What I do as moderator isn't to evaluate who has the best logic or remove votes I personally disagree with. It's to see if each voter meets the voting standards for the site. That's it. If you want to assume that the system is rigged simply because I've noted that one voter met those standards on their third attempt and the other did not on their first, that's up to you. As for bias, literally every vote demonstrates at least some of it. If that means that they fail to consider some point at all or reject it off hand for no reason other than that bias, then there's a valid case for removal, but being biased in and of itself is not.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Mieky // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro
>Reason for Decision:
See Votes Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter clearly provides their reasoning based on points made in the debate, explaining their perception of the presented arguments and how that affects the strength of the rebuttals with specific examples. It is sufficient under the voting standards.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: tigerlord // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to Pro (Arguments)
>Reason for Decision:
See Votes Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
This debate and the votes on it are not subject to normal moderation standards. So long as the vote doesn't violate broader rules on the site, it stands.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: IamAdityaDhaka // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 6 to Pro (Arguments, Sources, Legibility)
>Reason for Decision:
Con offers a focused and compelling argument that Pro fails to sufficiently address: animal suffering is unjustified under an all-good, all-powerful God.
Pro meanders through philosophical musings on math, logic, and Helen Keller, but these serve more as distractions than direct rebuttals. The crux of Con’s case is clear and sharp: why does gratuitous animal suffering exist if God is wholly good and omnipotent? This isn’t about human free will or soul-building—it’s about non-human creatures enduring pain with no clear moral, spiritual, or redemptive value.
Pro’s response largely dodges this, relying on vague ideas like animals maybe not really suffering or suffering being “possibly necessary” without proving why a good God must allow it. That’s not a resolution—that’s speculation.
Perhaps there’s a reason for it all, albeit one we can’t comprehend—but until such a reason is demonstrated, Con holds the stronger case. A resolution must be complete.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter appears to be awarding points to the opposite side from the one they wished to. The voter also doesn't justify source or legibility points.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Umbrellacorp // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to Con
>Reason for Decision:
Vote: con
Reason: Dhaka called him darling and sweetheart. How nice of him!
The reason for the vote is that trying to prevent or change your child's sexuality is factually ignorant, and also-staying on the topic- not ethical (even questioning if it is ethical is absurd). Unless you invoke religion. Which 21pilots does. Obviously because there is no other way to defend his position (or even attach some ethics to it) except for saying: Because god says so.
His arguments outside religion look like this: Parents have the fear that their child might not survive or that they might lose it all or that they will not be good parents. So it is not selfish that they are torturing a child just to feel good for themselves but it is ethical because they have fear. A very ethical argument in itself!
And Dhaka also calls him honey! Wholesome!
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter appears to be providing a lot of their perspective on the topic and views on how each side should argue it, then provides a number of responses to Pro's points on the topic while only looking at Con's use of certain words in the debate as a show of good conduct. The voter is required to consider arguments presented by both sides and focus on those points made within the debate.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Umbrellacorp // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to Pro
>Reason for Decision:
My new vote. Hopefully not 'vague'! And with quoting.
Pro- starts with the definition and key features. "Democracy holds individuals in power accountable for their actions and equally disperses power between populations in form of voting and rights. Democracy allows representation of the civilians as a whole rather than opinions of groups in power. This significantly reduces abuse.". - A basic argument but good for starters. Defends his stance.
Con- "Fascism can be good and Authoritarianism is necessary.".- What does this have to do with anything? Are you implying that Pro is defending fascism? I don't understand but anyway, an irrelevant statement to start your argument with.
-"It depends entirely on variance and so to say 'pot luck' if the party representing one's combination of views even exists to vote for. Most people suffer again and again and keep havinh to vote what they see as a less terrible edition of a corrupt regime.
Democracy tends to lead to too much multiculturalism. This matters because how can a sexist homophobic culture infiltrating a nation that strongly is for gay rights and feminism fit in? Especially if that culture is pro dictatorship. I cannot type more for risk of spreading hate speech getting me put in prison. I will leave it as a valid issue of democracy.". - These two arguments make understand that he doesn't even know what he is talking about. How does it depend on 'pot luck' if the party of the majority gets selected? Have you no idea what democracy means? Yes, people who did not vote like the majority might suffer in a hypothetical strictly democratic system. It is not the case in reality, because they get representation for the % of votes, but he is right on the perspective. Then he says it leads to 'multiculturalism'. What??????? How???? If the majority wins, then where is the multi-culture?
Again he states:-"Democracy blackmails regularly. It has authoritarian laws and enforces them in authoritarian manner.". Source for this. Maybe cite an authoritarian law? Also, this statement is brutal in itself. Implying that 'Democracy is authoritarian'. Totaly the oposite of what it is. If you derive this from a real life example then cite! But again, this is not a topic about the democracy in 'x' country.
