Not to say that any of these invalidate your point, since I'd still say they're a minority on the issue, but I do agree with Barney that they exist and are relatively popular.
Eighty Six comes to mind as a particularly prominent example. Mobile Suit Gundam: Iron-Blooded Orphans does a great deal to tackle an issue that has plagued much of the rest of that franchise. I've heard Aldonoah.Zero does, though I haven't seen it. Violet Evergarden is in a similar boat, though that's probably an even better case than the rest, since it tackles what happens to someone after the fighting is done who has to live with both what they did and what they experienced on the battlefield, a very different perspective from most anime that deal in child soldiers. And I will point out that that's focusing on anime as a whole that address the issue. I think there are many more individual characters in anime (though I would note that those anime aren't necessarily the best for representing the issue as a whole) that address the issue. Guts from Berserk, Edward and Alphonse Elric from FMA, Subaru from Re:Zero, Eren Yaeger from AoT, several characters from Naruto (Haku, Obito and Pain being the clearest), Eri from MHA... the list goes on. I'd say each of these goes into some depths on the effects of battle (or side-effects, as is the case with some of these characters) on child soldiers caught in the middle of it. Not saying any of them are perfect examples, but they do dig down into what being a child soldier actually means for the children.
Note that I don't say any of this as a response to your choice of topic or your side, particularly as I think these examples can be used by both sides in this debate depending on what direction your argument takes.
I’m sorry, when did I say or hint at any aim or willingness on my part to remove Undefeatable’s vote? I’ll say it now: his vote would not be removed if it was reported. I’ve said multiple times now that if you re-posted your vote as you had written it, awarding only arguments, that it would stand. Both of you justified your choices to award arguments sufficiently.
MC is encouraging the voter to consider other arguments and recontextualize their decision. I’m not going to argue that his purpose in doing so is solely informative, as he clearly would prefer a decision in his favor, but again, since his focus is on the logic being used rather than the choice to award the points as he did, I wouldn’t call this manipulation.
Again, there’s a difference between engaging with how someone went through the debate and analyzed the given arguments and actively saying that someone who had their vote removed should then modify their point allocations and analysis to actively favor you. I don’t view engagement with the voter on their logic as manipulation because it’s about the substance of their vote and not the specific points they chose to allocate.
I don’t know what you want me to elaborate on here. You can engage with what a voter says happened in a debate, i.e. their logic. You cannot direct or suggest point allocations.
Arguing that the logic used by a voter is problematic or supporting that logic has always been above board. Specifically directing someone to change their point allocations in your favor is a different story.
I disagree that I'm subjectively applying the standards. I'll note that, in my explanation for the removal, I directly quoted the standards I was using from the voting policy. I also responded to you on that claimed impossibility, though no, I didn't go into great detail about why. It was the middle of my workday and I wasn't going to get into specifics. I never said that "we enforce the rules however we want" and I'm honestly baffled that you think that's how I moderate. Again, if you want to go into the standards in more detail, I'm willing to do so in order to explain how I'm coming to these conclusions.
You’re not the first to have problems with the standards for each of these and, frankly, there’s always room for improvement. I’m not arguing that they’re perfect, and I’m not going to pretend that they are. It’s not my goal to sit here and tell you why you should follow the standards, especially not in the comments of someone else’s debate, only what you have to do to meet them. I understand if you are frustrated by them and don’t want to put in additional effort to meet them, but none of the standards require a dissertation. The goal isn’t to make you write an inordinately long RFD, though justifications for multiple point allocations can make them run a little longer than normal.
At this point, it’s your choice whether you feel it’s worth the effort to re-post your RFD, alter point allocations and/or add onto your RFD. If you want to walk through specific ways to improve your vote to meet the standards, I can help with that. If you want the standards clarified with regards to what can and cannot factor into a decision, we can walk through the voting policy and I can cover specifics. You don’t have to agree with the existing system in order to abide by it.
