Yeah... I'm not going to be able to bust out a full RFD in time, not while I'm at work. I will still get a vote up, as promised, but I'll finish it over the weekend.
I still hope to have time to get up a vote before time runs out (it's been a busy few weeks), though it doesn't seem like my vote would change the outcome regardless of which side it's cast for. Even if time runs out, I will still write out a vote and post it here in the comments at minimum. Apologies for the delay.
Honestly just didn't get to this one in time. Suffice it to say the vote would have been deleted, along with the CVB, so it would have ended in a tie regardless.
As I already addressed with a previous vote, I'm not clear that any of those statements violate rules regarding personal attacks. I see your point about his being rude and even making statements impugning the character of his opponent, but that's not sufficient under the existing voting standards to award conduct.
As for violating the rules, I'll admit this is a bit of a grey area. If you think there is a rule violation going on here, then that can be a basis for awarding conduct. Challenging the definition, even one stated in the description, is often a given when it comes to running Kritiks and not everyone is going to be on-board for that, but that alone would not be sufficient reason to award conduct. Given that it's one point and both I (and apparently Bones - good on you) still plan to vote, I'm going to opt to leave your vote up.
So, if I’m reading this correctly, your basis for the conduct violation is that Con tried to change the definition provided in the description and “a few other things I've seen”. Can you elaborate on the latter? Debating definitions, even those provided in the description, is not on its face sufficient to award conduct.
Well, I’ll base this on Barney’s comment because my vote’s on this debate. Here’s the text of the vote as it stands, his comment is the reason for removal:
“I believe that Benjamin *should have* won this but failed to address the core of the issue: age. He left numerous arguments by baggins about age on the table and conceded a full 70 episodes of aging without a word. On the other hand, baggins made this a big part of his argument and, although the claims are dubious, they are unanswered by PRO and thus must be considered as real according to PRO. If the timeline works according to how baggins described in *multiple* posts, Aang is simply underpowered, and Naruto has undergone serious improvements. Overall, Naruto seems to be favored in this case due to his abilities and durability.
In terms of sources, the Quora source makes me lean towards baggins enough to give him the vote.”
I’d say not. As a general rule, when there are many sources given in a debate, pointing to one and saying that it’s a poor source is not a sufficient reason to award source points.
The arguments points could also use more explication. As a general rule, you have to assess points made by both sides in the debate. Ijb, you point to some arguments made by Con and say what was missing from Pro’s argument, but I don’t see any direct assessment of what Pro actually said beyond the statement that “Aang is simply underpowered.” You can conclude that based on your interpretation of Pro’s arguments, but you have to show how you got there, and the path to that can’t be just pointing out what Con’s winning.
I appreciate the detail, but it doesn't look like this is going to suffice.
For the first example, suggesting that someone has made an argument in bad faith isn't a conduct violation. Yes, his goal is to get voters to see it the same way. That's true of a wide variety of arguments that are above board. As for calling the argument moronic, that is a personal attack... directed at the argument. People are allowed to insult points.
For the second, name-dropping the other debater isn't a personal attack, and given that we're talking about debate and whether someone is correct or not in their interpretation, there has to be room to call someone out for perceived lies. That seems like something you'd assess under arguments rather than conduct, otherwise every time someone called another debater out for a perceived falsehood would warrant a conduct point.
The third example is you calling out the debater's use of a kritik and calling on voters to take action based on a perceived slight. A kritik does directly call someone out on their interpretation of the debate. To some degree, it necessarily is a personal attack on how the other side manipulated the debate. That being said, this interpretation would functionally render any kritik a conduct violation. Even a poorly justified kritik, so long as it's not absolutely vile, should not automatically be penalized simply for being a kritik of the opponent's choices or behavior.
So, I'm going to go ahead and remove the vote as it stands. I think too much of this reasoning cuts into the "I have a problem with this commonly used tactic in debate as employed here" reasoning, and though you did provide detailed reasoning, I don't think what you've given here meets the voting standards. Barney already posted the full text of the vote below, and you're welcome to re-post it without the issues relating to the conduct point violation. It will stand based on how you evaluated arguments.