Excuse me but i am not going to go further to the christian arguments. They for me do not count. It is clear con doesn't know what he is talking about here.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Voters are required to only consider arguments made in the debate and not impose their own arguments on the debate to make their decision. In this case, the voter appears to respond to Con directly without explaining what points Pro made that establish he won the debate apart from pointing to the initial argument Pro makes and saying he defended it. If Con's arguments were defeated by Pro, then it should be clear how he did that.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Umbrellacorp // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to Pro (Arguments)
>Reason for Decision:
I am sorry to have to vote in the favour of the contendant who defends a wrongful philosophy.
Quoting con:"I mean that God strictly "may" be possible. I never said that God must exist in some world, I only said that he "may". If God exists in one world, then yeah, he must exist in all worlds. But God could also exist in no worlds. God's possibility doesn't necessitate him living in at least one world (and then by extension all worlds). "
Yes con but in the modal ontological argument there exists a world in which that being is NECESSARY to exist (for the sake of its own greatness) therefore causing the probability for all the other worlds to collapse to his necessary existence.
Unfortunately, con didn't even understand the topic so pro wins by default. Of course, having made the arguments for the position that the modal ontological argument is sound.
I am willing to explain to pro why this philosophy falls short scientifically and also philosophicaly even if it might sound logical.
>Reason for Mod Action:
While the voter does demonstrate objectivity in voting for the side they don't agree with, voters are required to only consider arguments made in the debate and not impose their own arguments on the debate to make their decision. In this case, the voter appears to just respond to Con directly without explaining what points Pro made that establish he won the debate, and though there is merit to these arguments, they cannot factor as major parts of the voter's RFD.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: ChatKnight// Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 7 to Con
>Reason for Decision:
Pro is brainwashed and just posted propaganda.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Not an RFD, more an attack on Pro.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Mieky // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro
>Reason for Decision:
i believe that pro is the winner.
To me I don't really think its as extreme as Con explained it in there agreement but thats not the only reason I voted for Pro. He had more impactful agreements. For me he won the second and third round and if Con won the first round it would be 2-1.
First Round
Con-Due to forfiet
Second Round
Pro- He countered most of Cons whole agreement while also adding some on his religion agreement.
Third Round
Pro- Con sort of gave up in the end.
>Reason for Mod Action:
While this vote is more specific than the first, it still is not sufficient. The voter can't just generally state that one side "countered most" of the other's argument or "had more impactful agreements". Voters must provide some specific analysis of the arguments made by each side in the debate and explain how this yields these larger views of how they affected the debate as whole. If a vote like this could be applied to any number of debates where one side forfeited the first round, then it's not going to meet the voting standards.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: pierree // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to Pro
>Reason for Decision:
LucyStarfire get the fuck out of this site please
>Reason for Mod Action:
Pretty obvious...
**************************************************
I'm going to ask that you both take a breath here and refrain from attacking each other too personally in these responses. Seeing a lot of attacks on each other personally that stretch the limits of the CoC.
@Shane lines like "I'd personally strap you down into their office for mental examination" and "Although maybe if your parents did physically whiplash you more, you wouldn't be a brat with an over inflated ego" are particularly inappropriate.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to Pro
>Reason for Decision:
Resolution; "One should defend the weak against the powerful" This is deceptively simple, and Pro's primary BoP is one of morality, and neither "fineness" to enable defense, nor necessarily superior strategy to overcome superior power, but merely the will to defend, regardless of outcome.
Con's mistake is attempting to imply by "defend" that this requires adequate "fitness" and declares this is a Darwinian principle that superior "fitness" equals superior power, thus the bolted statement leading Con's argument: "when the weak are constantly supported by the powerful, they become even weaker. " By this claim, it is obvious, for example, that the British, having the superior armed forces durns the American Revolution, should have been victorious. Con's argument is defeated by Pro's superior argument that, one, :"fitness" does not necessarily equate to greater strength, but greater will. Thus,
pro's superior argument "Power or Weakness is a Mindset." pro acknowledges that physical strength may, indeed overwhelm weakness of mind, but Con is unsuccessful in rebutting the original Resultion that it weakness is not merely depended on physical strength to overcome a greater power.
Therefore, Pro's Reolution, and his strength of argument for it, wins.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter does go through specific points made by both debaters, but seems to attribute them to opposite sides, so it's hard to tell whether this vote is awarding points correctly. The reasoning needs some clarification.
**************************************************
Maybe just accept that it’s a Sunday morning here, that I’m planning for a trip today and have limited time, that I nonetheless woke up and quickly tried to respond to you, then apologized for my error. Maybe don’t be a jerk about it.
Alright, there does appear to be some confusion of who has which points, as some are ascribed to the wrong debater. Sorry, it’s early in the morning here.
Fauxlaw, you’re probably going to have to rewrite this one. Not really sure which side you think did better based on the arguments you’re quoting and emphasizing.
