It does not follow that if 0.9999r = 1.0000r then 1.1111r = 1.0000r
The argument isn't that x.yyyy(r) = (x-1).(y+1)(y+1)(y+1)(y+1)(r) but rather that x.9999(r) = (x+1).0000(r). This equality only applies to numbers ending in point nine repeateing.
Debate is a means of formal argumentation. It generally requires some room for debate. There really isn't much room when it comes to mathematical facts. Might as well debate that 2+2=4
This vote pertains to the debate entitled "Jury Nullification" submitted for challenge by DebateArt.Com user, bsh1 (member since August 11, 2018, henceforth known as PRO), on August 31st, 2018. The challenge was then accepted by DebateArt.Com user, shas04 (member since August 25th, 2018 henceforth known as CON). The topic of the debate was: "In the United States criminal justice system, jury nullification ought to be used in the face of perceived injustice." The rules of the debate were, henceforth:
1. No forfeits
2. Citations must be provided in the text of the debate
3. No new arguments in the final speeches
4. Observe good sportsmanship and maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
5. No trolling
6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)
7. For all undefined resolutional terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate
8. The BOP is evenly shared
9. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round
10. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the description's set-up merits a loss.
It is under this structure, guidelines, and standards, that this debate will henceforth be analyzed, deconstructed, and judged.
(1/21)
Over the course of the debate PRO raised the following primary arguments:
P1. Jury Nullification allows jurors to support the underlying justifying principles of law; (Round 1, PRO, Section II)
P2. Removal of Jury Nullification would make laws inflexible; (Round 1, PRO, Section III)
P3. Jury Nullification is a necessary check on government oppression; (Round 1, PRO, Section IV)
CON subsequently raised the following arguments and sub-arguments:
C1. Lobbying for better laws/against bad laws is the preferred alternative; (Round 1, CON, Framework)
C2. Jury Nullification inhibits the preferred model of justice, specifically:
C2a. Removes retribution for victims; (Round 1, CON, Section 1, subsection a)
C2b. Denies rehabilitation for actual criminals; (Round 1, CON, Section 1, subsection b)
C3. Will have a negative effect on society, specifically:
C3a. Increase crime rates and recidivism; (Round 1, CON, Section 2)
C3a. Will increase doubt and fear about criminal justice; (Round 1, CON, Section 2, subsection a)
C3b. Will increase stigmatism against criminals and result in vigilantism; (Round 1, CON, Section 2, subsection b)
C3c. Will result in an increase in drug use; (Round 1, CON, Section 2, subsection c)
C4. Will inordinately affect racial and ethnic minorities (Round 1, CON, Section 3)
C5. Actual cases of unjust/unconstitutional laws are too few (Round 2, CON, Introduction)
(2/21)
A. P1 - Jury Nullification allows jurors to support the underlying justifying principles of law
Summary: PRO argued that jury nullification allows jurors to bypass the letter of the law in order to support the underlying principles of law itself. CON notes that jurors lack sufficient education and awareness of legal principles to make these kinds of judgements (Round 2, CON, Section 1, subsection a) and that such nullification is unnecessary as there is enough leeway in the current system for juries to find reasonable doubt (Round 3, CON, Introduction). Pro counters by saying that legal analysis is not required to make their decisions (Round 3, PRO, Section II, subsection A), that the legal system should not depend on manufactured reasonable doubt (Round 4, PRO, Section I, subsection 3) and that this non-uniqueness favors PRO, as CON has the burden to disprove the status quo (Round 4, Section I, subsection 1).
Analysis: PRO's first rebuttal asserts that jurors do not need to have legal expertise to evaluate the underlying principles of law. The citation PRO provides (linking to the third source of the first of PRO's round) is nothing more than a list of crimes with harsh sentences. There is nothing here to support PRO's counter argument here. However, CON's idea that someone needs to understand and be aware of something in order to evaluate it, is patently obvious: one cannot evaluate what one doesn't know about and doesn't understand. Given this self-evident principle in lack of no provided evidence contrary to it, CON's statement stands.
(3/21)
PRO's second rebuttal argues against manufactured doubt, but fails to distinguish how manufactured doubt in order to obtain an acquittal is substantively different than simply acquitting without obtaining it. PRO's claims that the presumption that acquittal = reasonable doubt only in a universe without Jury Nullification without realizing that this is the case in the status quo anyway, as Juries are usually not in a habit of broadcasting their decision to nullify.
This brings me to the last - and most important - point. PRO suggests that in the absence of uniqueness, CON inherits a burden to overcome the status quo. This false and against the shared burden of proof required by PRO's on rules (#8). In light of a shared BOP, non-uniqueness cannot favor one side over the other. The suggestion that CON has a burden in this case is a violation of the rules which, according to rule #10, should merit an automatic loss for PRO. Being as generous as I am, I will simply not rule on this argument alone, but unfortunately have to decide this specific argument in favor of CON.
Result: Rule in favor of CON (rule violation)
(4/21)
B. P1 - Removal of Jury Nullification would make laws inflexible
Summary: PRO notes that laws, as written, are inflexible and, without jury nullification, the justice system would be robbed of the ability to account for adapting exceptional, unforeseen circumstances. CON provides two primary rebuttals to this: That unjust and inflexible laws are already known and being worked against, alleviating the need for jury nullification (Round 2, CON, Section 2, subsection b) and that Jury Nullification magnifies the effect of personal prejudice over objective analysis (Round 2, CON, Section 2, subsection a). Pro responds to the second point by noting that personal prejudice is non-unique (Round 3, Section III) but does not address the extant pressure to overturn unjust laws.
Analysis: PRO notes the non-uniqueness of CON's counter argument again, but does not (in this case) call upon an extra burden for CON to overcome. However, this accusation of non-uniqueness was unwarranted. PRO rightfully notes that prejudice exists in the current system, but CON's argument was not about the mere existence of prejudice, but that Jury Nullification "amplifies" personal prejudices. One cannot deny that prejudices will exist more in an environment where they are allowed compared to one where they are not, and PRO treats CON's argument as simply being "personal prejudices exist" without addressing the comparative argument CON was making.
(5/21)
Secondly, PRO does not address CONs argument regarding the existing pressure to eliminate unjust laws as rendering Jury Nullification unnecessary.
Result: Rule in favor of CON (arguments not sufficiently addressed/dropped)
C. P3 - Jury Nullification is a necessary check on government oppression.
Summary: PRO portrays the existence of Jury Nullification as a check on government power in light of unjust laws and unjustly applied punishments. CON retorts that Jurors do not have the requisite knowledge whether a law is unjust or oppressive (Round 2, CON, Section 3, subsection a). PRO supported their argument that legislators cannot see all ends and therefore juries are necessary to check this gap in justice (Round 3, PRO, Section II, subsection A).
Analysis: PRO notes that no single group can account for all cases and that Juries fulfill a specific niche in providing checks and oversights to this situation. CON does not really address this aspect and drops it in later rounds, essentially conceding the point.
Result: Rule in favor of PRO (CON does not strictly address PRO's main argument, drops later support; concession)
(6/21)
D. C1 - Lobbying for better laws/against bad laws is the preferred alternative
Summary: CON presents as an alternative that unjust laws should be changed as a result of societal pressure, rather than Jury nullification. PRO notes that this is not mutually exclusive with respect to Jury Nullification (Round 2, PRO, "Firstly"), that lobbying takes too long (Round 2, PRO, “Secondly"), that this process is reactive and cannot help people currently under the scrutiny of unjust laws (Round 2, PRO, "Thirdly" & "Fourthly"). CON responded that, while Jury Nullification can exist alongside petitioning, the former inhibits the efficacy of the latter (Round 3, CON, Section a), that PRO offers no evidence evaluating the duration of the typical lobbying/petitioning process (Round 3, CON, section b), that PRO has acknowledged the existence of manufactured reasonable doubt as a way of acquitting the unjustly convicted (Round 3, CON, section b), and that petitioning is more democratic (Round 3, CON, section b).
In response to the notion that Jury Nullification inhibits the efficacy of petitioning, PRO claims CON's argument doesn't make sense and that petitions currently exist alongside Jury Nullification currently (Round 4, PRO, Section II, subsection A, subsection 3). In response to the notion that PROs statement of the lethargy of Petitions was unsupported, PRO states that CON has the burden to demonstrate that they are quick (Round 4, PRO, Section II, subsection 4, subsection B). In response to the democratic nature of petitions, PRO notes that petitions only reflect the will of the petitioners, not society at large (Round 4, PRO, II, subsection 4).