I’ve looked it over and I’d like to get a better idea of what you’re specifically using as a basis for conduct. You give these statements as justification:
“Con also breaks the conduct rule by describing Pro's example as moronic and name-dropping him directly to accuse him of lying.”
“Conduct goes to Pro because there are a couple of times Con disrespects Pro in this discussion.”
As a general rule, calling an argument moronic is not a basis for awarding conduct. Conduct is usually saved for personal attacks. Accusations of lying can be seen as attacking one’s character, but I’ll need specifics on that, since most instances are usually fair game within a debate (i.e. a debater is allowed to call someone’s argument into question using a wide variety of means). Name-dropping doesn’t suffice, either.
Aside from that, what do you mean by “disrespect”? I don’t think that would rise to the level of a conduct violation, but specifics would be welcome.
Yeah, I thought about lightning in the series potentially having a different speed, but since it wasn’t really mentioned, I didn’t bring it up.
As for speed in general, trying to examine them in the context of their universes was necessary, but it didn’t seem like it was done well. I’m not sure how I’d go about it, but it felt like just saying “this universe has more speed feats” wasn’t enough and even pointing to Sasuke’s Sharingan as a measuring stick didn’t do much to tell me how fast Naruto was moving.
Yeah... suffice it to say that anything you post that is AI generated won't put you ahead in this debate. Particularly if you fail to cite it and treat it as though you wrote it, it might also be reason enough for me to award conduct if this was being judged under the 7-point system.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Benjamin // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to pro (arguments)
>Reason for Decision: Holy mother of god 77 point gish gallop! And he never even refutes that (1) children lack agency and (2) pedophilia is a mental illness caused by trauma. A million assertions with no evidence.
>Reason for Mod Action:
To award arguments, the voter must assess specific points brought up by both sides in the debate and evaluate them as regards the resolution. The voter instead determines that one side engaged in gish gallop (admittedly, that is a lot of points) and points to a lack of response to two points from Pro. The voter does have to provide some assessment of the other side's arguments. Simply stating that they're "assertions with no evidence" is not sufficient - there needs to be at least some recognition of what points were made and why they fall short of negating the resolution in their substance and not just in what is absent from them. Additionally, simply pointing to two arguments made by Pro is not enough. It should be clear why those points are sufficient to affirm the resolution in the eyes of the voter.
**************************************************
I'm not trying to evaluate how long you spent reading the debate or coming to a decision. Only you know that. I'm also not trying to determine if you were biased, revenge voting or even honest. I'm just looking at your vote and seeing whether it meets some basic criteria. That doesn't make it a good or a bad vote, it just makes it a vote that meets the voting standards.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Best.Korea // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to pro (arguments)
>Reason for Decision: Holy God, Con makes bunch of assumptions and never negates comparison to newborn argument or operation analogy argument, so easy win for Pro with no much thinking needed.
>Reason for Mod Action:
To award arguments, the voter must assess specific points brought up by both sides in the debate and evaluate them as regards the resolution. Here, the voter simply says that one side "makes bunch of assumptions" and points to two arguments from the other without explaining why either of those points are sufficient to affirm the resolution. The voter has to detail more of their thought process so, yes, more "thinking needed."
**************************************************
I also just plain wouldn't have bought it as a voter. Believing in the efficacy of GAC requires support of said efficacy from the data, not just the presence of said data.
Yeah, I think the main issue was just dealing with the variables in some way, either by recognizing that there are certain things you simply cannot account for and focusing on studies that account for the rest, or by finding other ways to jumble those variables into your analysis. Either one is tricky, and regardless, it makes hard-and-fast conclusions more difficult, particularly when it comes to suicide.
As for the logical incongruity point, the main conclusion I came away from that with was that claims of reduced suicides are difficult to prove and may even swing in the other direction. It's not the kind of point that can demonstrate that GAC does increase suicides, but it is a basis for questioning claims that GAC decreases suicides. On that front, I think it worked just fine.
