Regarding the "flaws," since Virt conceded to the existence of "raw, purposeless evil," in the context of the debate, he could not make the argument that I was treating myself as omniscient, as any such reply could be turned on him in equal measure. Strategically, my argument was the right move, because Virt has locked himself in to agree that such evil existed. Whether some evil has a reason or not, whether we can know God's intentions or not, Virt made the concession, and so, for the purposes of the debate, it is true that purposeless evil exists.
I mention this only to point out that the debate needs to be examined in isolation of your own opinions of the arguments made. Debaters are making strategic decision in reaction to and in anticipation of their opponents moves. To impose your own views of the arguments on the debate fundamentally misunderstands how the debate plays out--debaters cannot possibly anticipate or reply to every counterargument or every argument out their, including the ones you've made. They can and should only be held to account for how they reacted to their opponent's specific moves, because only those arguments "count" inside the debate. Had your arguments been introduced in the debate, I would have responded differently (perhaps by playing up the K), but I, and any debater, can only be reasonably expected to engage with the arguments before them, not the arguments which are not before them.
That said, I am not going to get into a broader discussion about the merits of my arguments. I am simply not interested in debating my case in the comments. This is not an issue I am particularly passionate about, and one which I think is rather pointless to debate. I did this debate as a personal challenge to myself and to honor a request made of me by my opponent to do this debate.
As Virt notes, career debaters in real-life leagues often make arguments they don't believe in. A debate is a competition, a game, and, within the rules, you make whatever strategic decision best gains you an advantage. I don't conceptualize debates as proselytizing or defending my views, I conceptualize them as competitions.
The arguments I make in debates should not be construed to be ones I believe in. I respond to the arguments in the round as I see best, and the debate can only be judged by what was said within the debate itself, not by analysis, thoughts, or facts external to it.
Interesting debate. I appreciate doing it, so thanks. I think this will be the first and the last time I do this topic, however; at least for quite some time.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Batman485 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Pro
>Reason for Decision: Pro had a way better argument, and there is definite proof in his arguments. Con has provided a list of fantasies that he tells himself to justify not being in a religion.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter fails to justify all of their non-argument points, and their argument point justification is insufficient. To award argument points, the voter must survey the main arguments, analyze those arguments and how the played out in the debate, and then weigh those arguments to identify a winner.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Purple // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Con for arguments and conduct
>Reason for Decision: CON had the more convincing arguments and was able to conduct himself much clearer as well as being able to ask questions that PRO could not answer which pushed me towards CON.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter fails to sufficiently justify the points awarded. To award argument points, the voter must survey the main arguments, analyze those arguments and how the played out in the debate, and then weigh those arguments to identify a winner. To award Conduct points, the voter must either identify a forfeit, unfairness, or excessive misconduct.
************************************************************************
I thought that both debaters used good sources and there wasn't anything that stuck out enough in the spelling and grammar department to warrent anything other than a tie. Even though pro apologized for forfeiting a round, I still think that is bad enough to sway conduct in favor of con.
As far as the arguments themselves...
When it comes to the cosmological argument, I don't buy into con's claim that God is special pleading, because it makes eense to me that there had to always be some form of existence, and that is what "supreme being" means. We are talking about God after all.
As far as the moral argument, it seems to me that con concedes that there is objective morality, which couldn't be the case if there wasn't an "Absolute Truth". We are talking about God after all. That said, I think instigator's argument seems to be contingent on revealed scripture, and the description says we are not talking about that... either way, con claims that there can be objective morality which is nonsense because without Truth there is no objective anything.
The omnipotence argument seemed silly to me because the definition that con uses is not the definition that is backed by oxford. It seems to me that this is simply con's interpretation of what that means, which I can say is not really correct. I think instigator addresses this satisfactorily.
In the end, I think instigator argued better, but I must admit he is pretty much representing William Lane Craig's case. I don't think he is trying to hide this.
In the end, what is the question? Is it probable that God exists? Not only does it seem probable, it really seems necessary.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Mopac // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con for conduct, 3 points to Pro for arguments
>Reason for Decision: [posted above]
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter sufficiently justifies awarding conduct points by pointing to the forfeit. What is problematic about the vote is that the voter seems to insert analysis external to the debate into his vote, namely, that nothing can be objective without the "Truth." Nowhere does this seem present in the debate, and indeed, the voter fails to consider any counterarguments along the lines of objective morality at all. The voter must, per the site policy, assess both the main arguments and counterarguments in their RFD. As this is not done, the argument point justification is insufficient.