(7/21)
Analysis: PRO's dismissal of CON's argument as not making sense is inappropriate. A debater cannot simply assert that an argument is nonsensical and sweep it aside and expect a win. Furthermore, PRO again asserts that CON has an inherent burden that PRO does not (with respect to the duration of petitions). Either both sides must cite a source for an argument to be valid or neither do. To suggest that PRO can submit a sourced argument but CON needs to source a counterargument is in violation of rule #8 establishing a shared BOP. The issues regarding manufactured reasonable doubt have been addressed previously. PRO notes CON's absolute argument here regarding petitions as being reflections of society and portrays them as being reflections of specific interest groups. CON does not defend this point.
Result: Rule in favor of CON. In light of a wash on the first two points, PRO should win due to the concession of the last. However, the rule violation of the third outweighs that.
(8/21)
E. C2a - Jury Nullification removes retribution for victims
Summary: CON asserts that Jury Nullification permits acquittal of criminals and therefore denies the attainment of retribution of victims. PRO response that CON is assuming the existence of victims (Round 2, PRO, Section II, subsection A), that retribution should be done away with (Round 2, PRO, Section II, subsection A). CON notes that victims do exist and that they deserve retribution (Round 4, PRO, Section 1), that retribution is only part of the current model of justice (Round 3, CON, Section 1, subsection a) and that PRO has only addressed the unjustly convicted and does not address the unjustly acquitted (Round 3, Con, Section 1, subsection a).
(9/21)
Analysis: It is completely nonsensical to suggest that no victims exist in the criminal justice system. CON's argument does not require that ALL crimes have victims, just that "When victims do not see their attackers face justice" then "the criminal justice system has failed them." Unless PRO is suggesting that no crimes have victims (which they did not), then the refutation here falls flat. PRO attempts to argue against retribution as a undesirable element, but that is contrary to the overall structure of PRO's argument, which asserts that Jury Nullification should exist as part of the current criminal justice system ("Remember: I advocate for doing both jury nullification and Con's plan", Round 4, PRO, Section I, subsection A, subsection 1). PRO cannot both claim to include and exclude CON's plan. Lastly, PRO does focus solely on unjust laws and does not address CONs points about cases where criminals are let free. While PRO had previously tasked CON regarding specific ongoing occurrences of this, the idea that Jury Nullification allows for this is indisputable.
Result: Rule in favor of CON (straw manning of CON's arguments, contradiction, dropped points)
(10/21)
Summary: CON argues that Jury nullification can result in actual criminals being acquitted for actions they actually committed. Sans punishment, said people will not be disposed toward changing their criminal behavior. PRO response only via the scope of unjust laws, where rehabilitation is not necessary (Round 2, PRO, Section II, subsection B). CON notes the limited scope of this analysis and that sympathetic victims do not need Jury Nullification (Round 3, CON, Section 1, subsection b).
Analysis: PRO fails to address CON's arguments on the grounds that CON establishes (that of criminals failing to be convicted of actual crimes). Given that this is the only scope in which rehabilitation makes sense, this is the only reasonable scope the argument should have been addressed in. CON recognizes this, but PRO continues to fail to recognize the cases CON is raising.
Result: Rule in favor of CON (failure to address points, dropped points)
G. Jury Nullification increases crime rates and recidivism
Summary: In extending the rehabilitation argument, CON portends an increase of crime rates and recidivism as a result. PRO notes CONS lack of evidence or data (Round 2, PRO, Section III, subsection A). CON responds that it is an argument that is inherently speculative (Round 3, CON, Section 2), but PRO notes that this does not preclude the existence of supporting evidence (Round 4, PRO, Section IV, subsection A). PRO also defers to his counter arguments made to CON's argument vis-a-vis rehabilitation.
(11/21)
Analysis: PRO and CON go back and forth about the need for data. PRO paradoxically suggests that CON should be able to use data about the current system (where Jury Nullification is in effect) in order to speculate about a world in which it is not in effect. Most importantly, however, is PRO equates CON's argument to the rehabilitation argument and references his points there. The analysis of that section favored CON, and that favor is transferred here.
Result: Rule in favor of CON (see section F)
H. Jury Nullification increases doubt and fear about criminal justice
Summary: CON asserts that the ability of juries to deviate from the rule of law will erode the public's overall confidence in the law. PRO accuses this of being fearmongering (Round 2, PRO, Section III, subsection A) to which CON points out that this is not an actual rebuttal (Round 3, CON, Section 2, subsection a). PRO then attempts to refute the argument by noting a lack of evidence (Round 4, PRO, Section IV, subsection A).
Analysis: CON was right to point out that PRO's accusation of fear mongering wasn't an actual rebuttal. PRO's point of evidence is founded only on PRO's personal perception, which is hardly authoritative. PRO continues to ignore CON's references to people unjustly acquitted as a result of Jury Nullification, simply noting that criminals are still convicted given Jury Nullification, but without addressing CON's specific point.
Result: Rule in favor of CON (lack of rebuttal specific points)
(12/21)
I. Jury Nullification increases stigmatism against criminals and result in vigilantism
Summary: CON suggests that when people are acquitted of crimes they don't commit, the lack of expected punishment will stigmatize them in the eyes of the public, potentially resulting in the public taking matters into their own hands. PRO argues that Jury Nullification means the convicts aren't really convicts (since they're acquitted) and therefore avoid associated stigma (Round 2, PRO, Section III, subsection A). CON notes that the stigma is applied to the unconvicted criminals (Round 3, CON, Section 2, subsection a) to which PRO claims is a shifting of goal posts and asserts that actual criminals are more stigmatized than acquitted ones (Round 4, PRO, Section IV, subsection A).
Analysis: PRO's accusation of shifting goal posts is out of line. The context of CONs argument and use of the word "criminal" is clear: people who have committed a crime, but were not convicted of one. That is, "criminal" was used in a colloquial, rather than legal, sense. This is just an extension of PRO's overall refusal to acknowledge the fact that Jury Nullification allows criminals to get away with crime. However, CON offers no support that acquitted criminals are stigmatized more than convicted ones which PRO points out. That convicts are stigmatized at all is evident. That Jury Nullification reduces convictions is evident.
Result: Rule in favor of PRO (failure of opponent to support case in light of rebuttal).
(13/21)
J. Jury Nullification results in an increase in drug use
Summary: As a subset argument of increased crime rates (see section G), CON specifically addresses an increase in drug use as a result of failing to convict cases of drug use, and calls out drug use as a particular social evil. PRO notes that lax enforcement of drug laws doesn't substantially affect the drug use rates (Round 2, PRO, Section III, subsection B). Con notes that the data provided is only on marijuana which has medical benefits that make it an unsuitable representative of all drugs (Round 3, CON, Section 2, subsection b). PRO notes that there is otherwise no evidence of an increase in drug use (Round 4, PRO, Section IV, subsection B) while CON asserts certain groups will be susceptible and adversely affected by an increase in drug use (Round 4, CON, Section 2).
Analysis: CON does not provide evidence or reason to believe or accept that drug rates are somehow higher with Jury Nullification than without. Despite PROs cherry picked data, CON simply relies on the addictiveness of drugs which does not establish his conclusion. On the other hand, PRO branches out into arguing against Drug Prohibition altogether, saying that he can argue that alongside Jury Nullification, despite also saying he is arguing for Jury Nullification and CON's plan, which includes Drug Prohibition.
Result: Draw (lack of support on one side, out of scope arguments on the other)
(14/21)
K. Jury Nullification inordinately affects racial and ethnic minorities
Summary: CON notes the racial disparity in the make-up of most juries and that this disparity results in minorities (who are not proportionately represented) will suffer more (or alternatively benefit less) from Jury Nullification. PRO notes that racism in the criminal justice system is systemic and not unique to juries (Round 2, PRO, Section IV), and that instances of jury nullification are rare, thus the impact is minimal (Round 2, PRO, Section V). PRO further notes that proportionality is not required, as a single juror can sway a vote (Round 4, PRO, Section V). CON retorts that, if this were the case, then there would be more progress toward the system racism apparent in conviction rates (Round 4, CON, Section 3).
Analysis: By suggesting that racial injustice perpetuated by Jury Nullification is rare is to concede that it exists. Furthermore, the current state of systemic racism (which PRO acknowledges) works against the idea that Jury Nullification is somehow a counter to that. CON clearly demonstrates the ineffectiveness of Jury Nullification to combat racial injustice.