It's a tough debate to have because, like was said multiple times, there are a lot of variables that complicate a direct assessment of the efficacy of GAC. A couple of things that came to mind as I was reading through it that didn't make it into my RFD:
- One of the metrics used was whether individuals were "more likely to be treated for anxiety disorders." That isn't necessarily a positive or negative. You could argue that the decision to receive treatment isn't necessarily indicative of the status of that person before GAC, i.e. someone can have an anxiety disorder, not get treated for it, but decide to seek treatment after starting GAC. It could even be framed positively: their decisions to seek treatment show a genuine desire to address psychological issues that they might have bottled up before. It does make it inherently more difficult to ascertain an incidence rate for anxiety disorders, but I think it's worth pointing out that this isn't necessarily demonstrative of Bones' point.
- Among the possible responses to Benjamin's point about "ideal circumstances" could have been that this is an issue of social affirmation vs. social acceptance. The former is mainly about how one conveys oneself to the world around them, and the latter is an issue of how society looks back on them. Prejudice isn't going away anytime soon and its presence in the world is anything but ideal, but it could be argued that it must play some part in how we assess the efficacy of GAC. If it negatively impacts how an individual is perceived, then that is necessarily a negative impact of GAC, because even it achieved its intended purpose, it failed to account for (or tried to ignore) the issues that would accompany it. On the other side, you could argue that there's a need to change that perception and that more people getting GAC could noticeably alter social acceptance. I don't think this issue necessarily has to stand solely as a variable that impedes our understanding of the efficacy of GAC, though it does complicate things. Maybe treat it as another dimension of the issue to consider in your impacts.
I'm going to remove an obviously fraudulent vote when I see one.
I'm going to do what I can about other votes when I have the time to do that. I work an 8 to 5 job. I'm taking time out of that to deal with the dozen or so pings I keep getting on this debate. And if anyone knows I'm not prone to taking their side often, it's RM.
I honestly do not have time to sift through the debate and determine how accurate RM's vote is, as I have to get back to work in a few minutes. From a brief perusal, it looks like he has several issues with Pro's arguments through the debate and points to specific arguments from Con that were convincing. Telling me that you defined what you "see as good and evil in the final round" isn't going to help you much because voters often dismiss arguments made for the first time in the final round, and not without merit.
I can't speak to the issue of whether a concession was actually made without looking deeper into the presented points, nor can I speak to who better upheld their BoP (the latter of which isn't something that would affect moderation anyway). If RM made his vote entirely dependent on that concession, I'd be more concerned about it, but he brings up several points that he believes favor Con. So this would be a case of Mod action: Not Removed based on what I can glean within 10 minutes.
Whether RM is making a targeted effort to vote against FishChaser for some unknown reason is not something I can glean from this vote in the time I have.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: CronicPain2 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 to pro (arguments, conduct)
>Reason for Decision: Didn’t need to read through all of the debate to decide this one. PRO brought up his arguments and CON pretty much replied with “that’s a lie” , barely addressed any of PRO’s arguments or just dropped them. I haven’t read any of the comments because Im not sure if they count. If CON did address everything it should’ve been in the debate not in the comments
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter doesn't provide any reasoning to justify awarding conduct. Saying that one side barely addressed an argument is not sufficient.
Arguments are also insufficiently justified. It is not sufficient for the voter to simply state that one side brought up points that the other did not address. The voter has to explain what points were convincing from Pro, and provide reasons why Con's arguments were not convincing, citing specific examples. Telling me that you "Didn't need to read through all of the debate to decide this one" does not help.
**************************************************
I was just about to log off when I saw this. I can formalize this tomorrow, but given that there's only 4 hours left in the voting period, I figured I'd at least post the reasoning:
Barney's vote is not removed.
Given how short the debate was, the voter's short but reasonable evaluation of the presented arguments is sufficient, especially as he does provide specific analysis of each side's arguments.
I've finished reading the debate, but I want to dig back into the rounds a bit more to come up with a decision. Should be able to manage that over the next few days and write up a decision this weekend.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: FishChaser // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to pro (arguments)
>Reason for Decision: Benjamin gets several things wrong about 12 year old Naruto, For instance Naruto took the Chunin exams and learned the rasengan while still 12.