************************************************************************
It is clear that this debate was meant to troll anyone willing to participate in it. The debate topic was ridiculous prima facie and i can not see how a serious point could have ever been made from either side. This was made clear throughout Pro's arguments and i must take those statements into account when voting in the over all debate, however I will try to be as objective as possible when it comes to awarding points.
Points for convincing argument: (TIE) I can not award either side full points for their arguments due to the simple fact that neither had an argument that was good or serious enough to convince me that their argument is in anyway more valid than the other. It is exceedingly difficult to make a serious argument on a ridiculous topic.
Reliable Sources: (CON) While the merit of both Con's and Pro's arguments are dubious at best, Con did manage to use sources that have a reputation for being reliable, objective, and substantive in his argument; and did so in a way that didn't muddy up his stance.
Spelling and Grammar: (TIE) Based on my understanding, in regards to spelling and grammar, i can not categorically state whether or not one side's was significantly better then the others.
Conduct: (CON) When engaging in an amicable debate it is imperative that both sides refrain from using devious tactics which could taint the overall debate. This is especially true when it is the sole reason for instigating a debate. Debates should be used as a method of exchanging ideas in an effort to grow both parties understanding on a given topic. However even though Con seems to have accepted this debate in good faith, it seems that Pro's original intent was simply to score points. Neither side benefited from this debate and that is a fault i attribute to Pros conduct and therefore must award this point to Con.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Block19 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con for sources and conduct
>Reason for Decision: [posted above]
>Reason for Mod Action: Conduct was insufficiently justified as the voter failed to show the conduct violation was "excessive." Sources was insufficiently justified as the voter failed to analyze any source in particular and as the voter failed to make any comparative statement regarding each debater's use and/or quality of sources.
************************************************************************
Totalizing means to the exclusion of all else, in that context. So, to prioritize freedom to the exclusion of privacy or free speech to the exclusion of equality is problematic. There can also be degrees of "totalizingness."
I never declared myself the victor. I asked for the voters' votes. it is standard practice both IRL and online to urge or ask voters to vote for you at the conclusion of the debate.
In fact, it has always been moderation's position that by posting content from a PM with moderation, the discloser waives their privacy in that context: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/538?page=3&post_number=51
And, it is not a threat. I am offering to reveal screenshots confirming that I am innocent of the absurdity I've been accused of.
It did not happen, and I am more than happy to furnish photographic evidence to prove the point. Since Wylted has supposedly quoted from our PM, he has waived all privacy claims to the content of our PM.
You can disclose mod PMs so long as those PMs do not violate any other user's rights. That said, by doing so, you give the mod permission to reveal the contents of the PMs.
I feel quite out of my depth on this topic, tbh. Theology is a subject I find infinitely fascinating, but I have never had enough instruction or learning in it to feel comfortable discussing it in depth. I took this debate because I figured I'd challenge myself and because I figured I should do a theology debate at some point in my DDO/DART career. Granted it's interesting, but I'll be happy to get back to more familiar philosophical ground.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ramshutu // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con for conduct, 3 points to Pro for arguments
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Raltar // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 2 points to Con for sources
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Declan // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points to Con for arguments and sources
>Reason for Decision: Pro uses very unreliable sources while Con uses resources like NASA. Con provides good reason for his debates and explains it through science. The was bad conduct on both sides so I am leaving that a tie.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter fails to sufficiently ground both sources and argument points. To award sources points, the voter must explain the impact of the sources on the debate, which they do not do. To award argument points, the voter must survey the main arguments of the debate and weigh them to produce a decision. The voter does neither of these things. To cast a sufficient vote, the voter must explain the impact sources had on the debate, must survey the main arguments, and must weigh those arguments to determine a winner.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Raltar // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points to Pro for arguments and sources
>Reason for Decision: The sources used by Con (particularly Vox) were very biased and opinionated, rather than actual authoritative sources. Con also opens his arguments by claiming that gun control has been effective at reducing crime in other countries, yet provides no real evidence to support this, while ignoring high-crime nations with strict gun control like Mexico.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter fails to sufficiently justify awarding argument points. The voter fails to survey the main arguments in the debate and to weigh those arguments to produce a decision. The voter also fails to sufficiently justify awarding sources points. There is not comparison between the debaters in terms of source quality. The voter can recast a sufficient vote by surveying and weighing the key arguments of the debate to produce a verdict and then by comparing (or making a comparative statement re:) the quality of each debater's sources.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: nmvarco // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 2 points to Pro for sources, 1 point to Con for conduct
>Reason for Decision: Arguments are tied because pro was leading till last round but then forfeited.