Result: Rule in favor of CON (implicit concession)
(15/21)
L. Actual cases of unjust/unconstitutional laws are too few to matter.
Summary: CON argues that there aren't enough unjust or unconstitutional laws to justify the existence of Jury Nullification. PRO criticizes CON's lack of specific, supported details and suggests that they are more than CON implies (Round 3, PRO, Section I). PRO also suggests that Jury Nullification is about more than unjust/unconstitutional laws, and that the impact can be great regardless (Round 3, PRO, Section I).
Analysis: CON mischaracterizes PRO's stance and presents an unsubstantiated rebuttal that goes on to be unrefuted.
Result: Rule in favor of PRO (implicit concession)
M. Overall Results.
Arguments in favor of CON: 8
Arguments in favor of PRO: 3
Draws: 1
Results: CON won on more argument points/rebuttals than PRO. Given that PRO's multiple rule violations with respect to shared burden of proof, it is generous to not simply rule completely in favor of CON.
(16/21)
PRO references a specific event for which this source substantiates. However, this source merely shows that the event happened, not that its occurrence has the meaning intended by PRO.
This reference is mainly a list of crimes for which life sentences have been given. They do not support PROs contention that any laws are preventing people from keeping themselves safe from abusive parents. One specific instance was regarding a person stealing a handgun from an abusive parent, but there are no substantive details provided that one can draw a conclusion from.
PRO also references the possession of 32 grams of marijuana, but neglects to mention the intent to distribute, misrepresenting his source.
PRO references a specific case in this source, seemingly quoting legal authorities. But he is in fact quoting a second-hand account, not a primary source. We don't know, in fact, if police deemed it "unweighable" and the lack of quotes in the article suggests that this wasn't, in fact, a direct quote from a police official. No police officials were actually named or quoted. PRO exaggerates the impact of this source.
(17/21)
This source supports data regarding the increase in mortality of parolees. However, PRO spins this as an effect of "unjust" convictions. The source makes no reference to the type of conviction.
This is the source of a quote reference by PRO in support of forgiveness over retribution. However, PRO misuses the quote specifically in favor of "protecting and vindicating victims of injustice" The quote and studies reference "victims" in a general, not legal sense, and speak of psychological burdens physically weighing people down resulting in absurd conclusions as unforgiving people not being able to jump higher. The source admits that it does not know the underlying mechanism.
This is a 318 page document for which PRO provides no specific citation regarding which part of the document supports his argument. There can be no expectation that readers, or debaters, are going to read through an entire novel in order to ascertain which parts support the argument at hand (if any). This source should be dismissed.
(18/21)
This source is a theoretical argument which PRO then portrays as a practical argument. The abstract does not elaborate. Full analysis of the article is behind a membership wall and should not be considered for analysis.
PRO referenced this source in an attempt to refute a statement by CON pertaining to unconstitutional acts per year. However, it is simply a static list of unconstitutional acts, ever, going back as far as 1789 and not an accurate representation of the rate of new unconstitutional acts, despite the fact PRO portrays it as such.
This is a 43 page court decision that PRO attempts to use to support the legality of Jury Nullification. There is no abstract or summary a reader could use to determine the overall disposition of the source or evaluate it in a timely manner. It should be dismissed.
PRO attempts to use this case as evidence of the legality of Jury Nullification, but the source itself notes that this case has been contradicted by later cases. Invalid.
PRO uses these sources to argue that petitions are common. The mere legality or existence of the ability of a petition does not inherently suggest how often it is seriously used. These do not support PRO's arguments.
Supports CON's statistic regarding unjust laws repealed in this decade.
C. Analysis and Comparison
Both sides used sources for the support of simple quotes, numbers, or other statistics or historical facts. However, PRO also misused and misrepresented a number of sources, as well as providing mere info dumps that no reader or debate could reasonably be expected to analyze.
(21/21)
This tactic of pointing out where you think you didn't mess up doesn't undo or address the areas where you did. If a dog shits on your carpet, you don't particularly care about all the areas of the carpet he didn't shit on, do you?
The fact remains that a moderator mistake has been used in an act of moderation. In the ORIGINAL post by Tej, wherein he explains why he ruled the way he did with respect to weighing analysis, the ONLY specific aspect of my vote that he mentioned was "merely saying X was sourced but Y wasn't isn't explaining that an argument was sufficient to win the debate." Again, you keep suggesting that the "weighing issue" and the "source" issue are different. They aren't. The "source issue" IS the "weighing issue." You just don't want to refer to it like that because you recognize it was a mistake to mischaracterize my argument as such. This is made further evident by your attempts to reframe the "sources" thing as a red herring. You have simply replaced "sources" with "weighing analysis" forgetting that you originally defined the weighing analysis based ONLY on the sources!
Simply put, the mods fucked up. There has always been this head-up-the-ass-ness when it comes to the voting standards (evidenced by the fact that a person has to pour through troves of documentation just to understand it all) and it is a shame that it's now coming to this site.
I'll note that I had no objection to the removal of my very first vote. Because that was a valid removal. But I'm not going to sit here and let you guys just invent any reason you want and think that's going to fly, even after you paint over that very same reason with different words without even admitting you made a mistake to begin with.
And I'm going to keep submitting my vote, as is, until the mods acknowledge the error and provide an analysis that isn't derived from it. Any mod decision that is derived from any error should be tossed out, completely, and reevaluated from scratch. I see no point in addressing any other issues when the mods clearly see no point in admitting and fixing their mistakes.
"That analysis was my own, and was offered only after Tej made the call to remove your vote. "
You're recused. You shouldn't be offering your analysis to other mods about this issue. That inherently colors their judgement. Regardless, the misportrayal of my vote as being dependent solely on sources came from Tej, first:
"In particular, your weighing analysis was clearly insufficient: merely saying X was sourced but Y"
Also, note that it is this reason (the sources) given as to why my weighing analysis was insufficient. You keep treating the sources issues and the weighing issue as separate. They aren't. It has continually been said that "merely referencing sources" is why my weighing analysis is insufficient. My argument doesn't depend solely on sources. Ergo, the judgement of the weighing analysis is flawed. Its poisoned and should be discarded.
"DDO is not binding precedent for DART, but it is a useful point of reference and it also contains great information materials that can help voters improve on any website, or even IRL."
Then it shouldn't be used or referenced in any moderator action. That is, no moderator action should depend on, in part or in whole, on those documents.
"[T]he mods have explained their interpretation of 'weighing analysis' to you"
You're right, they have:
Tej: "your weighing analysis was clearly insufficient: merely saying X was sourced but Y wasn't isn't explaining"
Tej: "Merely ... suggesting that one is sourced while the other is not is not weighing"
bsh1: "merely saying X was sourced but Y isn't, isn't really 'weighing.'" (x2)
As my vote was never "merely saying X was sourced but Y isn't" none of these analyses are valid.
bsh1, and it seems to me that you guys are deliberately ignoring the errors you have made. My vote has repeatedly been mischaracterized as existing solely on references to number of sources. This has been conclusively refuted. What is the response from the mods? Crickets.
There have been repeated references to DDO and google docs as a basis for moderating here. This. Isn't. DDO. Furthermore, I left there 5 years ago. I don't remember what the rules were over there. New users here certainly wouldn't know them. This basically suggests users are being held to standards they have no awareness of. Ludicrious on the face of it. Response from the mods? Crickets.
So, if you're accusing me of being intransigent, you're damn right I am. No one likes to have their position portrayed falsely. Doubly so when it's deliberate. No moderator action should be based, even in part, on false analysis. So yeah I'm going to fight it. So long as the mods here are going to make blatent errors, use those errors to take mod action against people, then ignore their errors, I'm going to fight it.
Also, there is no requirement in the CoC as I read it that requires what you are saying. A voter doesn't say who "won" the debate. Only the cumulative votes of all voters decides that. In my vote I reference the specific aspects of the CoC, quoted verbatim, that applied to the points I awarded. You can quote no part of the CoC that I missed in submitting my vote.
"You explained why Pro won the argument." Exactly. And that's how it impacted the outcome that I arrived at in the end. Unlike your previous suggestions, there is no requirement to evaluate all or most of the arguments and do some sort of quantitative analysis. Qualitative analysis is perfectly valid. There is nothing that says one argument can't outweigh the rest or be more significant in making a decision.