Even still, the avatar state is pretty hard to beat for 12 year old Naruto even assuming he could even contend with Aang in base form.
Benjamin also misrepresents Naruto as a mindless brute when Naruto is a creative/tactical genius but that alone doesn't win Naruto the fight.
Baggins also gets something wrong, get it actually works to his favor because Naruto CAN access some 9 tails chakra voluntarily at this point, but he has to run out of his normal chakra first.
At the end of the day, I think it's clear that Aang has more power, speed and versatility which will rape Naruto directly in the anus cheeks.
Also, the likelihood of Naruto passing the first tail is low because over time, the seal on Kurama weakened allowing more of Kurama's chakra to get through. Chances are that Naruto at age 12 would only get one tail at best and it is more likely that he wouldn't even get that far since it took almost being killed by Sasuke and knowing that he was losing/being betrayed by his best friend to activate the first tail.
There is a way that Baggins could have argued to be the biggest douche bag possible, since Aang was frozen he was technically just suspended in a 12 year old body while being much older. Technically when Aang was 12, he only had air bending in base form.
Baggins overstates Naruto's speed, which is significantly lower than lightspeed and is still lower even later when he gains six paths sage mode. Haku starts to move in front of Kakashi's raikiri before he starts charging towards Zabuza if I remember correctly.
The claim that Naruto can tank fire blasts in base form is wrong. The only time I remember him getting flamed in base form that one might interpret him as tanking it is when Naruto fought Sasuke on the roof of the hospital, but he used his rasengan to create a barrier similar to Hyuga "rotation".
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter appears to provide a great deal of analysis regarding the veracity of certain claims within the debate, some of which are actual rebuttals made by the debaters, and some of which are the voter himself inserting his insights. While that is valuable feedback for the debaters, it is not in and of itself a basis for the decision. The only line of text in this RFD that speaks to the decision directly is:
"At the end of the day, I think it's clear that Aang has more power, speed and versatility which will rape Naruto directly in the anus cheeks."
While the voter is welcome to post feedback for the debaters, the voter should be clear about what arguments by Pro and Con led him to believe that Aang has these three elements over Naruto. It does not help that the voter does not point to any specific points made in Aang's favor, focusing his attention almost entirely on the claims for Naruto, which makes it difficult to determine how the voter thinks Pro established that Aang has these advantages.
**************************************************
I enjoyed listening to all of these, but I'll admit I don't listen to a lot of electronic music. There's only so many different kinds of taste in music you can account for with these.
As I said in my RFD, I thought the pieces were there for you to succeed with your arguments in the debate, though yeah, there were some errors in your approach to blamonkey's case. I think you did well given the circumstances, but I also think you handicapped yourself in that approach.
I... honestly have no idea how to respond to that. I'm not sure we can get on the same page at this point, given that that last response has basically nothing to do with what I just said, so I'm just going to stop here.
My point was that you could have argued that other impacts matter more or, absent that, put more focus and attention on the ways that a kettle and dildo could enhance your chances of survival. You let yourself get too spread out in your analysis and you didn't argue why the impacts you did focus on are paramount. Both of you could use work in that regard.
I haven't forgotten about this. I'm spending some time on a flight this week, so I'm going to have time to read through it and start writing out thoughts.
I made very clear how I was weighing things early in my RFD. That final line doesn't change how that weighing calculus works, nor does my acknowledgement of the pairs of items.
Yeah... I'm not going to be able to bust out a full RFD in time, not while I'm at work. I will still get a vote up, as promised, but I'll finish it over the weekend.
I still hope to have time to get up a vote before time runs out (it's been a busy few weeks), though it doesn't seem like my vote would change the outcome regardless of which side it's cast for. Even if time runs out, I will still write out a vote and post it here in the comments at minimum. Apologies for the delay.
Honestly just didn't get to this one in time. Suffice it to say the vote would have been deleted, along with the CVB, so it would have ended in a tie regardless.
I should be able to get to it, going to have to take this one slow.