Sources go to Pro for he gave unbiased sources unlike Con who kept stating notably left wing sources, such as Vox and CNN.
Conduct to con because pro forfeited.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter does not need to justify points which were not awarded. The voter fails to sufficiently justify awarding sources points. Site voting policy requires the voter to "explain how the sources impacted the debate, directly assessing the strength of at least one source, and explaining how it either strengthened or weakened the argument it was utilized for." The voter does not do this. Conduct points were sufficiently justified. The vote can cast a new, sufficient vote by assessing one source directly, by comparing the quality of sources between debaters, and by explaining how that source impacted the debate.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Mharman // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points to Pro for arguments and sources
>Reason for Decision: Con states that more guns does not mean less crime and that gun control does work. Con then gives sources. Pro states the exact opposite, and then gives his own sources. At the core of this debate, both sides made they're arguments, and they both gave their own statistics. This debate comes down to who's statistics were actually correct. To determine this, one must look at the sources both sides provided. Con used well-known left-wing outlets for sources, along with a college study. Pro used pro-gun sources, and a government crime report. With both sides providing biased sources, it comes down to their unbiased sources. Pro's unbiased source was the government crime report and Con's unbiased source was a Stanford University study. However, in general, a government report is more reliable than a college study. This means that Pro has better sources, and thus, a better argument.
>Reason for Mod Action: This vote was borderline. However, the vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Wyled // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Pro
>Reason for Decision: All of pro's arguments were dropped
>Reason for Mod Action: This is both a troll debate and a full forfeit. Votes on this debate will not be moderated.
************************************************************************
It fits the definition moderation uses in that it is primarily a humorous/facetious debate. This is evidenced both by the topic and the content of the debate. Exhibit 1: "Ducks enslave people to feed them bread."
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: SupaDudz // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Con
>Reasons for Decision: PRO made arguments, but they were refuted better by CON in an organized manner. I believe his arguments are more stronger and have relevancy to them
S&G to CON. Various errors and missed periods cause me to vote CON. Run on sentences that drag on too much
Conduct to CON. Summoning the Duck God and being at peace with them is just bad logic
>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: Raltar // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Con
>Reason for Mod Action: Troll debates are not moderated, per the site voting policy guidelines. No moderation action is appropriate on this vote.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ramshutu // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro for arguments
>Reason for Decision: Pro was the only side to meet the burden of proof. Con just agreed with Pro.
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con for arguments
>Reason for Decision: I don't think the source Con used was relevant to the debate. I don't care about water (wtf did water have to do with this?) I care about the debate at hand and how both sides approach is.
Pro is stating that chairs are concerned with the concern lacking towards words themselves, such as 'water' and 'sock'. Pro then says that because of this Sock would be better as 2 words and frankly was hinting at 'suck cock' if you follow how he was splitting the word up. It's a troll and a joke and the reason it lost is because Con points out that chairs seem to lack emotion and because people do care about words... Although the way he proved this was to only focus on water instead of socks, it still was sufficient to Kritik the angle that Pro took.
>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: Mharman // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con for arguments
>Reason for Decision: Argument to Con. Pro stated that sock should be two words. Con stated that it should not be. Unlike Pro, however, Con actually stated why sock should remain one word.
>Reason for Mod Action: Troll debates are not moderated, per the site voting policy guidelines. No moderation action is appropriate on this vote.
************************************************************************
Also, glad to see you went back and revised some of your other RFDs. Without commenting on their sufficiency per the rules, I can say that they were improved.
Violating the rules of the debate is typically grounds for conduct points, so if they used the letter "e," maybe it would be acceptable to award conduct in such a situation (so long as the violation was unfair or excessively rude). It might even be grounds for argument points if their opponent made some kind of theory argument on the rules violation, though that would be a stretch. But if the rule was something like "voters may only vote for Pro" it would immediately be disregarded by vote moderation.
Willing to drop a vote on this debate if you have time?
Thanks, Ram! Appreciate that you're taking a close look at it.
Regarding the "flaws," since Virt conceded to the existence of "raw, purposeless evil," in the context of the debate, he could not make the argument that I was treating myself as omniscient, as any such reply could be turned on him in equal measure. Strategically, my argument was the right move, because Virt has locked himself in to agree that such evil existed. Whether some evil has a reason or not, whether we can know God's intentions or not, Virt made the concession, and so, for the purposes of the debate, it is true that purposeless evil exists.