I don’t think fauxlaw is confused here. It’s strange for him to put those words in quotes when they weren’t directly stated in the debate, but he’s referencing your arguments on fitness, not your opponent’s. And much as the specific words “Power or Weakness is a Mindset” don’t appear in the debate in that order, he is clear about what arguments he’s referencing when he discusses that. So I disagree that he’s creating new arguments just by giving them new titles, and his analysis takes into account individual points that do come from the debate. This vote would stand under the voting policy.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Barney // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to Con
>Reason for Decision:
See Votes Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter has added to their reasoning with specific arguments from each side to further explain how they came to their decision. It does meet the standards required for a vote on the site, with the analogy to Star Wars functioning more as flavor to describe how he sees the debate as a whole in a different context.
**************************************************
Was confused for a second there looking through the debate, though it's clear you posted your arguments in the comments. I'll see if I can get through this before the time limit.
"Ty for voting but it may get reported.
Ty for modding too."
Nothing about this posts suggests that they are colluding. Thanking Barney for his vote, mentioning that it may be reported (as you have), and appreciating that he moderated this debate does not explicitly show nor imply that "they are in cahoots." That's your assertion.
I can't explain it any better than I have, so it's clear that either I can't convince you that the words Barney used mean what they say, or you refuse to accept that they do. Either way, there's no point in continuing to try to explain it.
As for saying that I'm working for Con... you clearly have no idea of our history. Among all the people on this site, AdaptableRatman is the very last person who would ever believe I am working towards his benefit.
Anyway, you clearly have a problem with the vote removal. I can tell you now: it's not getting reversed. So, please, contact Tigerlord and encourage him to post a new vote with more of his reasoning. He's cast sufficient votes under the voting standards before, I'm sure he can do it again.
At this point, it feels like you're deliberately misreading my posts.
I didn't say anything about what Con did or didn't do. In the reason for removal, what Con did or didn't do wasn't referenced. Tigerlord being correct or incorrect wasn't referenced. None of this factored in the removal of this vote, which was done for the singular and very simple reason that Tigerlord is, no matter what arguments were given or how correct or incorrect they were, required to show some analysis of those points from each side. He did that for you. He did not do that for your opponent. I'm sure he'll come to the same decision regardless, but he's required to show his work in his RFD. That's all that's required for his vote to be valid. Not a change in who he's picking to win the debate, not even a change in perspective about specific arguments, just clarity on where his perspective on Con's arguments is coming from and why.
I will review Barney's vote tonight, but before I do, I'm going to re-post that reason for removal that he posted:
"The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
This vote essentially treated the debate as a foregone conclusion (which would be fine had one side simply not attempted to argue anything; but at a glance that is not the case); about the only redeeming trait on it is acknowledging weakness from the favored side (even while still coddling them via voting for them just for being on the preferred side of the issue, without being able to explain anything good about their argument)."
Barney is not saying that Tigerlord is incorrect. At no point in that reasoning does he make any attempt to claim he is wrong. He is, nonetheless, required to include some analysis of arguments presented by both sides. He provides that analysis for you. What little he provided for Con dismissed his argument out of hand, suggesting that he treats this debate as a foregone conclusion. If he had good reason to dismiss Con's arguments, then Tigerlord should have no trouble explaining what that reasoning was and re-posting his vote with it.
Barney provided a specific reason for removal. That reason did not include who he chose to vote for, nor did it suggest that votes for you should be uniquely targeted for reports and removal. If tigerlord modifies his vote such that it meets the standards laid out in Barney's comment, then his vote will stand.
It's fine if you believe that you won this debate. I'm not challenging you on that, nor do I plan to read and vote on this debate. But just because you believe you've won doesn't mean that you should automatically be granted the win by everyone who votes here.
If you'd like to report Barney's vote, just say so and I'll review it and post a decision on that as well.
As for boycotting the site, if that's what you choose to do, so be it. That's entirely up to you.
Setting aside the fact that our developer is MIA and that he wouldn’t enforce voting standards if he was around, again, what you’re arguing against is the existing rules for voting. And, again, on a debate where neither side argues, votes are rarely removed and voters are allowed to reward one side with the win for showing up instead of forcing the other side to just wait out the clock on each and every round forfeit.
No one said blank space was an argument. I said voters are allowed to point to the difference between someone showing up and posting and someone not showing up at all as a basis for awarding points. A full forfeit vs. a blank post is still a difference in attendance.
I’ve given you the reason why I won’t remove their votes. I legitimately have no idea what else you could be looking to get from me in terms of reasoning.
Alright, maybe this wasn’t clear, so I’ll spell it out as plainly as I can.
When two sides each make arguments in a debate on this site, as long as neither side has forfeited 40% of the rounds or outright conceded the debate, voters are required to evaluate the arguments of both sides as part of their reasoning for awarding points.