As I already addressed with a previous vote, I'm not clear that any of those statements violate rules regarding personal attacks. I see your point about his being rude and even making statements impugning the character of his opponent, but that's not sufficient under the existing voting standards to award conduct.
As for violating the rules, I'll admit this is a bit of a grey area. If you think there is a rule violation going on here, then that can be a basis for awarding conduct. Challenging the definition, even one stated in the description, is often a given when it comes to running Kritiks and not everyone is going to be on-board for that, but that alone would not be sufficient reason to award conduct. Given that it's one point and both I (and apparently Bones - good on you) still plan to vote, I'm going to opt to leave your vote up.
So, if I’m reading this correctly, your basis for the conduct violation is that Con tried to change the definition provided in the description and “a few other things I've seen”. Can you elaborate on the latter? Debating definitions, even those provided in the description, is not on its face sufficient to award conduct.
I’m working on my own vote. It’s been slow going, still hoping to get it up in time.
Well, I’ll base this on Barney’s comment because my vote’s on this debate. Here’s the text of the vote as it stands, his comment is the reason for removal:
“I believe that Benjamin *should have* won this but failed to address the core of the issue: age. He left numerous arguments by baggins about age on the table and conceded a full 70 episodes of aging without a word. On the other hand, baggins made this a big part of his argument and, although the claims are dubious, they are unanswered by PRO and thus must be considered as real according to PRO. If the timeline works according to how baggins described in *multiple* posts, Aang is simply underpowered, and Naruto has undergone serious improvements. Overall, Naruto seems to be favored in this case due to his abilities and durability.
In terms of sources, the Quora source makes me lean towards baggins enough to give him the vote.”
I’d say not. As a general rule, when there are many sources given in a debate, pointing to one and saying that it’s a poor source is not a sufficient reason to award source points.
The arguments points could also use more explication. As a general rule, you have to assess points made by both sides in the debate. Ijb, you point to some arguments made by Con and say what was missing from Pro’s argument, but I don’t see any direct assessment of what Pro actually said beyond the statement that “Aang is simply underpowered.” You can conclude that based on your interpretation of Pro’s arguments, but you have to show how you got there, and the path to that can’t be just pointing out what Con’s winning.
Yeah, it's 4 days. No rush.
Yes. You should not be concerned with posting the vote as regards argument points.
I appreciate the detail, but it doesn't look like this is going to suffice.
For the first example, suggesting that someone has made an argument in bad faith isn't a conduct violation. Yes, his goal is to get voters to see it the same way. That's true of a wide variety of arguments that are above board. As for calling the argument moronic, that is a personal attack... directed at the argument. People are allowed to insult points.
For the second, name-dropping the other debater isn't a personal attack, and given that we're talking about debate and whether someone is correct or not in their interpretation, there has to be room to call someone out for perceived lies. That seems like something you'd assess under arguments rather than conduct, otherwise every time someone called another debater out for a perceived falsehood would warrant a conduct point.
The third example is you calling out the debater's use of a kritik and calling on voters to take action based on a perceived slight. A kritik does directly call someone out on their interpretation of the debate. To some degree, it necessarily is a personal attack on how the other side manipulated the debate. That being said, this interpretation would functionally render any kritik a conduct violation. Even a poorly justified kritik, so long as it's not absolutely vile, should not automatically be penalized simply for being a kritik of the opponent's choices or behavior.
So, I'm going to go ahead and remove the vote as it stands. I think too much of this reasoning cuts into the "I have a problem with this commonly used tactic in debate as employed here" reasoning, and though you did provide detailed reasoning, I don't think what you've given here meets the voting standards. Barney already posted the full text of the vote below, and you're welcome to re-post it without the issues relating to the conduct point violation. It will stand based on how you evaluated arguments.
I’ve looked it over and I’d like to get a better idea of what you’re specifically using as a basis for conduct. You give these statements as justification:
“Con also breaks the conduct rule by describing Pro's example as moronic and name-dropping him directly to accuse him of lying.”
“Conduct goes to Pro because there are a couple of times Con disrespects Pro in this discussion.”