I mention this only to point out that the debate needs to be examined in isolation of your own opinions of the arguments made. Debaters are making strategic decision in reaction to and in anticipation of their opponents moves. To impose your own views of the arguments on the debate fundamentally misunderstands how the debate plays out--debaters cannot possibly anticipate or reply to every counterargument or every argument out their, including the ones you've made. They can and should only be held to account for how they reacted to their opponent's specific moves, because only those arguments "count" inside the debate. Had your arguments been introduced in the debate, I would have responded differently (perhaps by playing up the K), but I, and any debater, can only be reasonably expected to engage with the arguments before them, not the arguments which are not before them.
That said, I am not going to get into a broader discussion about the merits of my arguments. I am simply not interested in debating my case in the comments. This is not an issue I am particularly passionate about, and one which I think is rather pointless to debate. I did this debate as a personal challenge to myself and to honor a request made of me by my opponent to do this debate.
As Virt notes, career debaters in real-life leagues often make arguments they don't believe in. A debate is a competition, a game, and, within the rules, you make whatever strategic decision best gains you an advantage. I don't conceptualize debates as proselytizing or defending my views, I conceptualize them as competitions.
The arguments I make in debates should not be construed to be ones I believe in. I respond to the arguments in the round as I see best, and the debate can only be judged by what was said within the debate itself, not by analysis, thoughts, or facts external to it.
Interesting debate. I appreciate doing it, so thanks. I think this will be the first and the last time I do this topic, however; at least for quite some time.
If you don't think you'll be able to post by 3:15 EST, then no rush. I'll just get to it later today.
Any possibility it could be within the next hour?
When are you planning to post?
Cool beans.
8 hours to post...
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Batman485 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Pro
>Reason for Decision: Pro had a way better argument, and there is definite proof in his arguments. Con has provided a list of fantasies that he tells himself to justify not being in a religion.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter fails to justify all of their non-argument points, and their argument point justification is insufficient. To award argument points, the voter must survey the main arguments, analyze those arguments and how the played out in the debate, and then weigh those arguments to identify a winner.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Purple // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Con for arguments and conduct
>Reason for Decision: CON had the more convincing arguments and was able to conduct himself much clearer as well as being able to ask questions that PRO could not answer which pushed me towards CON.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter fails to sufficiently justify the points awarded. To award argument points, the voter must survey the main arguments, analyze those arguments and how the played out in the debate, and then weigh those arguments to identify a winner. To award Conduct points, the voter must either identify a forfeit, unfairness, or excessive misconduct.
************************************************************************
Mopac's RFD:
I thought that both debaters used good sources and there wasn't anything that stuck out enough in the spelling and grammar department to warrent anything other than a tie. Even though pro apologized for forfeiting a round, I still think that is bad enough to sway conduct in favor of con.
As far as the arguments themselves...
When it comes to the cosmological argument, I don't buy into con's claim that God is special pleading, because it makes eense to me that there had to always be some form of existence, and that is what "supreme being" means. We are talking about God after all.
As far as the moral argument, it seems to me that con concedes that there is objective morality, which couldn't be the case if there wasn't an "Absolute Truth". We are talking about God after all. That said, I think instigator's argument seems to be contingent on revealed scripture, and the description says we are not talking about that... either way, con claims that there can be objective morality which is nonsense because without Truth there is no objective anything.
The omnipotence argument seemed silly to me because the definition that con uses is not the definition that is backed by oxford. It seems to me that this is simply con's interpretation of what that means, which I can say is not really correct. I think instigator addresses this satisfactorily.
In the end, I think instigator argued better, but I must admit he is pretty much representing William Lane Craig's case. I don't think he is trying to hide this.
In the end, what is the question? Is it probable that God exists? Not only does it seem probable, it really seems necessary.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Mopac // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con for conduct, 3 points to Pro for arguments
>Reason for Decision: [posted above]
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter sufficiently justifies awarding conduct points by pointing to the forfeit. What is problematic about the vote is that the voter seems to insert analysis external to the debate into his vote, namely, that nothing can be objective without the "Truth." Nowhere does this seem present in the debate, and indeed, the voter fails to consider any counterarguments along the lines of objective morality at all. The voter must, per the site policy, assess both the main arguments and counterarguments in their RFD. As this is not done, the argument point justification is insufficient.
************************************************************************
You've got a day left to post.