When one side forfeits every single round, the standard for voting changes because the content of the debate is markedly different, i.e. virtually non-existent. Voters are not required to assess non-existent reasoning to award points. Voters are also allowed to use their vote to punish multiple forfeits in the way these voters have. Even though both sides forfeited, one clearly showed up for at least a couple of rounds, and the voters are allowed to award them points for that reason alone in the absence of any attendance to the debate from the other side.
“ Any unexcused forfeited round merits an automatic conduct loss, but arguments must still be voted on or justified as a tie. Repeated forfeitures waives the need to consider arguments (you still may, but by the choice of one side to miss at least 40% of the debate, the requirement ceases. And yes, this does apply to Choose Winner, which otherwise would not allow conduct to be the sole determinant).”
That’s the voting policy and the specific part about forfeits that applies here. On a debate where one side forfeited every single round, this absolutely applies.
Alright, there may have been some uncertainty or lack of clarity before, so I’ll be clear now.
I am the head moderator. I’ve pointed to an example of the type of effort to influence votes that you should not be doing. I am warning you not to continue doing it here and on other debates. You are welcome to ask for people to vote on debates, but avoid influencing them in your requests.
Consider this that warning, then. You can absolutely ask for people to vote on your debates. You should not also be trying to influence those votes by providing your perspective on the debate or asking them to specifically vote for you. That is still influence, even if I would consider it minor.
If you read my RFD, you'd know that my decision actually had more to do with what you wrote than it did with anything he wrote, but believe what you want I guess.
He's been warned about it, but there's a difference between engaging in unfair or unethical behavior and violating site rules. This isn't a ban-worthy offense. If voters choose to award conduct to you on the basis that he's doing this, then that's a valid response. As for "who is making the voters decide," I know both my and Savant's decisions have come from ourselves, not from being asked to vote. I understand that pressing for votes in his favor is problematic, but it doesn't remove the ability of voters to think or vote independently. Nor, for that matter, does behaving like this mean that said debater cannot possibly earn a win on the debate.
As for reconsidering my vote, while I might reconsider other points, my reasoning for awarding him arguments still stands. I'll note that that reasoning also has nothing to do with anything he's posted so far. I don't vote on any debate with a mind towards the overall credibility of the site (I tend to focus on the arguments and the topic at hand), and I don't think that's at stake here anyway. I think it would stretch the meaning of awarding arguments to use them to enforce good ethics instead of considering and weighing the points presented.
His English could certainly use some work, though it's up to voters to decide whether that matters enough to award legibility. It's borderline for me, but still sufficiently understandable that I didn't award it.
In terms of using AI, that is also an issue left to the voters in terms of how much it matters. For me at least, the strength of his own arguments wasn't the main issue that decided my vote.
Jonrohith has already been told he shouldn't be trying to influence the votes on this or any other debate, so I agree that's an issue.
I’m good with the vote because I hadn’t realized at the time that this had been posted that this debate would meet the standards of a full forfeit (>40% of the debate being forfeited), so the standard for a vote goes down significantly. That was my error for not recognizing it at the time.
He literally copy-pasted my vote from another debate (excluding specific details to that debate), so it would be allowed if that was his reasoning, but will be removed whenever I get a chance (I’m traveling all day today) because he’s plagiarizing my vote rather than making his own.
When a debater forfeits every single round, it means they didn’t show up at all. That means the other side, as long as they posted anything at all (even if it’s not an argument), automatically wins the debate by site rules. It’s also true that, with full forfeits like this, votes that award points to the side that did not forfeit are not subject to moderation. That side loses by default. Your vote would be the only one here subject to moderation since you awarded points to Con despite his forfeiting every round.
>Vote: jonrohith // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 5 to Pro (Arguments, Conduct, Legibility)
>Reason for Decision:
Pro stand in his topic firmly till end, I won't whether argument is big like essay. but pro's argument is short but clearly explained his views, but con is speaking more similarly throughout the debate like agnostic atheist . I not satisfied with con's source that sources are not unique ,they are simple.
Reason for Removal: it’s nice to see a longer RFD, but this is still insufficient. The voter doesn’t explain conduct that I can see, nor does he explain legibility. Arguments get some explanation, but the voter is required to assess the strength of specific arguments from both sides, not just state that one side “firmly” held to the topic and “clearly explained his views.” It’s also unclear what point the voter is making about Con’s sources or what the problem is with Con “speaking more similarly throughout the debate like agnostic atheist”. Was he off topic? It’s unclear.
**************************************************
Looking forward to it!
Your vote, which was posted a second time without changes, was removed again.