"[bsh1] did not weigh in on the decision to remove the vote." - Yes he did: "All three moderators agreed [that the vote was a violation]" bsh1 is not simply speaking as a concerned user here. He is speaking out against a vote - in his capacity as a moderator - on a debate he is involved in. Recusal would mean not weighing in at all. Furthermore, the "report" button does not direct specific moderators to take specific action. It's just a button that creates an alert. It is not the equivalent to a chief mod directing a specific assistant moderator to take specific action.
There is no requirement for the addressed arguments be the "most important" or that the voter explain why they are the "most important". This talk of updating the CoC essentially concedes the point: my current vote is valid with the CoC as written.
I added a line explaining the rather obvious conclusion that an argument that goes unrefuted is effectively a concession. All the rest of the stuff is just bells and whistles not required by the CoC (or unofficial, unauthorized guidelines). I highly recommend only enforcing the CoC and thereby updating it when it isn't sufficient, but caution against any type of ex post facto enforcement here.
I also have to question bsh1's involvement here, he's supposedly "recused" himself, yet 1) he has still used his moderator ability to remove the vote in question; 2) has weighed in on the decision to remove the vote; 3) and is now suggesting he is going to call for votes to be re-evaluated. Exactly in what capacity are you "recused"?
"How does this lead to the conclusion that Pro won, and Con did not?" -- Because Con's response shifted goal posts and therefore did not actually refute anything.
"Was this, for you, the most important argument?" -- Yep!
"weighing entails a discussion" -- Not according to your guidelines. The guidelines recommend an explanations OR noting a lack of refutation. I chose the latter option made available to me. It is self evident why an argument that outweighs a counter argument that isn't refuted.
I didn't "merely" say that. You guys need to stop lying. Like, who do you think you're actually fooling? This shit is right there for anyone to read. Removing the reference to sources:
"[Pro argued] that a retributive model does not bring relief to victims and is counterproductive toward a restorative model which does. Con attempted to shift goal posts, which Pro noted."
Are you suggesting that one side shifting goal posts and not addressing an argument isn't a weighing analysis? From YOUR OWN guidelines:
"It should explain why the loser's refutations of those points failed and/OR NOTE THAT THE LOSER MADE NO REFUTATIONS OF THOSE POINTS" (emphasis mine)
I referenced an argument you made and noted that the loser did not refute it. And that has nothing to do with the sources which, for some reason, is the ONLY thing you guys are harping on.
When a policy is prohibitive (as with the first part of the CoC), moderator discretion manifests itself by how strictly the moderator executes the restriction. Their response can be anywhere from doing nothing up to acting upon the letter of the law. Otherwise the moderator is acting upon things not explicitly called out as prohibitive and is essentially inventing new rules and then enforcing those rules.
When a policy instead says what you can do (as with the Voting section), moderator discretion manifests itself by how strictly the moderator enforces the requirement. Their response can be anywhere from doing nothing up to requiring the letter of the law. Otherwise the moderator is acting upon things not explicitly required and is essentially inventing new rules and then enforcing those rules.
In this case, the moderators have invented rules not written in the CoC, based upon guidelines developed for other sites not referenced in the CoC. It is completely insane and unreasonable to expect users to abide by random sets of rules scattered about the internet.
The quibbling about the plurality of "arguments" vs "counterarguments" is nothing more than pedantic stretching because you've realized the fundamental basis for the removal is completely foundless.
Unless and until the mods cease referencing non-CoC regulations for the removal of my vote, or until I am banned, I will post my vote, as-is.
@Mike: You have to realize that you can't let your mods just whip up any random set of rules in google docs and expect users to abide by those rules. The CoC - and only the CoC - should be applied here.
Your continued insistence that the only validation I provided was the fact that one argument was sourced and one was not is verging onto dishonesty.
Nothing but the CoC applies here, especially off-site guidelines that aren't even referenced in the CoC. Even if they were, guidelines, by their very definition, aren't binding. Otherwise they'd be standards.
I will agree that the CoC leaves, open-ended, those terms, which gives VOTERS lee-way in how they vote, not moderators lee-way in squashing votes they don't like. You can't just arbitrarily decide that an open-ended term means something specific and then moderate based on that.
Nothing in the CoC demands that I analyze arguments in the context of the whole debate.
And, again, the CoC says and/or, not "and" More dishonesty.
"it explicitly says “arguments” and “counterarguments,” plural" -- Yep. Did that. One from each side.1 + 1 = 2.
“The second necessity is that the voter needs to explain how those arguments impacted the outcome that the voter arrived at in the end.” -- Did that too.
"Clearly, that indicates that you need to explain why you neglected a significant portion of the case" -- Nope. That's made up and not in the CoC.
"your weighing analysis was clearly insufficient: merely saying X was sourced but Y wasn't isn't explaining that an argument was sufficient to win the debate." -- I didn't *just* say that. I talked about *how* Pro's arguments refuted Con's. I *also* mentioned sources.
"DDO Nonsense" -- This isn't DDO, its policies don't apply here.
"Bsh1's guidelines" --- aren't the CoC. Only the CoC is valid policy here.
This vote removal is not an appropriate application of the rules.
1. "The voting guidelines explicitly state that the voter needs to reference specific *arguments* and *counter-arguments,*" -- Incorrect. The voting guideline says that the voter needs to reference specific arguments and/OR counter-arguments. The voting rules do not specify that multiple arguments from each side need to be referenced.
2. "The voter must have good reason to neglect a large number of arguments and counterarguments from both sides when making their decision." -- This is made up. This is not part of the CoC.
3. "While this voter analyzes the issue of retribution, the voter fails to (1) analyze any other issue or have weighing analysis that compares different issues and (2) track the trajectory of this argument through the entire round." -- Neither of these are required by the CoC as written.
Furthermore, Tej is an assistant moderator and therefore not permitted to take moderation action without the explicit approval of a moderator or deputy moderator.
Given this violation of the CoC and the over stepping of the moderators with respect to the CoC (especially in light of the laissez faire manner in which it is to be enforced) I am hearby resubmitting my vote, as-is.
Would you be ok with "Jury Nullification" vis-a-vis this debate? That is, the people voting on the winner do so based on internal convictions rather than based on the evidence provided? ;)
It does not follow that if 0.9999r = 1.0000r then 1.1111r = 1.0000r
The argument isn't that x.yyyy(r) = (x-1).(y+1)(y+1)(y+1)(y+1)(r) but rather that x.9999(r) = (x+1).0000(r). This equality only applies to numbers ending in point nine repeateing.
Debate is a means of formal argumentation. It generally requires some room for debate. There really isn't much room when it comes to mathematical facts. Might as well debate that 2+2=4
Are mathematical facts up for debate?
One of the great mysteries of the universe. Like why some people won't even admit their mistakes. I guess we'll never know.
You can read my RFD.
Quantity over quality, I guess.
I. Introduction
This vote pertains to the debate entitled "Jury Nullification" submitted for challenge by DebateArt.Com user, bsh1 (member since August 11, 2018, henceforth known as PRO), on August 31st, 2018. The challenge was then accepted by DebateArt.Com user, shas04 (member since August 25th, 2018 henceforth known as CON). The topic of the debate was: "In the United States criminal justice system, jury nullification ought to be used in the face of perceived injustice." The rules of the debate were, henceforth:
1. No forfeits
2. Citations must be provided in the text of the debate
3. No new arguments in the final speeches
4. Observe good sportsmanship and maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
5. No trolling
6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)
7. For all undefined resolutional terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate
8. The BOP is evenly shared
9. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round
10. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the description's set-up merits a loss.
It is under this structure, guidelines, and standards, that this debate will henceforth be analyzed, deconstructed, and judged.