As a general rule, calling an argument moronic is not a basis for awarding conduct. Conduct is usually saved for personal attacks. Accusations of lying can be seen as attacking one’s character, but I’ll need specifics on that, since most instances are usually fair game within a debate (i.e. a debater is allowed to call someone’s argument into question using a wide variety of means). Name-dropping doesn’t suffice, either.
Aside from that, what do you mean by “disrespect”? I don’t think that would rise to the level of a conduct violation, but specifics would be welcome.
Yeah, I thought about lightning in the series potentially having a different speed, but since it wasn’t really mentioned, I didn’t bring it up.
As for speed in general, trying to examine them in the context of their universes was necessary, but it didn’t seem like it was done well. I’m not sure how I’d go about it, but it felt like just saying “this universe has more speed feats” wasn’t enough and even pointing to Sasuke’s Sharingan as a measuring stick didn’t do much to tell me how fast Naruto was moving.
Alright, this one's next.
I can't promise that it won't be a factor, but if you choose to allow it, I'll at least consider the points.
Yeah... suffice it to say that anything you post that is AI generated won't put you ahead in this debate. Particularly if you fail to cite it and treat it as though you wrote it, it might also be reason enough for me to award conduct if this was being judged under the 7-point system.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Benjamin // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to pro (arguments)
>Reason for Decision: Holy mother of god 77 point gish gallop! And he never even refutes that (1) children lack agency and (2) pedophilia is a mental illness caused by trauma. A million assertions with no evidence.
>Reason for Mod Action:
To award arguments, the voter must assess specific points brought up by both sides in the debate and evaluate them as regards the resolution. The voter instead determines that one side engaged in gish gallop (admittedly, that is a lot of points) and points to a lack of response to two points from Pro. The voter does have to provide some assessment of the other side's arguments. Simply stating that they're "assertions with no evidence" is not sufficient - there needs to be at least some recognition of what points were made and why they fall short of negating the resolution in their substance and not just in what is absent from them. Additionally, simply pointing to two arguments made by Pro is not enough. It should be clear why those points are sufficient to affirm the resolution in the eyes of the voter.
**************************************************
I’ll aim to get on this. Send me a reminder in a few days if I haven’t voted.
I'm not trying to evaluate how long you spent reading the debate or coming to a decision. Only you know that. I'm also not trying to determine if you were biased, revenge voting or even honest. I'm just looking at your vote and seeing whether it meets some basic criteria. That doesn't make it a good or a bad vote, it just makes it a vote that meets the voting standards.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Best.Korea // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to pro (arguments)
>Reason for Decision: Holy God, Con makes bunch of assumptions and never negates comparison to newborn argument or operation analogy argument, so easy win for Pro with no much thinking needed.
>Reason for Mod Action:
To award arguments, the voter must assess specific points brought up by both sides in the debate and evaluate them as regards the resolution. Here, the voter simply says that one side "makes bunch of assumptions" and points to two arguments from the other without explaining why either of those points are sufficient to affirm the resolution. The voter has to detail more of their thought process so, yes, more "thinking needed."
**************************************************
I agree that the data can be a desired result. I've got issues with using that as an argument in this debate, but I think it's valid point to make.
I also just plain wouldn't have bought it as a voter. Believing in the efficacy of GAC requires support of said efficacy from the data, not just the presence of said data.
Yeah, I think the main issue was just dealing with the variables in some way, either by recognizing that there are certain things you simply cannot account for and focusing on studies that account for the rest, or by finding other ways to jumble those variables into your analysis. Either one is tricky, and regardless, it makes hard-and-fast conclusions more difficult, particularly when it comes to suicide.
As for the logical incongruity point, the main conclusion I came away from that with was that claims of reduced suicides are difficult to prove and may even swing in the other direction. It's not the kind of point that can demonstrate that GAC does increase suicides, but it is a basis for questioning claims that GAC decreases suicides. On that front, I think it worked just fine.