What I do as moderator isn't to evaluate who has the best logic or remove votes I personally disagree with. It's to see if each voter meets the voting standards for the site. That's it. If you want to assume that the system is rigged simply because I've noted that one voter met those standards on their third attempt and the other did not on their first, that's up to you. As for bias, literally every vote demonstrates at least some of it. If that means that they fail to consider some point at all or reject it off hand for no reason other than that bias, then there's a valid case for removal, but being biased in and of itself is not.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Mieky // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro
>Reason for Decision:
See Votes Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter clearly provides their reasoning based on points made in the debate, explaining their perception of the presented arguments and how that affects the strength of the rebuttals with specific examples. It is sufficient under the voting standards.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: tigerlord // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to Pro (Arguments)
>Reason for Decision:
See Votes Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
This debate and the votes on it are not subject to normal moderation standards. So long as the vote doesn't violate broader rules on the site, it stands.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: IamAdityaDhaka // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 6 to Pro (Arguments, Sources, Legibility)
>Reason for Decision:
Con offers a focused and compelling argument that Pro fails to sufficiently address: animal suffering is unjustified under an all-good, all-powerful God.
Pro meanders through philosophical musings on math, logic, and Helen Keller, but these serve more as distractions than direct rebuttals. The crux of Con’s case is clear and sharp: why does gratuitous animal suffering exist if God is wholly good and omnipotent? This isn’t about human free will or soul-building—it’s about non-human creatures enduring pain with no clear moral, spiritual, or redemptive value.
Pro’s response largely dodges this, relying on vague ideas like animals maybe not really suffering or suffering being “possibly necessary” without proving why a good God must allow it. That’s not a resolution—that’s speculation.
Perhaps there’s a reason for it all, albeit one we can’t comprehend—but until such a reason is demonstrated, Con holds the stronger case. A resolution must be complete.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter appears to be awarding points to the opposite side from the one they wished to. The voter also doesn't justify source or legibility points.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Umbrellacorp // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to Con
>Reason for Decision:
Vote: con
Reason: Dhaka called him darling and sweetheart. How nice of him!
The reason for the vote is that trying to prevent or change your child's sexuality is factually ignorant, and also-staying on the topic- not ethical (even questioning if it is ethical is absurd). Unless you invoke religion. Which 21pilots does. Obviously because there is no other way to defend his position (or even attach some ethics to it) except for saying: Because god says so.
His arguments outside religion look like this: Parents have the fear that their child might not survive or that they might lose it all or that they will not be good parents. So it is not selfish that they are torturing a child just to feel good for themselves but it is ethical because they have fear. A very ethical argument in itself!
And Dhaka also calls him honey! Wholesome!
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter appears to be providing a lot of their perspective on the topic and views on how each side should argue it, then provides a number of responses to Pro's points on the topic while only looking at Con's use of certain words in the debate as a show of good conduct. The voter is required to consider arguments presented by both sides and focus on those points made within the debate.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Umbrellacorp // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to Pro
>Reason for Decision:
My new vote. Hopefully not 'vague'! And with quoting.
Pro- starts with the definition and key features. "Democracy holds individuals in power accountable for their actions and equally disperses power between populations in form of voting and rights. Democracy allows representation of the civilians as a whole rather than opinions of groups in power. This significantly reduces abuse.". - A basic argument but good for starters. Defends his stance.
Con- "Fascism can be good and Authoritarianism is necessary.".- What does this have to do with anything? Are you implying that Pro is defending fascism? I don't understand but anyway, an irrelevant statement to start your argument with.
-"It depends entirely on variance and so to say 'pot luck' if the party representing one's combination of views even exists to vote for. Most people suffer again and again and keep havinh to vote what they see as a less terrible edition of a corrupt regime.
Democracy tends to lead to too much multiculturalism. This matters because how can a sexist homophobic culture infiltrating a nation that strongly is for gay rights and feminism fit in? Especially if that culture is pro dictatorship. I cannot type more for risk of spreading hate speech getting me put in prison. I will leave it as a valid issue of democracy.". - These two arguments make understand that he doesn't even know what he is talking about. How does it depend on 'pot luck' if the party of the majority gets selected? Have you no idea what democracy means? Yes, people who did not vote like the majority might suffer in a hypothetical strictly democratic system. It is not the case in reality, because they get representation for the % of votes, but he is right on the perspective. Then he says it leads to 'multiculturalism'. What??????? How???? If the majority wins, then where is the multi-culture?
Again he states:-"Democracy blackmails regularly. It has authoritarian laws and enforces them in authoritarian manner.". Source for this. Maybe cite an authoritarian law? Also, this statement is brutal in itself. Implying that 'Democracy is authoritarian'. Totaly the oposite of what it is. If you derive this from a real life example then cite! But again, this is not a topic about the democracy in 'x' country.
Excuse me but i am not going to go further to the christian arguments. They for me do not count. It is clear con doesn't know what he is talking about here.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Voters are required to only consider arguments made in the debate and not impose their own arguments on the debate to make their decision. In this case, the voter appears to respond to Con directly without explaining what points Pro made that establish he won the debate apart from pointing to the initial argument Pro makes and saying he defended it. If Con's arguments were defeated by Pro, then it should be clear how he did that.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Umbrellacorp // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to Pro (Arguments)
>Reason for Decision:
I am sorry to have to vote in the favour of the contendant who defends a wrongful philosophy.