(1/21)
II. Overall Analysis/Enumeration of Arguments
Over the course of the debate PRO raised the following primary arguments:
P1. Jury Nullification allows jurors to support the underlying justifying principles of law; (Round 1, PRO, Section II)
P2. Removal of Jury Nullification would make laws inflexible; (Round 1, PRO, Section III)
P3. Jury Nullification is a necessary check on government oppression; (Round 1, PRO, Section IV)
CON subsequently raised the following arguments and sub-arguments:
C1. Lobbying for better laws/against bad laws is the preferred alternative; (Round 1, CON, Framework)
C2. Jury Nullification inhibits the preferred model of justice, specifically:
C2a. Removes retribution for victims; (Round 1, CON, Section 1, subsection a)
C2b. Denies rehabilitation for actual criminals; (Round 1, CON, Section 1, subsection b)
C3. Will have a negative effect on society, specifically:
C3a. Increase crime rates and recidivism; (Round 1, CON, Section 2)
C3a. Will increase doubt and fear about criminal justice; (Round 1, CON, Section 2, subsection a)
C3b. Will increase stigmatism against criminals and result in vigilantism; (Round 1, CON, Section 2, subsection b)
C3c. Will result in an increase in drug use; (Round 1, CON, Section 2, subsection c)
C4. Will inordinately affect racial and ethnic minorities (Round 1, CON, Section 3)
C5. Actual cases of unjust/unconstitutional laws are too few (Round 2, CON, Introduction)
(2/21)
III. Analysis and weighing of arguments
A. P1 - Jury Nullification allows jurors to support the underlying justifying principles of law
Summary: PRO argued that jury nullification allows jurors to bypass the letter of the law in order to support the underlying principles of law itself. CON notes that jurors lack sufficient education and awareness of legal principles to make these kinds of judgements (Round 2, CON, Section 1, subsection a) and that such nullification is unnecessary as there is enough leeway in the current system for juries to find reasonable doubt (Round 3, CON, Introduction). Pro counters by saying that legal analysis is not required to make their decisions (Round 3, PRO, Section II, subsection A), that the legal system should not depend on manufactured reasonable doubt (Round 4, PRO, Section I, subsection 3) and that this non-uniqueness favors PRO, as CON has the burden to disprove the status quo (Round 4, Section I, subsection 1).
Analysis: PRO's first rebuttal asserts that jurors do not need to have legal expertise to evaluate the underlying principles of law. The citation PRO provides (linking to the third source of the first of PRO's round) is nothing more than a list of crimes with harsh sentences. There is nothing here to support PRO's counter argument here. However, CON's idea that someone needs to understand and be aware of something in order to evaluate it, is patently obvious: one cannot evaluate what one doesn't know about and doesn't understand. Given this self-evident principle in lack of no provided evidence contrary to it, CON's statement stands.
(3/21)
PRO's second rebuttal argues against manufactured doubt, but fails to distinguish how manufactured doubt in order to obtain an acquittal is substantively different than simply acquitting without obtaining it. PRO's claims that the presumption that acquittal = reasonable doubt only in a universe without Jury Nullification without realizing that this is the case in the status quo anyway, as Juries are usually not in a habit of broadcasting their decision to nullify.
This brings me to the last - and most important - point. PRO suggests that in the absence of uniqueness, CON inherits a burden to overcome the status quo. This false and against the shared burden of proof required by PRO's on rules (#8). In light of a shared BOP, non-uniqueness cannot favor one side over the other. The suggestion that CON has a burden in this case is a violation of the rules which, according to rule #10, should merit an automatic loss for PRO. Being as generous as I am, I will simply not rule on this argument alone, but unfortunately have to decide this specific argument in favor of CON.
Result: Rule in favor of CON (rule violation)
(4/21)
B. P1 - Removal of Jury Nullification would make laws inflexible
Summary: PRO notes that laws, as written, are inflexible and, without jury nullification, the justice system would be robbed of the ability to account for adapting exceptional, unforeseen circumstances. CON provides two primary rebuttals to this: That unjust and inflexible laws are already known and being worked against, alleviating the need for jury nullification (Round 2, CON, Section 2, subsection b) and that Jury Nullification magnifies the effect of personal prejudice over objective analysis (Round 2, CON, Section 2, subsection a). Pro responds to the second point by noting that personal prejudice is non-unique (Round 3, Section III) but does not address the extant pressure to overturn unjust laws.
Analysis: PRO notes the non-uniqueness of CON's counter argument again, but does not (in this case) call upon an extra burden for CON to overcome. However, this accusation of non-uniqueness was unwarranted. PRO rightfully notes that prejudice exists in the current system, but CON's argument was not about the mere existence of prejudice, but that Jury Nullification "amplifies" personal prejudices. One cannot deny that prejudices will exist more in an environment where they are allowed compared to one where they are not, and PRO treats CON's argument as simply being "personal prejudices exist" without addressing the comparative argument CON was making.
(5/21)
Secondly, PRO does not address CONs argument regarding the existing pressure to eliminate unjust laws as rendering Jury Nullification unnecessary.
Result: Rule in favor of CON (arguments not sufficiently addressed/dropped)
C. P3 - Jury Nullification is a necessary check on government oppression.
Summary: PRO portrays the existence of Jury Nullification as a check on government power in light of unjust laws and unjustly applied punishments. CON retorts that Jurors do not have the requisite knowledge whether a law is unjust or oppressive (Round 2, CON, Section 3, subsection a). PRO supported their argument that legislators cannot see all ends and therefore juries are necessary to check this gap in justice (Round 3, PRO, Section II, subsection A).
Analysis: PRO notes that no single group can account for all cases and that Juries fulfill a specific niche in providing checks and oversights to this situation. CON does not really address this aspect and drops it in later rounds, essentially conceding the point.
Result: Rule in favor of PRO (CON does not strictly address PRO's main argument, drops later support; concession)
(6/21)
D. C1 - Lobbying for better laws/against bad laws is the preferred alternative
Summary: CON presents as an alternative that unjust laws should be changed as a result of societal pressure, rather than Jury nullification. PRO notes that this is not mutually exclusive with respect to Jury Nullification (Round 2, PRO, "Firstly"), that lobbying takes too long (Round 2, PRO, “Secondly"), that this process is reactive and cannot help people currently under the scrutiny of unjust laws (Round 2, PRO, "Thirdly" & "Fourthly"). CON responded that, while Jury Nullification can exist alongside petitioning, the former inhibits the efficacy of the latter (Round 3, CON, Section a), that PRO offers no evidence evaluating the duration of the typical lobbying/petitioning process (Round 3, CON, section b), that PRO has acknowledged the existence of manufactured reasonable doubt as a way of acquitting the unjustly convicted (Round 3, CON, section b), and that petitioning is more democratic (Round 3, CON, section b).
In response to the notion that Jury Nullification inhibits the efficacy of petitioning, PRO claims CON's argument doesn't make sense and that petitions currently exist alongside Jury Nullification currently (Round 4, PRO, Section II, subsection A, subsection 3). In response to the notion that PROs statement of the lethargy of Petitions was unsupported, PRO states that CON has the burden to demonstrate that they are quick (Round 4, PRO, Section II, subsection 4, subsection B). In response to the democratic nature of petitions, PRO notes that petitions only reflect the will of the petitioners, not society at large (Round 4, PRO, II, subsection 4).
(7/21)
Analysis: PRO's dismissal of CON's argument as not making sense is inappropriate. A debater cannot simply assert that an argument is nonsensical and sweep it aside and expect a win. Furthermore, PRO again asserts that CON has an inherent burden that PRO does not (with respect to the duration of petitions). Either both sides must cite a source for an argument to be valid or neither do. To suggest that PRO can submit a sourced argument but CON needs to source a counterargument is in violation of rule #8 establishing a shared BOP. The issues regarding manufactured reasonable doubt have been addressed previously. PRO notes CON's absolute argument here regarding petitions as being reflections of society and portrays them as being reflections of specific interest groups. CON does not defend this point.
Result: Rule in favor of CON. In light of a wash on the first two points, PRO should win due to the concession of the last. However, the rule violation of the third outweighs that.
(8/21)
E. C2a - Jury Nullification removes retribution for victims
Summary: CON asserts that Jury Nullification permits acquittal of criminals and therefore denies the attainment of retribution of victims. PRO response that CON is assuming the existence of victims (Round 2, PRO, Section II, subsection A), that retribution should be done away with (Round 2, PRO, Section II, subsection A). CON notes that victims do exist and that they deserve retribution (Round 4, PRO, Section 1), that retribution is only part of the current model of justice (Round 3, CON, Section 1, subsection a) and that PRO has only addressed the unjustly convicted and does not address the unjustly acquitted (Round 3, Con, Section 1, subsection a).
(9/21)
Analysis: It is completely nonsensical to suggest that no victims exist in the criminal justice system. CON's argument does not require that ALL crimes have victims, just that "When victims do not see their attackers face justice" then "the criminal justice system has failed them." Unless PRO is suggesting that no crimes have victims (which they did not), then the refutation here falls flat. PRO attempts to argue against retribution as a undesirable element, but that is contrary to the overall structure of PRO's argument, which asserts that Jury Nullification should exist as part of the current criminal justice system ("Remember: I advocate for doing both jury nullification and Con's plan", Round 4, PRO, Section I, subsection A, subsection 1). PRO cannot both claim to include and exclude CON's plan. Lastly, PRO does focus solely on unjust laws and does not address CONs points about cases where criminals are let free. While PRO had previously tasked CON regarding specific ongoing occurrences of this, the idea that Jury Nullification allows for this is indisputable.