There is quite a bit of leeway provided to voters when it comes to what kind of logic you use to come to a decision on arguments. It was not my goal, nor is it now, to tell you that there is a problem with the way you assessed the arguments given in the debate. How you decide who had the better arguments here is up to you so long as you show that you did the work going through the debate, which you already did. Like I said, you can literally copy-paste your vote without the justifications for the extra points, award arguments, and it will stand.
When it comes to other point allocations, the standard for awarding those points is pretty specific. Assessing sources requires digging into what specific sources say rather than generalizing about the quality of a set of sources because of what they cover. Assessing spelling and grammar requires that one of the debaters made it substantially more difficult to understand their arguments as a result of how they were written, not just that one side had fewer grammatical errors. Assessing conduct violations requires more than a debater's statement that they are likely to offend people, since it should be made clear that they did actively offend and how.
I understand your perspective on using epistemic logic and, in some cases, the differences might be blatantly obvious. However, when it comes to awarding extra points as you did here, we hold voters to a high standard when it comes to justifying those points. With regards to sources, that doesn't mean that a voter is solely restricted to assessing sources and other aspects of the debate in the same way that the debaters did, but it does require doing more than just stating that one type of source is automatically better than another. If a given source fails to provide sufficient support for a given argument, or if it just clearly falls short of a contradictory source from the other side, then that's what needs to be assessed. That may come down to issues of primary vs. secondary sourcing, but it has to specifically address the given sources.
I understand if you don't want to go through all this, and I understand if you feel your previous vote was justified. It's your choice what you do given the information you have about the voting standards, though I will say that I think you're applying them much more harshly than we would given how your explanation of how you see the debate as "ungradable without violating the TOS".
I explained how his justifications fell short and provided him with specifics on how to ensure that his justifications meet the standards. You gave specific pointers on how he could support the two point categories that he was already giving to you, and said he should eschew the other two, recognizing that both of those outcomes would benefit you. And yes, there is a difference between someone in the debate doing it in a way that specifically slants the points they would allocate in their favor.
...Seriously? That's a pretty flagrant attempt at voter manipulation, dude, and you pretty clearly realize that when you say that you have "a vested interest" and that you have "selfish reasons" for advocating that he ties certain points. This isn't just you giving him information that will help him support his point allocations, it's outright biasing what you believe he should do in your favor. Consider this a warning. Don't do it again.
@Public-Choice
If you have more questions about how you could justify each of your point allocations after you've read those parts of the voting policy, feel free to PM me and we can discuss them. RM is correct that you could just copy-paste your previous vote and award arguments as is, but we can discuss ways to improve on the justifications for the other point allocations if you want to keep them.
Next debate on my list, guys. Not exactly my area of expertise (also means I have no position on the matter), so I’ll take my time going through it and considering the points.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Public-Choice // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 5 to con, 2 to pro
>Reason for Decision:
See previous comment
>Reason for Mod Action:
While the reasoning provided for awarding arguments is sufficient, the rest of the voter's reasoning for awarding points is insufficiently explained.
On sources, the voter provides reasons why he prefers certain sources in the context of this debate, but the provided reasoning bases this allocation on source number and emphasis rather than source quality. The voter's apparent preference for primary sources is not a sufficient basis for awarding these points, either. The voter must specify why at least one exemplar source is unreliable, not just lesser than, the opponent’s sources. A side with unreliable sources may be penalized, but the voter must specify why the sources were unreliable enough to diminish their own case (such as if the other side called attention to the flaws, thereby engaging with sources in a more effective manner with impacts to arguments; thereby flipping the source and harming the opposing argument). From the voting policy: “A side with unreliable sources may be penalized, but the voter must specify why the sources were unreliable enough to diminish their own case (such as if the other side called attention to the flaws, thereby engaging with sources in a more effective manner with impacts to arguments; thereby flipping the source and harming the opposing argument).”
On S&G, the voter does not meet the threshold required to award this point. From the voting policy: "The goal isn’t to nitpick, the problem(s) should usually be obvious at a glance."