Quoting con:"I mean that God strictly "may" be possible. I never said that God must exist in some world, I only said that he "may". If God exists in one world, then yeah, he must exist in all worlds. But God could also exist in no worlds. God's possibility doesn't necessitate him living in at least one world (and then by extension all worlds). "
Yes con but in the modal ontological argument there exists a world in which that being is NECESSARY to exist (for the sake of its own greatness) therefore causing the probability for all the other worlds to collapse to his necessary existence.
Unfortunately, con didn't even understand the topic so pro wins by default. Of course, having made the arguments for the position that the modal ontological argument is sound.
I am willing to explain to pro why this philosophy falls short scientifically and also philosophicaly even if it might sound logical.
>Reason for Mod Action:
While the voter does demonstrate objectivity in voting for the side they don't agree with, voters are required to only consider arguments made in the debate and not impose their own arguments on the debate to make their decision. In this case, the voter appears to just respond to Con directly without explaining what points Pro made that establish he won the debate, and though there is merit to these arguments, they cannot factor as major parts of the voter's RFD.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: ChatKnight// Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 7 to Con
>Reason for Decision:
Pro is brainwashed and just posted propaganda.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Not an RFD, more an attack on Pro.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Mieky // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro
>Reason for Decision:
i believe that pro is the winner.
To me I don't really think its as extreme as Con explained it in there agreement but thats not the only reason I voted for Pro. He had more impactful agreements. For me he won the second and third round and if Con won the first round it would be 2-1.
First Round
Con-Due to forfiet
Second Round
Pro- He countered most of Cons whole agreement while also adding some on his religion agreement.
Third Round
Pro- Con sort of gave up in the end.
>Reason for Mod Action:
While this vote is more specific than the first, it still is not sufficient. The voter can't just generally state that one side "countered most" of the other's argument or "had more impactful agreements". Voters must provide some specific analysis of the arguments made by each side in the debate and explain how this yields these larger views of how they affected the debate as whole. If a vote like this could be applied to any number of debates where one side forfeited the first round, then it's not going to meet the voting standards.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: pierree // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to Pro
>Reason for Decision:
LucyStarfire get the fuck out of this site please
>Reason for Mod Action:
Pretty obvious...
**************************************************
I'm going to ask that you both take a breath here and refrain from attacking each other too personally in these responses. Seeing a lot of attacks on each other personally that stretch the limits of the CoC.
@Shane lines like "I'd personally strap you down into their office for mental examination" and "Although maybe if your parents did physically whiplash you more, you wouldn't be a brat with an over inflated ego" are particularly inappropriate.
Ah, must have mistyped that. I recalled the distinction in your argument, just didn't get the spelling right, but thank you for clarifying.
Probably don’t need me to say this, but when this is done, definitely hit me up for a vote. I know you both are excellent on this topic.
I am working on this, yes.
All good. I’ll make sure anyone who reads this is directed to the comments for this round.
You're welcome. Hopefully the reasoning is clear.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to Pro
>Reason for Decision:
Resolution; "One should defend the weak against the powerful" This is deceptively simple, and Pro's primary BoP is one of morality, and neither "fineness" to enable defense, nor necessarily superior strategy to overcome superior power, but merely the will to defend, regardless of outcome.
Con's mistake is attempting to imply by "defend" that this requires adequate "fitness" and declares this is a Darwinian principle that superior "fitness" equals superior power, thus the bolted statement leading Con's argument: "when the weak are constantly supported by the powerful, they become even weaker. " By this claim, it is obvious, for example, that the British, having the superior armed forces durns the American Revolution, should have been victorious. Con's argument is defeated by Pro's superior argument that, one, :"fitness" does not necessarily equate to greater strength, but greater will. Thus,
pro's superior argument "Power or Weakness is a Mindset." pro acknowledges that physical strength may, indeed overwhelm weakness of mind, but Con is unsuccessful in rebutting the original Resultion that it weakness is not merely depended on physical strength to overcome a greater power.
Therefore, Pro's Reolution, and his strength of argument for it, wins.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter does go through specific points made by both debaters, but seems to attribute them to opposite sides, so it's hard to tell whether this vote is awarding points correctly. The reasoning needs some clarification.
**************************************************
Maybe just accept that it’s a Sunday morning here, that I’m planning for a trip today and have limited time, that I nonetheless woke up and quickly tried to respond to you, then apologized for my error. Maybe don’t be a jerk about it.
It will have to wait. I’ve got more than enough on my plate this morning.
Alright, there does appear to be some confusion of who has which points, as some are ascribed to the wrong debater. Sorry, it’s early in the morning here.
Fauxlaw, you’re probably going to have to rewrite this one. Not really sure which side you think did better based on the arguments you’re quoting and emphasizing.