Result: Rule in favor of CON (straw manning of CON's arguments, contradiction, dropped points)
(10/21)
F. C2b - Jury Nullification denies rehabilitation
Summary: CON argues that Jury nullification can result in actual criminals being acquitted for actions they actually committed. Sans punishment, said people will not be disposed toward changing their criminal behavior. PRO response only via the scope of unjust laws, where rehabilitation is not necessary (Round 2, PRO, Section II, subsection B). CON notes the limited scope of this analysis and that sympathetic victims do not need Jury Nullification (Round 3, CON, Section 1, subsection b).
Analysis: PRO fails to address CON's arguments on the grounds that CON establishes (that of criminals failing to be convicted of actual crimes). Given that this is the only scope in which rehabilitation makes sense, this is the only reasonable scope the argument should have been addressed in. CON recognizes this, but PRO continues to fail to recognize the cases CON is raising.
Result: Rule in favor of CON (failure to address points, dropped points)
G. Jury Nullification increases crime rates and recidivism
Summary: In extending the rehabilitation argument, CON portends an increase of crime rates and recidivism as a result. PRO notes CONS lack of evidence or data (Round 2, PRO, Section III, subsection A). CON responds that it is an argument that is inherently speculative (Round 3, CON, Section 2), but PRO notes that this does not preclude the existence of supporting evidence (Round 4, PRO, Section IV, subsection A). PRO also defers to his counter arguments made to CON's argument vis-a-vis rehabilitation.
(11/21)
Analysis: PRO and CON go back and forth about the need for data. PRO paradoxically suggests that CON should be able to use data about the current system (where Jury Nullification is in effect) in order to speculate about a world in which it is not in effect. Most importantly, however, is PRO equates CON's argument to the rehabilitation argument and references his points there. The analysis of that section favored CON, and that favor is transferred here.
Result: Rule in favor of CON (see section F)
H. Jury Nullification increases doubt and fear about criminal justice
Summary: CON asserts that the ability of juries to deviate from the rule of law will erode the public's overall confidence in the law. PRO accuses this of being fearmongering (Round 2, PRO, Section III, subsection A) to which CON points out that this is not an actual rebuttal (Round 3, CON, Section 2, subsection a). PRO then attempts to refute the argument by noting a lack of evidence (Round 4, PRO, Section IV, subsection A).
Analysis: CON was right to point out that PRO's accusation of fear mongering wasn't an actual rebuttal. PRO's point of evidence is founded only on PRO's personal perception, which is hardly authoritative. PRO continues to ignore CON's references to people unjustly acquitted as a result of Jury Nullification, simply noting that criminals are still convicted given Jury Nullification, but without addressing CON's specific point.
Result: Rule in favor of CON (lack of rebuttal specific points)
(12/21)
I. Jury Nullification increases stigmatism against criminals and result in vigilantism
Summary: CON suggests that when people are acquitted of crimes they don't commit, the lack of expected punishment will stigmatize them in the eyes of the public, potentially resulting in the public taking matters into their own hands. PRO argues that Jury Nullification means the convicts aren't really convicts (since they're acquitted) and therefore avoid associated stigma (Round 2, PRO, Section III, subsection A). CON notes that the stigma is applied to the unconvicted criminals (Round 3, CON, Section 2, subsection a) to which PRO claims is a shifting of goal posts and asserts that actual criminals are more stigmatized than acquitted ones (Round 4, PRO, Section IV, subsection A).
Analysis: PRO's accusation of shifting goal posts is out of line. The context of CONs argument and use of the word "criminal" is clear: people who have committed a crime, but were not convicted of one. That is, "criminal" was used in a colloquial, rather than legal, sense. This is just an extension of PRO's overall refusal to acknowledge the fact that Jury Nullification allows criminals to get away with crime. However, CON offers no support that acquitted criminals are stigmatized more than convicted ones which PRO points out. That convicts are stigmatized at all is evident. That Jury Nullification reduces convictions is evident.
Result: Rule in favor of PRO (failure of opponent to support case in light of rebuttal).
(13/21)
J. Jury Nullification results in an increase in drug use
Summary: As a subset argument of increased crime rates (see section G), CON specifically addresses an increase in drug use as a result of failing to convict cases of drug use, and calls out drug use as a particular social evil. PRO notes that lax enforcement of drug laws doesn't substantially affect the drug use rates (Round 2, PRO, Section III, subsection B). Con notes that the data provided is only on marijuana which has medical benefits that make it an unsuitable representative of all drugs (Round 3, CON, Section 2, subsection b). PRO notes that there is otherwise no evidence of an increase in drug use (Round 4, PRO, Section IV, subsection B) while CON asserts certain groups will be susceptible and adversely affected by an increase in drug use (Round 4, CON, Section 2).
Analysis: CON does not provide evidence or reason to believe or accept that drug rates are somehow higher with Jury Nullification than without. Despite PROs cherry picked data, CON simply relies on the addictiveness of drugs which does not establish his conclusion. On the other hand, PRO branches out into arguing against Drug Prohibition altogether, saying that he can argue that alongside Jury Nullification, despite also saying he is arguing for Jury Nullification and CON's plan, which includes Drug Prohibition.
Result: Draw (lack of support on one side, out of scope arguments on the other)
(14/21)
K. Jury Nullification inordinately affects racial and ethnic minorities
Summary: CON notes the racial disparity in the make-up of most juries and that this disparity results in minorities (who are not proportionately represented) will suffer more (or alternatively benefit less) from Jury Nullification. PRO notes that racism in the criminal justice system is systemic and not unique to juries (Round 2, PRO, Section IV), and that instances of jury nullification are rare, thus the impact is minimal (Round 2, PRO, Section V). PRO further notes that proportionality is not required, as a single juror can sway a vote (Round 4, PRO, Section V). CON retorts that, if this were the case, then there would be more progress toward the system racism apparent in conviction rates (Round 4, CON, Section 3).
Analysis: By suggesting that racial injustice perpetuated by Jury Nullification is rare is to concede that it exists. Furthermore, the current state of systemic racism (which PRO acknowledges) works against the idea that Jury Nullification is somehow a counter to that. CON clearly demonstrates the ineffectiveness of Jury Nullification to combat racial injustice.
Result: Rule in favor of CON (implicit concession)
(15/21)
L. Actual cases of unjust/unconstitutional laws are too few to matter.
Summary: CON argues that there aren't enough unjust or unconstitutional laws to justify the existence of Jury Nullification. PRO criticizes CON's lack of specific, supported details and suggests that they are more than CON implies (Round 3, PRO, Section I). PRO also suggests that Jury Nullification is about more than unjust/unconstitutional laws, and that the impact can be great regardless (Round 3, PRO, Section I).
Analysis: CON mischaracterizes PRO's stance and presents an unsubstantiated rebuttal that goes on to be unrefuted.
Result: Rule in favor of PRO (implicit concession)
M. Overall Results.
Arguments in favor of CON: 8
Arguments in favor of PRO: 3
Draws: 1
Results: CON won on more argument points/rebuttals than PRO. Given that PRO's multiple rule violations with respect to shared burden of proof, it is generous to not simply rule completely in favor of CON.
(16/21)
IV. Source Analysis
A. PRO's Sources:
1. http://everydaydebate.blogspot.com/2015/10/ld-novdec-2015-jury-nullification.html
This is the source of a statement quoted by PRO in support of the overall principle of Jury Nullification.
2. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/christopher-brauchli/three-strikes-and-youre-i_b_252473.html
PRO references a specific event for which this source substantiates. However, this source merely shows that the event happened, not that its occurrence has the meaning intended by PRO.
3. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/11/23-petty-crimes-prison-life-without-parole/
This reference is mainly a list of crimes for which life sentences have been given. They do not support PROs contention that any laws are preventing people from keeping themselves safe from abusive parents. One specific instance was regarding a person stealing a handgun from an abusive parent, but there are no substantive details provided that one can draw a conclusion from.
PRO also references the possession of 32 grams of marijuana, but neglects to mention the intent to distribute, misrepresenting his source.
4. https://newsone.com/1621445/top-5-most-ridiculous-court-sentences-of-all-time/
PRO references a specific case in this source, seemingly quoting legal authorities. But he is in fact quoting a second-hand account, not a primary source. We don't know, in fact, if police deemed it "unweighable" and the lack of quotes in the article suggests that this wasn't, in fact, a direct quote from a police official. No police officials were actually named or quoted. PRO exaggerates the impact of this source.
