason for Decision: The instigator did not forfeit.
The only one to substantiate their point was the instigator while the contender was staking making claims with no explanation. This is why the instigator made the more convincing argument. I can't fill in the gaps of the contender's argument. It is up to the contender to explain his side which the instigator was perfectly capable of doing.
>Reason for Mod Action: I get the temptation to, in a round of this length, not survey the main arguments specifically, but that urge does not negate the voter's responsibility to do so. The voter does engage in weighing to the extent the seem to find one side's arguments better warranted and thus of greater weight. The voter can re-cast a sufficient vote by simply stating what the main (counter)arguments were in the debate, inasmuch as Con did make some arguments. This is an easy fix.
************************************************************************
It's alright. Just keep it in mind.
What I am saying is that you cannot cast votes based only on someone forfeiting a minority of a debate's rounds. It has nothing to do with which category the points come from.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Pinkfreud08 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Pro for conduct
>Reason for Decision: Con ff a round, this is poor conduct
>Reason for Mod Action: Per the site's voting policy: "a debater may award conduct points solely for forfeited rounds, but only if one debater forfeited half or more of their rounds or if the voter also awards argument points." Since the voter only awarded conduct points (and not also arguments) and since only 1 out of 4 rounds was forfeited, the voter is not entitled to award conduct points solely on the basis of the forfeit.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Omar2345 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con for conduct
>Reason for Decision: The instigator forfeited the last Round. The contender did not forfeit any Round which is why the contender wins the conduct point.
>Reason for Mod Action: Per the site's voting policy: "a debater may award conduct points solely for forfeited rounds, but only if one debater forfeited half or more of their rounds or if the voter also awards argument points." Since the voter only awarded conduct points (and not also arguments) and since only 1 out of 4 rounds was forfeited, the voter is not entitled to award conduct points solely on the basis of the forfeit.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Pinkfreud08 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con for conduct
>Reason for Decision: Pro ff the last round, this is poor conduct
>Reason for Mod Action: Per the site's voting policy: "a debater may award conduct points solely for forfeited rounds, but only if one debater forfeited half or more of their rounds or if the voter also awards argument points." Since the voter only awarded conduct points (and not also arguments) and since only 1 out of 4 rounds was forfeited, the voter is not entitled to award conduct points solely on the basis of the forfeit.
************************************************************************
I don't need to delete it, since a tie vote is not net-harmful to either side. If you're willing to leave it a tie vote, I can keep it. If you want it gone, I can delete it.
Would you like to re-vote, or leave it as-is?
Did you intend to cast a straight tie vote? Seems like you wanted to award conduct, but forgot to. Do you want me to delete it so that you can re-cast it?
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Oromagi // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Pro
>Reason for Decision: Full forfeit
>Reason for Mod Action: It is not a full forfeit--Con did make arguments in Round 2. In order to award points beyond conduct, Con's R2 remarks must be addressed.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Pinkfrued08 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con for conduct
>Reason for Decision: Con FF half of the rounds, this is poor conduct
>Reason for Mod Action: This RFD would be fine, except that Con, who the voter says engaged in poor conduct, is the one who gets the conduct point. This was likely just a mistake by the voter. Awarding the point to Pro would correct the vote.
************************************************************************
>> There’s no discussion on how it impacted the debate
I already addressed this in comment 138. I said: "He argues that the anecdotal nature of the evidence you presented undermined your argument. So, yes, he does explain how sources impacted the debate." This was for the voter both an issue of sourcing/evidence and argumentation. The vote is borderline, but I do not believe there is a clear-cut case for removing it.
Rule changes aren't indicated at this time. The rules are not there to ensure that all votes are "good," but merely to curb the most egregious kinds of failures voters can commit. In that respect, the standards constitute a floor, not a ceiling--a bare minimum--of what a vote must do.
Besides, you're shifting the goalposts. At first you allege that the voter wasn't properly justifying sources. That allegation was incorrect. Now you allege that the voter was "lying." These are not the same objections. That you are changing your objections to overcome my responses to them suggests your issue is more about the verdict that the voter reached and less about the RFD itself. That's a dispute properly left to you and the voter to navigate, and is not the legitimate purview of moderation to review.
>> he was talking about the argument, not sources.
He was talking about both.
>> He does not expand on the conspiracy claim.
The rules do not require him to expand on this claim in-depth. What he has is sufficient to meet the standard.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: omar2345 // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro for arguments
>Reason for Decision: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
*******************************************************************
>> He does not explain how my sources impacted the debate
He argues that the anecdotal nature of the evidence you presented undermined your argument. So, yes, he does explain how sources impacted the debate.
>> The voter does not directly evaluate one source.
The voter directly evaluates several sources. The voter made these evaluations when they wrote: "PRO provided highly questionable sources like infowars, stonecoldtruth and project veritas. Each one of these are known conspiracy theory websites."
Your definition of source is overly narrow. "Source" does not necessarily mean the underlying data, but at a minimum means the reporter of the information. CNN is a news "source," even if it is not itself the underlying data it reports.
The voter surveyed those arguments that they judged to be the main arguments, met all 3 criteria for awarding sources, and justified the conduct points. It may or may not be a good vote, but it is not a removable one.
Thx. U 2.