I don’t think fauxlaw is confused here. It’s strange for him to put those words in quotes when they weren’t directly stated in the debate, but he’s referencing your arguments on fitness, not your opponent’s. And much as the specific words “Power or Weakness is a Mindset” don’t appear in the debate in that order, he is clear about what arguments he’s referencing when he discusses that. So I disagree that he’s creating new arguments just by giving them new titles, and his analysis takes into account individual points that do come from the debate. This vote would stand under the voting policy.
Um… OK?
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Barney // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to Con
>Reason for Decision:
See Votes Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter has added to their reasoning with specific arguments from each side to further explain how they came to their decision. It does meet the standards required for a vote on the site, with the analogy to Star Wars functioning more as flavor to describe how he sees the debate as a whole in a different context.
**************************************************
Was confused for a second there looking through the debate, though it's clear you posted your arguments in the comments. I'll see if I can get through this before the time limit.
I appreciate that. I hope I was able to clarify some things at least.
"Ty for voting but it may get reported.
Ty for modding too."
Nothing about this posts suggests that they are colluding. Thanking Barney for his vote, mentioning that it may be reported (as you have), and appreciating that he moderated this debate does not explicitly show nor imply that "they are in cahoots." That's your assertion.
I can't explain it any better than I have, so it's clear that either I can't convince you that the words Barney used mean what they say, or you refuse to accept that they do. Either way, there's no point in continuing to try to explain it.
As for saying that I'm working for Con... you clearly have no idea of our history. Among all the people on this site, AdaptableRatman is the very last person who would ever believe I am working towards his benefit.
Anyway, you clearly have a problem with the vote removal. I can tell you now: it's not getting reversed. So, please, contact Tigerlord and encourage him to post a new vote with more of his reasoning. He's cast sufficient votes under the voting standards before, I'm sure he can do it again.
At this point, it feels like you're deliberately misreading my posts.
I didn't say anything about what Con did or didn't do. In the reason for removal, what Con did or didn't do wasn't referenced. Tigerlord being correct or incorrect wasn't referenced. None of this factored in the removal of this vote, which was done for the singular and very simple reason that Tigerlord is, no matter what arguments were given or how correct or incorrect they were, required to show some analysis of those points from each side. He did that for you. He did not do that for your opponent. I'm sure he'll come to the same decision regardless, but he's required to show his work in his RFD. That's all that's required for his vote to be valid. Not a change in who he's picking to win the debate, not even a change in perspective about specific arguments, just clarity on where his perspective on Con's arguments is coming from and why.
I will review Barney's vote tonight, but before I do, I'm going to re-post that reason for removal that he posted:
"The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
This vote essentially treated the debate as a foregone conclusion (which would be fine had one side simply not attempted to argue anything; but at a glance that is not the case); about the only redeeming trait on it is acknowledging weakness from the favored side (even while still coddling them via voting for them just for being on the preferred side of the issue, without being able to explain anything good about their argument)."
Barney is not saying that Tigerlord is incorrect. At no point in that reasoning does he make any attempt to claim he is wrong. He is, nonetheless, required to include some analysis of arguments presented by both sides. He provides that analysis for you. What little he provided for Con dismissed his argument out of hand, suggesting that he treats this debate as a foregone conclusion. If he had good reason to dismiss Con's arguments, then Tigerlord should have no trouble explaining what that reasoning was and re-posting his vote with it.
Barney provided a specific reason for removal. That reason did not include who he chose to vote for, nor did it suggest that votes for you should be uniquely targeted for reports and removal. If tigerlord modifies his vote such that it meets the standards laid out in Barney's comment, then his vote will stand.
It's fine if you believe that you won this debate. I'm not challenging you on that, nor do I plan to read and vote on this debate. But just because you believe you've won doesn't mean that you should automatically be granted the win by everyone who votes here.
If you'd like to report Barney's vote, just say so and I'll review it and post a decision on that as well.
As for boycotting the site, if that's what you choose to do, so be it. That's entirely up to you.
The decision to remove Tigerlord's vote will stand. He's welcome to vote again and improve on his vote to abide by the voting standards.
Setting aside the fact that our developer is MIA and that he wouldn’t enforce voting standards if he was around, again, what you’re arguing against is the existing rules for voting. And, again, on a debate where neither side argues, votes are rarely removed and voters are allowed to reward one side with the win for showing up instead of forcing the other side to just wait out the clock on each and every round forfeit.
Alright.
No one said blank space was an argument. I said voters are allowed to point to the difference between someone showing up and posting and someone not showing up at all as a basis for awarding points. A full forfeit vs. a blank post is still a difference in attendance.
I’ve given you the reason why I won’t remove their votes. I legitimately have no idea what else you could be looking to get from me in terms of reasoning.
Alright, maybe this wasn’t clear, so I’ll spell it out as plainly as I can.
When two sides each make arguments in a debate on this site, as long as neither side has forfeited 40% of the rounds or outright conceded the debate, voters are required to evaluate the arguments of both sides as part of their reasoning for awarding points.