Block's RFD:
It is clear that this debate was meant to troll anyone willing to participate in it. The debate topic was ridiculous prima facie and i can not see how a serious point could have ever been made from either side. This was made clear throughout Pro's arguments and i must take those statements into account when voting in the over all debate, however I will try to be as objective as possible when it comes to awarding points.
Points for convincing argument: (TIE) I can not award either side full points for their arguments due to the simple fact that neither had an argument that was good or serious enough to convince me that their argument is in anyway more valid than the other. It is exceedingly difficult to make a serious argument on a ridiculous topic.
Reliable Sources: (CON) While the merit of both Con's and Pro's arguments are dubious at best, Con did manage to use sources that have a reputation for being reliable, objective, and substantive in his argument; and did so in a way that didn't muddy up his stance.
Spelling and Grammar: (TIE) Based on my understanding, in regards to spelling and grammar, i can not categorically state whether or not one side's was significantly better then the others.
Conduct: (CON) When engaging in an amicable debate it is imperative that both sides refrain from using devious tactics which could taint the overall debate. This is especially true when it is the sole reason for instigating a debate. Debates should be used as a method of exchanging ideas in an effort to grow both parties understanding on a given topic. However even though Con seems to have accepted this debate in good faith, it seems that Pro's original intent was simply to score points. Neither side benefited from this debate and that is a fault i attribute to Pros conduct and therefore must award this point to Con.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Block19 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con for sources and conduct
>Reason for Decision: [posted above]
>Reason for Mod Action: Conduct was insufficiently justified as the voter failed to show the conduct violation was "excessive." Sources was insufficiently justified as the voter failed to analyze any source in particular and as the voter failed to make any comparative statement regarding each debater's use and/or quality of sources.
************************************************************************
Totalizing means to the exclusion of all else, in that context. So, to prioritize freedom to the exclusion of privacy or free speech to the exclusion of equality is problematic. There can also be degrees of "totalizingness."
I do it at the end of each of my rounds. Asking the voters for their vote, even in constructives, is neither unusual nor inappropriate.
I never declared myself the victor. I asked for the voters' votes. it is standard practice both IRL and online to urge or ask voters to vote for you at the conclusion of the debate.
In fact, it has always been moderation's position that by posting content from a PM with moderation, the discloser waives their privacy in that context: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/538?page=3&post_number=51
And, it is not a threat. I am offering to reveal screenshots confirming that I am innocent of the absurdity I've been accused of.
Right now, that is the case for full mods, yes.
The PM disclosure does not apply to assistant mods unless the discussion is mod-related.
It did not happen, and I am more than happy to furnish photographic evidence to prove the point. Since Wylted has supposedly quoted from our PM, he has waived all privacy claims to the content of our PM.
You can disclose mod PMs so long as those PMs do not violate any other user's rights. That said, by doing so, you give the mod permission to reveal the contents of the PMs.
Since I never said such a thing, the lie itself is poor conduct.
Lying to achieve a win is extremely low.
You've got 4 hours-ish to post.
Lol thanks.
I feel quite out of my depth on this topic, tbh. Theology is a subject I find infinitely fascinating, but I have never had enough instruction or learning in it to feel comfortable discussing it in depth. I took this debate because I figured I'd challenge myself and because I figured I should do a theology debate at some point in my DDO/DART career. Granted it's interesting, but I'll be happy to get back to more familiar philosophical ground.
You have like 15 hours left to post.
Virtuoso was not calling it a troll debate in his official capacity as a mod. This is not a troll debate as it does not meet the definition to be one.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ramshutu // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con for conduct, 3 points to Pro for arguments
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Raltar // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 2 points to Con for sources
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Declan // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points to Con for arguments and sources
>Reason for Decision: Pro uses very unreliable sources while Con uses resources like NASA. Con provides good reason for his debates and explains it through science. The was bad conduct on both sides so I am leaving that a tie.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter fails to sufficiently ground both sources and argument points. To award sources points, the voter must explain the impact of the sources on the debate, which they do not do. To award argument points, the voter must survey the main arguments of the debate and weigh them to produce a decision. The voter does neither of these things. To cast a sufficient vote, the voter must explain the impact sources had on the debate, must survey the main arguments, and must weigh those arguments to determine a winner.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Raltar // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points to Pro for arguments and sources
>Reason for Decision: The sources used by Con (particularly Vox) were very biased and opinionated, rather than actual authoritative sources. Con also opens his arguments by claiming that gun control has been effective at reducing crime in other countries, yet provides no real evidence to support this, while ignoring high-crime nations with strict gun control like Mexico.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter fails to sufficiently justify awarding argument points. The voter fails to survey the main arguments in the debate and to weigh those arguments to produce a decision. The voter also fails to sufficiently justify awarding sources points. There is not comparison between the debaters in terms of source quality. The voter can recast a sufficient vote by surveying and weighing the key arguments of the debate to produce a verdict and then by comparing (or making a comparative statement re:) the quality of each debater's sources.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: nmvarco // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 2 points to Pro for sources, 1 point to Con for conduct
>Reason for Decision: Arguments are tied because pro was leading till last round but then forfeited.