(17/21)
5. https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=2890&context=lawreview
This provides the source of a case referenced by PRO.
6. https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2012.301148?journalCode=ajph
This source supports data regarding the increase in mortality of parolees. However, PRO spins this as an effect of "unjust" convictions. The source makes no reference to the type of conviction.
7. https://psmag.com/social-justice/tangible-benefits-forgiveness-97627
This is the source of a quote reference by PRO in support of forgiveness over retribution. However, PRO misuses the quote specifically in favor of "protecting and vindicating victims of injustice" The quote and studies reference "victims" in a general, not legal sense, and speak of psychological burdens physically weighing people down resulting in absurd conclusions as unforgiving people not being able to jump higher. The source admits that it does not know the underlying mechanism.
8. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-the-justice-system-neglect-forgiveness/
This source supports PROs statements regarding the role of forgiving vs. punitive measures in criminal justice.
9. https://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/retributive.justice
This source supports PROs statements regarding the lack of victim satisfaction in punitive justice models.
10. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1792&context=open_access_dissertations
This is a 318 page document for which PRO provides no specific citation regarding which part of the document supports his argument. There can be no expectation that readers, or debaters, are going to read through an entire novel in order to ascertain which parts support the argument at hand (if any). This source should be dismissed.
(18/21)
11. https://www.cato.org/congressional-testimony/drug-legalization-criminalization-harm-reduction
This source supports PRO's statements regarding drug prohibition.
12. https://nypost.com/2017/09/14/marijuana-legalization-hasnt-led-to-more-drug-abuse-study/
This source supports PRO's statements regarding marijuana legalization.
13. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40282580?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
This source is a theoretical argument which PRO then portrays as a practical argument. The abstract does not elaborate. Full analysis of the article is behind a membership wall and should not be considered for analysis.
14. https://www.criminallegalnews.org/news/2018/feb/16/jury-nullification-crucial-check-government-power/
This source supports PRO's claims about rarity and impact of Jury Nullification
15. https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/acts-of-congress-held-unconstitutional.html
PRO referenced this source in an attempt to refute a statement by CON pertaining to unconstitutional acts per year. However, it is simply a static list of unconstitutional acts, ever, going back as far as 1789 and not an accurate representation of the rate of new unconstitutional acts, despite the fact PRO portrays it as such.
16. https://www.cnn.com/2013/06/21/us/top-u-s-supreme-court-decisions-fast-facts/index.html
This is just a handful of significant Supreme Court cases, not a statement that supports an overall analysis of unconstitutional law.
17. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-paul-manafort-fraud-trial-20180816-story.html
18. https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/13/opinions/judge-ellis-fast-furious-manafort-trial-wu/index.html
Both of these sources support PRO's issues regarding what kinds of technical details jurors must rule on.
(19/21)
19. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death-qualified_jury
This source establishes the existence of "juries which are impaneled specifically to determine if someone deserves the death penalty."
20. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/156/51.html
This is a 43 page court decision that PRO attempts to use to support the legality of Jury Nullification. There is no abstract or summary a reader could use to determine the overall disposition of the source or evaluate it in a timely manner. It should be dismissed.
21. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_v._Brailsford_(1794)
PRO attempts to use this case as evidence of the legality of Jury Nullification, but the source itself notes that this case has been contradicted by later cases. Invalid.
22. https://www.change.org/
23. https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/
24. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_petition_in_the_United_States
PRO uses these sources to argue that petitions are common. The mere legality or existence of the ability of a petition does not inherently suggest how often it is seriously used. These do not support PRO's arguments.
25. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/01/the-white-house-petition-site-is-a-joke-and-also-the-future-of-democracy/267238/
Supports PRO's claim that some petitions are insincere.
26. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_the_People_(petitioning_system)
27. https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2017-04-18/white-house-considers-dumping-petition-site
These sources support PRO's case regarding the failure of current petitioning systems.
(20/21)
28. https://www.insidesources.com/fired-im-gay-thats-still-legal-ohio/
29. https://www.vox.com/2018/6/26/17492410/travel-muslim-ban-supreme-court-ruling
30. https://www.bustle.com/p/7-shockingly-sexist-laws-in-america-that-can-be-used-against-women-at-any-time-43140
These sources are cited examples of unjust laws in support of PRO's arguments.
31. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-white_jury
Source for a specific quote.
B. CON's Sources
1. https://bigthink.com/politeia/why-dont-black-people-get-selected-for-juries
Source used in support of CON's statement of racially disproportionate juries.
2. https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/about
Source regarding the requirements to get a response to a petition.
3. https://www.quora.com/Which-is-more-addictive-cocaine-or-marijuana-Why-Which-one-has-worse-withdrawals
Source supporting the differences in marijuana use versus harder drugs like cocaine.
4. https://www.npr.org/2017/09/27/551864016/fewer-youths-incarcerated-but-gap-between-blacks-and-whites-worsens
Source used to show the disparity in incarceration of African-Americans versus Whites.
5. https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/state-laws-held-unconstitutional.html
Supports CON's statistic regarding unjust laws repealed in this decade.
C. Analysis and Comparison
Both sides used sources for the support of simple quotes, numbers, or other statistics or historical facts. However, PRO also misused and misrepresented a number of sources, as well as providing mere info dumps that no reader or debate could reasonably be expected to analyze.
(21/21)
This tactic of pointing out where you think you didn't mess up doesn't undo or address the areas where you did. If a dog shits on your carpet, you don't particularly care about all the areas of the carpet he didn't shit on, do you?
The fact remains that a moderator mistake has been used in an act of moderation. In the ORIGINAL post by Tej, wherein he explains why he ruled the way he did with respect to weighing analysis, the ONLY specific aspect of my vote that he mentioned was "merely saying X was sourced but Y wasn't isn't explaining that an argument was sufficient to win the debate." Again, you keep suggesting that the "weighing issue" and the "source" issue are different. They aren't. The "source issue" IS the "weighing issue." You just don't want to refer to it like that because you recognize it was a mistake to mischaracterize my argument as such. This is made further evident by your attempts to reframe the "sources" thing as a red herring. You have simply replaced "sources" with "weighing analysis" forgetting that you originally defined the weighing analysis based ONLY on the sources!
Simply put, the mods fucked up. There has always been this head-up-the-ass-ness when it comes to the voting standards (evidenced by the fact that a person has to pour through troves of documentation just to understand it all) and it is a shame that it's now coming to this site.
I'll note that I had no objection to the removal of my very first vote. Because that was a valid removal. But I'm not going to sit here and let you guys just invent any reason you want and think that's going to fly, even after you paint over that very same reason with different words without even admitting you made a mistake to begin with.
And I'm going to keep submitting my vote, as is, until the mods acknowledge the error and provide an analysis that isn't derived from it. Any mod decision that is derived from any error should be tossed out, completely, and reevaluated from scratch. I see no point in addressing any other issues when the mods clearly see no point in admitting and fixing their mistakes.
"That analysis was my own, and was offered only after Tej made the call to remove your vote. "
You're recused. You shouldn't be offering your analysis to other mods about this issue. That inherently colors their judgement. Regardless, the misportrayal of my vote as being dependent solely on sources came from Tej, first:
"In particular, your weighing analysis was clearly insufficient: merely saying X was sourced but Y"
Also, note that it is this reason (the sources) given as to why my weighing analysis was insufficient. You keep treating the sources issues and the weighing issue as separate. They aren't. It has continually been said that "merely referencing sources" is why my weighing analysis is insufficient. My argument doesn't depend solely on sources. Ergo, the judgement of the weighing analysis is flawed. Its poisoned and should be discarded.
"DDO is not binding precedent for DART, but it is a useful point of reference and it also contains great information materials that can help voters improve on any website, or even IRL."
Then it shouldn't be used or referenced in any moderator action. That is, no moderator action should depend on, in part or in whole, on those documents.
"[T]he mods have explained their interpretation of 'weighing analysis' to you"
You're right, they have:
Tej: "your weighing analysis was clearly insufficient: merely saying X was sourced but Y wasn't isn't explaining"
Tej: "Merely ... suggesting that one is sourced while the other is not is not weighing"
bsh1: "merely saying X was sourced but Y isn't, isn't really 'weighing.'" (x2)
As my vote was never "merely saying X was sourced but Y isn't" none of these analyses are valid.
bsh1, and it seems to me that you guys are deliberately ignoring the errors you have made. My vote has repeatedly been mischaracterized as existing solely on references to number of sources. This has been conclusively refuted. What is the response from the mods? Crickets.