It's a tough debate to have because, like was said multiple times, there are a lot of variables that complicate a direct assessment of the efficacy of GAC. A couple of things that came to mind as I was reading through it that didn't make it into my RFD:
- One of the metrics used was whether individuals were "more likely to be treated for anxiety disorders." That isn't necessarily a positive or negative. You could argue that the decision to receive treatment isn't necessarily indicative of the status of that person before GAC, i.e. someone can have an anxiety disorder, not get treated for it, but decide to seek treatment after starting GAC. It could even be framed positively: their decisions to seek treatment show a genuine desire to address psychological issues that they might have bottled up before. It does make it inherently more difficult to ascertain an incidence rate for anxiety disorders, but I think it's worth pointing out that this isn't necessarily demonstrative of Bones' point.
- Among the possible responses to Benjamin's point about "ideal circumstances" could have been that this is an issue of social affirmation vs. social acceptance. The former is mainly about how one conveys oneself to the world around them, and the latter is an issue of how society looks back on them. Prejudice isn't going away anytime soon and its presence in the world is anything but ideal, but it could be argued that it must play some part in how we assess the efficacy of GAC. If it negatively impacts how an individual is perceived, then that is necessarily a negative impact of GAC, because even it achieved its intended purpose, it failed to account for (or tried to ignore) the issues that would accompany it. On the other side, you could argue that there's a need to change that perception and that more people getting GAC could noticeably alter social acceptance. I don't think this issue necessarily has to stand solely as a variable that impedes our understanding of the efficacy of GAC, though it does complicate things. Maybe treat it as another dimension of the issue to consider in your impacts.
In progress as I type.
Don't know if 24 hours is long enough for me to get through and vote on this, but I'll try.
Whatever guys. I'll come back to this at the end of the day when I have actual time to respond.
I'm going to remove an obviously fraudulent vote when I see one.
I'm going to do what I can about other votes when I have the time to do that. I work an 8 to 5 job. I'm taking time out of that to deal with the dozen or so pings I keep getting on this debate. And if anyone knows I'm not prone to taking their side often, it's RM.
I honestly do not have time to sift through the debate and determine how accurate RM's vote is, as I have to get back to work in a few minutes. From a brief perusal, it looks like he has several issues with Pro's arguments through the debate and points to specific arguments from Con that were convincing. Telling me that you defined what you "see as good and evil in the final round" isn't going to help you much because voters often dismiss arguments made for the first time in the final round, and not without merit.
I can't speak to the issue of whether a concession was actually made without looking deeper into the presented points, nor can I speak to who better upheld their BoP (the latter of which isn't something that would affect moderation anyway). If RM made his vote entirely dependent on that concession, I'd be more concerned about it, but he brings up several points that he believes favor Con. So this would be a case of Mod action: Not Removed based on what I can glean within 10 minutes.
Whether RM is making a targeted effort to vote against FishChaser for some unknown reason is not something I can glean from this vote in the time I have.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: CronicPain2 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 to pro (arguments, conduct)
>Reason for Decision: Didn’t need to read through all of the debate to decide this one. PRO brought up his arguments and CON pretty much replied with “that’s a lie” , barely addressed any of PRO’s arguments or just dropped them. I haven’t read any of the comments because Im not sure if they count. If CON did address everything it should’ve been in the debate not in the comments
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter doesn't provide any reasoning to justify awarding conduct. Saying that one side barely addressed an argument is not sufficient.
Arguments are also insufficiently justified. It is not sufficient for the voter to simply state that one side brought up points that the other did not address. The voter has to explain what points were convincing from Pro, and provide reasons why Con's arguments were not convincing, citing specific examples. Telling me that you "Didn't need to read through all of the debate to decide this one" does not help.
**************************************************
I don't have much time, but I'll do what I can.
I was just about to log off when I saw this. I can formalize this tomorrow, but given that there's only 4 hours left in the voting period, I figured I'd at least post the reasoning:
Barney's vote is not removed.
Given how short the debate was, the voter's short but reasonable evaluation of the presented arguments is sufficient, especially as he does provide specific analysis of each side's arguments.