On Conduct, it is not sufficient for the voter to non-specifically state that one side was more offensive. If there are specific instances where one side of the debate was offensive, they must be designated and explained. It should also be noted that these offenses should be considered excessive in order to warrant awarding this point. From the voting policy: "Awarded as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, such as extreme unsportsmanlike or outright toxic behavior which distracted from the topical debate. Common examples are repeatedly using personal attacks instead of arguments, committing plagiarism or otherwise cheating." While overuse of curse words and clearly insulting language may suffice for this, based on the vote as written, it must be made apparent that one or both of these have happened.
**************************************************
Arguments: CON
PRO came out the gate really strongly in round one with a very strong argument from deontology. But PRO ultimately failed (further along in the debate) when he argued that PSA should be understood the way Christians understand it, and then failing to defend how his understanding is THE proper Christian interpretation as opposed to CON's understanding of it. PRO relied on a couple Christian answer websites that openly admit their biases toward a certain type of Christianity in the websites themselves, and two (three?) theologians to claim what the "proper" Christian believe was. While these sources would normally be good usage, PRO said his argument rested on the understanding of PSA for "the Christian." He did not, at any point, prove that most Christians understand Christianity in the way he is describing it. He cited about 4 different experts, but not a collective view of Christianity. Therefore, PRO failed to prove his view of PSA was the real Christian view.
CON also failed to do this. But CON did not make the claim that we must understand PSA according to how Christians understand it. He claimed the Christian understanding is flawed for reasons he gave. Remember that both parties already agreed to a definition of PSA. They did not agree to perceive it as a Christian would. That claim was put forward by PRO and therefore the burden of proof is on PRO for such claim. PRO offered no such proof for his claim. He offered anecdotal evidence of two or three theologians and then interpreted the Scriptures according to the theologians' interpretations and not the other way around.
This is important for one reason: PRO and CON both implicitly agreed that the Scriptures are the primary source document. And CON made his argument from the primary source document, whereas PRO made his argument from choice theologians who supposedly spoke for all Christians, and then shoehorned the primary source document to agree with his experts.
Therefore, CON simply gave better arguments, since he did provide justification for his beliefs on Christianity when asked by PRO, according to the implicitly agreed upon primary source document. He also showed ample evidence from the primary source that his beliefs are Christian.
Sources: CON
PRO mainly relied on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and Theologians. While these things can hold true statements, they are not, in fact, primary sources and can be subject to commentary and marred analysis. PRO did cite 11 scriptures, but Scripture was not the main source for PRO, but rather a secondary source to confirm the opinions of his experts, which bore the brunt of his argument.
CON mainly relied on Scripture, which he cited, and made an argument based on primary source material. CON, therefore, used better sources because he went straight to the primary source as a main tool of evidence, and not secondary sources for commentary and analysis OF the primary source.
Spelling and Grammar: PRO
CON had multiple instances of bad grammar. PRO also had some grammar errors, but overall had better proofed statements.
Conduct: PRO
CON admitted his statements were going to be offensive. PRO used more neutral language and did not use insults or cuss words regularly.
Appreciate the vote and analysis, even if I disagree with some of the reasoning that I can view. I can’t actually view the whole thing, though, since it says that I’m required to sign into this paper in particular in order to view it. Any way you could share it without requiring that?
Well… that was a flurry of votes at the end. I wouldn’t be able to make a call on FLRW’s vote regardless as one of the debaters in this (also traveling for much of the day today), but it looks like it would at least be suspect. Not my call to make. I won’t get a chance to look over either of the last two votes in detail until later.
Thank you both for voting! Seems both of you took a different route to your weighing analyses and while I have some issues with them, the analyses are nonetheless well done and appreciated.
This isn’t about adding judgement. It’s about inserting points that weren’t made by the debaters into the debate.
After the voting period ends, I can explain to you how this source supports my point if you’re still interested. Until then, I’ll leave off this discussion.