Sources go to Pro for he gave unbiased sources unlike Con who kept stating notably left wing sources, such as Vox and CNN.
Conduct to con because pro forfeited.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter does not need to justify points which were not awarded. The voter fails to sufficiently justify awarding sources points. Site voting policy requires the voter to "explain how the sources impacted the debate, directly assessing the strength of at least one source, and explaining how it either strengthened or weakened the argument it was utilized for." The voter does not do this. Conduct points were sufficiently justified. The vote can cast a new, sufficient vote by assessing one source directly, by comparing the quality of sources between debaters, and by explaining how that source impacted the debate.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Mharman // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points to Pro for arguments and sources
>Reason for Decision: Con states that more guns does not mean less crime and that gun control does work. Con then gives sources. Pro states the exact opposite, and then gives his own sources. At the core of this debate, both sides made they're arguments, and they both gave their own statistics. This debate comes down to who's statistics were actually correct. To determine this, one must look at the sources both sides provided. Con used well-known left-wing outlets for sources, along with a college study. Pro used pro-gun sources, and a government crime report. With both sides providing biased sources, it comes down to their unbiased sources. Pro's unbiased source was the government crime report and Con's unbiased source was a Stanford University study. However, in general, a government report is more reliable than a college study. This means that Pro has better sources, and thus, a better argument.
>Reason for Mod Action: This vote was borderline. However, the vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Wyled // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Pro
>Reason for Decision: All of pro's arguments were dropped
>Reason for Mod Action: This is both a troll debate and a full forfeit. Votes on this debate will not be moderated.
************************************************************************
It fits the definition moderation uses in that it is primarily a humorous/facetious debate. This is evidenced both by the topic and the content of the debate. Exhibit 1: "Ducks enslave people to feed them bread."
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: SupaDudz // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Con
>Reasons for Decision: PRO made arguments, but they were refuted better by CON in an organized manner. I believe his arguments are more stronger and have relevancy to them
S&G to CON. Various errors and missed periods cause me to vote CON. Run on sentences that drag on too much
Conduct to CON. Summoning the Duck God and being at peace with them is just bad logic
>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: Raltar // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Con
>Reason for Mod Action: Troll debates are not moderated, per the site voting policy guidelines. No moderation action is appropriate on this vote.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ramshutu // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro for arguments
>Reason for Decision: Pro was the only side to meet the burden of proof. Con just agreed with Pro.
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con for arguments
>Reason for Decision: I don't think the source Con used was relevant to the debate. I don't care about water (wtf did water have to do with this?) I care about the debate at hand and how both sides approach is.
Pro is stating that chairs are concerned with the concern lacking towards words themselves, such as 'water' and 'sock'. Pro then says that because of this Sock would be better as 2 words and frankly was hinting at 'suck cock' if you follow how he was splitting the word up. It's a troll and a joke and the reason it lost is because Con points out that chairs seem to lack emotion and because people do care about words... Although the way he proved this was to only focus on water instead of socks, it still was sufficient to Kritik the angle that Pro took.
>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: Mharman // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con for arguments
>Reason for Decision: Argument to Con. Pro stated that sock should be two words. Con stated that it should not be. Unlike Pro, however, Con actually stated why sock should remain one word.
>Reason for Mod Action: Troll debates are not moderated, per the site voting policy guidelines. No moderation action is appropriate on this vote.
************************************************************************
Cool beans :)
Also, glad to see you went back and revised some of your other RFDs. Without commenting on their sufficiency per the rules, I can say that they were improved.
Violating the rules of the debate is typically grounds for conduct points, so if they used the letter "e," maybe it would be acceptable to award conduct in such a situation (so long as the violation was unfair or excessively rude). It might even be grounds for argument points if their opponent made some kind of theory argument on the rules violation, though that would be a stretch. But if the rule was something like "voters may only vote for Pro" it would immediately be disregarded by vote moderation.
I am not *that* scary. I'm really quite nice. Bishy bishy.