There have been repeated references to DDO and google docs as a basis for moderating here. This. Isn't. DDO. Furthermore, I left there 5 years ago. I don't remember what the rules were over there. New users here certainly wouldn't know them. This basically suggests users are being held to standards they have no awareness of. Ludicrious on the face of it. Response from the mods? Crickets.
So, if you're accusing me of being intransigent, you're damn right I am. No one likes to have their position portrayed falsely. Doubly so when it's deliberate. No moderator action should be based, even in part, on false analysis. So yeah I'm going to fight it. So long as the mods here are going to make blatent errors, use those errors to take mod action against people, then ignore their errors, I'm going to fight it.
Also, there is no requirement in the CoC as I read it that requires what you are saying. A voter doesn't say who "won" the debate. Only the cumulative votes of all voters decides that. In my vote I reference the specific aspects of the CoC, quoted verbatim, that applied to the points I awarded. You can quote no part of the CoC that I missed in submitting my vote.
bsh1: "I will ask Tej to re-evaluate it."
You're telling me that what bsh1 meant by this was that he was going to merely click the report button?
"You explained why Pro won the argument." Exactly. And that's how it impacted the outcome that I arrived at in the end. Unlike your previous suggestions, there is no requirement to evaluate all or most of the arguments and do some sort of quantitative analysis. Qualitative analysis is perfectly valid. There is nothing that says one argument can't outweigh the rest or be more significant in making a decision.
"[bsh1] did not weigh in on the decision to remove the vote." - Yes he did: "All three moderators agreed [that the vote was a violation]" bsh1 is not simply speaking as a concerned user here. He is speaking out against a vote - in his capacity as a moderator - on a debate he is involved in. Recusal would mean not weighing in at all. Furthermore, the "report" button does not direct specific moderators to take specific action. It's just a button that creates an alert. It is not the equivalent to a chief mod directing a specific assistant moderator to take specific action.
There is no requirement for the addressed arguments be the "most important" or that the voter explain why they are the "most important". This talk of updating the CoC essentially concedes the point: my current vote is valid with the CoC as written.
I added a line explaining the rather obvious conclusion that an argument that goes unrefuted is effectively a concession. All the rest of the stuff is just bells and whistles not required by the CoC (or unofficial, unauthorized guidelines). I highly recommend only enforcing the CoC and thereby updating it when it isn't sufficient, but caution against any type of ex post facto enforcement here.
I also have to question bsh1's involvement here, he's supposedly "recused" himself, yet 1) he has still used his moderator ability to remove the vote in question; 2) has weighed in on the decision to remove the vote; 3) and is now suggesting he is going to call for votes to be re-evaluated. Exactly in what capacity are you "recused"?
"How does this lead to the conclusion that Pro won, and Con did not?" -- Because Con's response shifted goal posts and therefore did not actually refute anything.
"Was this, for you, the most important argument?" -- Yep!
"weighing entails a discussion" -- Not according to your guidelines. The guidelines recommend an explanations OR noting a lack of refutation. I chose the latter option made available to me. It is self evident why an argument that outweighs a counter argument that isn't refuted.
"merely saying X was sourced but Y isn't"
I didn't "merely" say that. You guys need to stop lying. Like, who do you think you're actually fooling? This shit is right there for anyone to read. Removing the reference to sources:
"[Pro argued] that a retributive model does not bring relief to victims and is counterproductive toward a restorative model which does. Con attempted to shift goal posts, which Pro noted."
Are you suggesting that one side shifting goal posts and not addressing an argument isn't a weighing analysis? From YOUR OWN guidelines:
"It should explain why the loser's refutations of those points failed and/OR NOTE THAT THE LOSER MADE NO REFUTATIONS OF THOSE POINTS" (emphasis mine)
I referenced an argument you made and noted that the loser did not refute it. And that has nothing to do with the sources which, for some reason, is the ONLY thing you guys are harping on.
I am putting my vote back.
1. I provided an explanation. You don't like it, but just because you don't like it doesn't magically make it not an explanation.
2. This isn't DDO and its rules don't apply here.
3. Moderator discretion cannot manifest in the form of inventing rules beyond what is stated in the CoC. I met the requirements of the CoC as written.
4. Just because all three moderators agreed to overreach themselves doesn't make it right. It just means all three moderators need to be replaced.
When a policy is prohibitive (as with the first part of the CoC), moderator discretion manifests itself by how strictly the moderator executes the restriction. Their response can be anywhere from doing nothing up to acting upon the letter of the law. Otherwise the moderator is acting upon things not explicitly called out as prohibitive and is essentially inventing new rules and then enforcing those rules.
When a policy instead says what you can do (as with the Voting section), moderator discretion manifests itself by how strictly the moderator enforces the requirement. Their response can be anywhere from doing nothing up to requiring the letter of the law. Otherwise the moderator is acting upon things not explicitly required and is essentially inventing new rules and then enforcing those rules.
In this case, the moderators have invented rules not written in the CoC, based upon guidelines developed for other sites not referenced in the CoC. It is completely insane and unreasonable to expect users to abide by random sets of rules scattered about the internet.
The quibbling about the plurality of "arguments" vs "counterarguments" is nothing more than pedantic stretching because you've realized the fundamental basis for the removal is completely foundless.
Unless and until the mods cease referencing non-CoC regulations for the removal of my vote, or until I am banned, I will post my vote, as-is.
@Mike: You have to realize that you can't let your mods just whip up any random set of rules in google docs and expect users to abide by those rules. The CoC - and only the CoC - should be applied here.
Your continued insistence that the only validation I provided was the fact that one argument was sourced and one was not is verging onto dishonesty.
Nothing but the CoC applies here, especially off-site guidelines that aren't even referenced in the CoC. Even if they were, guidelines, by their very definition, aren't binding. Otherwise they'd be standards.
I will agree that the CoC leaves, open-ended, those terms, which gives VOTERS lee-way in how they vote, not moderators lee-way in squashing votes they don't like. You can't just arbitrarily decide that an open-ended term means something specific and then moderate based on that.
Nothing in the CoC demands that I analyze arguments in the context of the whole debate.
And, again, the CoC says and/or, not "and" More dishonesty.
"it explicitly says “arguments” and “counterarguments,” plural" -- Yep. Did that. One from each side.1 + 1 = 2.
“The second necessity is that the voter needs to explain how those arguments impacted the outcome that the voter arrived at in the end.” -- Did that too.
"Clearly, that indicates that you need to explain why you neglected a significant portion of the case" -- Nope. That's made up and not in the CoC.
"your weighing analysis was clearly insufficient: merely saying X was sourced but Y wasn't isn't explaining that an argument was sufficient to win the debate." -- I didn't *just* say that. I talked about *how* Pro's arguments refuted Con's. I *also* mentioned sources.
"DDO Nonsense" -- This isn't DDO, its policies don't apply here.
"Bsh1's guidelines" --- aren't the CoC. Only the CoC is valid policy here.
This vote removal is not an appropriate application of the rules.
1. "The voting guidelines explicitly state that the voter needs to reference specific *arguments* and *counter-arguments,*" -- Incorrect. The voting guideline says that the voter needs to reference specific arguments and/OR counter-arguments. The voting rules do not specify that multiple arguments from each side need to be referenced.
2. "The voter must have good reason to neglect a large number of arguments and counterarguments from both sides when making their decision." -- This is made up. This is not part of the CoC.
3. "While this voter analyzes the issue of retribution, the voter fails to (1) analyze any other issue or have weighing analysis that compares different issues and (2) track the trajectory of this argument through the entire round." -- Neither of these are required by the CoC as written.
Furthermore, Tej is an assistant moderator and therefore not permitted to take moderation action without the explicit approval of a moderator or deputy moderator.
Given this violation of the CoC and the over stepping of the moderators with respect to the CoC (especially in light of the laissez faire manner in which it is to be enforced) I am hearby resubmitting my vote, as-is.
Would you be ok with "Jury Nullification" vis-a-vis this debate? That is, the people voting on the winner do so based on internal convictions rather than based on the evidence provided? ;)
Challenge me to this debate.
Time is ticking.
"Ok but hate speech is still illegal in the US"
No it isn't. The US doesn't have hate speech laws.
Just from my reading, it seems like you got swamped and weren't able to flesh out your arguments all the way. A shame since I'm for gun control.
Pro I mean Green/Left side; Con I mean Red/Right side.
Who are Pro and Con in this debate?