I've finished reading the debate, but I want to dig back into the rounds a bit more to come up with a decision. Should be able to manage that over the next few days and write up a decision this weekend.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: FishChaser // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to pro (arguments)
>Reason for Decision: Benjamin gets several things wrong about 12 year old Naruto, For instance Naruto took the Chunin exams and learned the rasengan while still 12.
Even still, the avatar state is pretty hard to beat for 12 year old Naruto even assuming he could even contend with Aang in base form.
Benjamin also misrepresents Naruto as a mindless brute when Naruto is a creative/tactical genius but that alone doesn't win Naruto the fight.
Baggins also gets something wrong, get it actually works to his favor because Naruto CAN access some 9 tails chakra voluntarily at this point, but he has to run out of his normal chakra first.
At the end of the day, I think it's clear that Aang has more power, speed and versatility which will rape Naruto directly in the anus cheeks.
Also, the likelihood of Naruto passing the first tail is low because over time, the seal on Kurama weakened allowing more of Kurama's chakra to get through. Chances are that Naruto at age 12 would only get one tail at best and it is more likely that he wouldn't even get that far since it took almost being killed by Sasuke and knowing that he was losing/being betrayed by his best friend to activate the first tail.
There is a way that Baggins could have argued to be the biggest douche bag possible, since Aang was frozen he was technically just suspended in a 12 year old body while being much older. Technically when Aang was 12, he only had air bending in base form.
Baggins overstates Naruto's speed, which is significantly lower than lightspeed and is still lower even later when he gains six paths sage mode. Haku starts to move in front of Kakashi's raikiri before he starts charging towards Zabuza if I remember correctly.
The claim that Naruto can tank fire blasts in base form is wrong. The only time I remember him getting flamed in base form that one might interpret him as tanking it is when Naruto fought Sasuke on the roof of the hospital, but he used his rasengan to create a barrier similar to Hyuga "rotation".
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter appears to provide a great deal of analysis regarding the veracity of certain claims within the debate, some of which are actual rebuttals made by the debaters, and some of which are the voter himself inserting his insights. While that is valuable feedback for the debaters, it is not in and of itself a basis for the decision. The only line of text in this RFD that speaks to the decision directly is:
"At the end of the day, I think it's clear that Aang has more power, speed and versatility which will rape Naruto directly in the anus cheeks."
While the voter is welcome to post feedback for the debaters, the voter should be clear about what arguments by Pro and Con led him to believe that Aang has these three elements over Naruto. It does not help that the voter does not point to any specific points made in Aang's favor, focusing his attention almost entirely on the claims for Naruto, which makes it difficult to determine how the voter thinks Pro established that Aang has these advantages.
**************************************************
Still got a couple of weeks, won’t be a problem.
Didn’t give much thought to scoring, honestly.
I enjoyed listening to all of these, but I'll admit I don't listen to a lot of electronic music. There's only so many different kinds of taste in music you can account for with these.
Alright, I'll get to this.
As I said in my RFD, I thought the pieces were there for you to succeed with your arguments in the debate, though yeah, there were some errors in your approach to blamonkey's case. I think you did well given the circumstances, but I also think you handicapped yourself in that approach.
I... honestly have no idea how to respond to that. I'm not sure we can get on the same page at this point, given that that last response has basically nothing to do with what I just said, so I'm just going to stop here.
My point was that you could have argued that other impacts matter more or, absent that, put more focus and attention on the ways that a kettle and dildo could enhance your chances of survival. You let yourself get too spread out in your analysis and you didn't argue why the impacts you did focus on are paramount. Both of you could use work in that regard.
In paragraph 3, I detailed what specific impacts stood out to me as the most important in the debate and why.
I haven't forgotten about this. I'm spending some time on a flight this week, so I'm going to have time to read through it and start writing out thoughts.
I made very clear how I was weighing things early in my RFD. That final line doesn't change how that weighing calculus works, nor does my acknowledgement of the pairs of items.
It's perhaps in poor taste, and voters are welcome to recognize that in their votes, but yes, he's "allowed" to say it.
I'll aim to get to this this week.
I think I can squeeze this into the next two months somewhere...
I'll work on it this weekend.
So true. Also, all The Good Place references are very much appreciated. Love that show.