When one side forfeits every single round, the standard for voting changes because the content of the debate is markedly different, i.e. virtually non-existent. Voters are not required to assess non-existent reasoning to award points. Voters are also allowed to use their vote to punish multiple forfeits in the way these voters have. Even though both sides forfeited, one clearly showed up for at least a couple of rounds, and the voters are allowed to award them points for that reason alone in the absence of any attendance to the debate from the other side.
…I don’t understand that response. No one’s “giving reason” they are just pointing to the lack of participation as a reason to award points.
You may not like how the voting policy works, but you can argue against the policy then. Still means the votes stand under that policy.
“ Any unexcused forfeited round merits an automatic conduct loss, but arguments must still be voted on or justified as a tie. Repeated forfeitures waives the need to consider arguments (you still may, but by the choice of one side to miss at least 40% of the debate, the requirement ceases. And yes, this does apply to Choose Winner, which otherwise would not allow conduct to be the sole determinant).”
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
That’s the voting policy and the specific part about forfeits that applies here. On a debate where one side forfeited every single round, this absolutely applies.
Alright, there may have been some uncertainty or lack of clarity before, so I’ll be clear now.
I am the head moderator. I’ve pointed to an example of the type of effort to influence votes that you should not be doing. I am warning you not to continue doing it here and on other debates. You are welcome to ask for people to vote on debates, but avoid influencing them in your requests.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/6198-right-to-speech-must-be-limited?open_tab=comments&comments_page=1&comment_number=5
Posts that tell voters how they should perceive the debate before they read it are meant to influence them.
Consider this that warning, then. You can absolutely ask for people to vote on your debates. You should not also be trying to influence those votes by providing your perspective on the debate or asking them to specifically vote for you. That is still influence, even if I would consider it minor.
If you read my RFD, you'd know that my decision actually had more to do with what you wrote than it did with anything he wrote, but believe what you want I guess.
He's been warned about it, but there's a difference between engaging in unfair or unethical behavior and violating site rules. This isn't a ban-worthy offense. If voters choose to award conduct to you on the basis that he's doing this, then that's a valid response. As for "who is making the voters decide," I know both my and Savant's decisions have come from ourselves, not from being asked to vote. I understand that pressing for votes in his favor is problematic, but it doesn't remove the ability of voters to think or vote independently. Nor, for that matter, does behaving like this mean that said debater cannot possibly earn a win on the debate.
As for reconsidering my vote, while I might reconsider other points, my reasoning for awarding him arguments still stands. I'll note that that reasoning also has nothing to do with anything he's posted so far. I don't vote on any debate with a mind towards the overall credibility of the site (I tend to focus on the arguments and the topic at hand), and I don't think that's at stake here anyway. I think it would stretch the meaning of awarding arguments to use them to enforce good ethics instead of considering and weighing the points presented.
His English could certainly use some work, though it's up to voters to decide whether that matters enough to award legibility. It's borderline for me, but still sufficiently understandable that I didn't award it.
In terms of using AI, that is also an issue left to the voters in terms of how much it matters. For me at least, the strength of his own arguments wasn't the main issue that decided my vote.
Jonrohith has already been told he shouldn't be trying to influence the votes on this or any other debate, so I agree that's an issue.
I’m good with the vote because I hadn’t realized at the time that this had been posted that this debate would meet the standards of a full forfeit (>40% of the debate being forfeited), so the standard for a vote goes down significantly. That was my error for not recognizing it at the time.
He literally copy-pasted my vote from another debate (excluding specific details to that debate), so it would be allowed if that was his reasoning, but will be removed whenever I get a chance (I’m traveling all day today) because he’s plagiarizing my vote rather than making his own.
You are welcome to vote in a similar way.
When a debater forfeits every single round, it means they didn’t show up at all. That means the other side, as long as they posted anything at all (even if it’s not an argument), automatically wins the debate by site rules. It’s also true that, with full forfeits like this, votes that award points to the side that did not forfeit are not subject to moderation. That side loses by default. Your vote would be the only one here subject to moderation since you awarded points to Con despite his forfeiting every round.
>Vote: jonrohith // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 5 to Pro (Arguments, Conduct, Legibility)
>Reason for Decision:
Pro stand in his topic firmly till end, I won't whether argument is big like essay. but pro's argument is short but clearly explained his views, but con is speaking more similarly throughout the debate like agnostic atheist . I not satisfied with con's source that sources are not unique ,they are simple.
Reason for Removal: it’s nice to see a longer RFD, but this is still insufficient. The voter doesn’t explain conduct that I can see, nor does he explain legibility. Arguments get some explanation, but the voter is required to assess the strength of specific arguments from both sides, not just state that one side “firmly” held to the topic and “clearly explained his views.” It’s also unclear what point the voter is making about Con’s sources or what the problem is with Con “speaking more similarly throughout the debate like agnostic atheist”. Was he off topic? It’s unclear.
**************************************************