There’s a lot in there about the specific source and I’m not going to cover that. This also isn’t about your rights as a voter, though you keep bringing it back to that.
I’m arguing that you are intervening in the debate by doing that kind of digging into the source, and that if my opponent had done the same, I would have addressed it. You’re effectively punishing me for something you did that my opponent neglected to do. You can argue that it’s justified because the issue is obvious, but you can’t argue that you’re putting the onus on me to preemptively defend against potential issues with my sources, functionally saying that in any debate the opponent shouldn’t have to do any work addressing sources so long as the voter is willing do so in their stead. Is there a point at which a debater might abuse their sourcing to make it impossible for their opponent to adequately respond? Sure. Did that happen here? No. You’re clearly fine with that, and I’ll stop here because you’ve made that clear, though saying that that is just weighting the arguments is disingenuous. It doesn’t help that this isn’t just a weighting difference, this is an outright dismissal of the point in total.
“You say it was impossible for you to explain the relevance. However, you had 3 rounds. All you had to do was post a source that doesnt obviously contradict to your claim. Pro was able to do that, when he posted source about Mens rea.”
That’s actually not the point I was making. I did argue why it was relevant to my point. I’m saying that you then took your own independent look at the evidence, came to a different conclusion, and dismissed it. If you were in the debate and had argued that something was wrong with one or more of my sources, I would have had the opportunity to further demonstrate their relevance or address supposed contradictions. You weren’t, so addressing them would have been needlessly defensive and covered points that weren’t made in the debate. I’m sure why you wanted me to preemptively cover every potential contradiction in my sources, but that’s what you’re demanding of me.
FYI, I’ve voted on debates where I’ve felt similarly about certain sources. I’m not saying that you shouldn’t point out the problem or even weigh the source differently, but there’s a big difference between saying that a source isn’t consistent and therefore doesn’t support the argument as well as the debater wants vs. saying that the source nullifies itself and should be dismissed entirely.
You don’t need to get defensive with me about whether your vote meets the standards laid out in the voting policy. I’m not arguing that.
I am, however, making a point about how a voter introducing concerns with sources and/or arguments of a debater that are not presented in the debate effectively make it impossible for the debater in question to explain their reasoning. It is an imposition that goes beyond just weighing arguments, one where the voter is providing entirely new reasons to dismiss the points in question without providing a means for the debater to respond. Even if you feel that it’s justified in this instance, it does effectively nullify portions of the debate based on work the voter did rather than the work of the debaters.
I didn’t want to butt in here, especially as I’m trying to steer clear of any discussion of the specifics of this debate, though as this regards a style of voting, I think I can keep it general.. I do still think that source supports my point, though more pertinent to this discussion, I would have explained how it supports my point if I had been pressed on it. What you’ve done here is challenge that relevance independent of what my opponent did, and while I agree there’s a point to be made here, by making that point as a voter, you’re denying the debater (me) the opportunity to explain themselves. You may believe that that’s justified because this looks like a clear-cut case, though I’d argue that that requires a certain amount of voter intervention above and beyond the given arguments. I’m not going to get into a discussion regarding whether the voting policy allows that as I have little doubt that your vote will stand (and, if I had a choice on the matter, I would agree that it should stand), but it doesn’t come off as just weighting the arguments, either.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: zing_book // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 5 to con, 1 to pro
>Reason for Decision:
The biggest myth, however, is that they truly did risk that much. As I said, if this debate were about the top 10% of incomes, you'd find self-made people do exist and fill the 5-9% are but when we go top 4, 3, 2 and 1% suddenly it's curious to observe just how huge of a leg-up these people had things in life. the quote proves he point well
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter provides some idea of what their own opinion on the topic is, but does not specifically analyze any points made by either of the debaters, nor does he explain the source or conduct point allocations. The voter must use what the debaters said to form his decision.
**************************************************
I appreciate the attention and interest, but that vote does not look like it will meet the voting standards for the site. You have to analyze specific arguments given by both debaters, and this seems rather vague as to what arguments did and didn’t work.
I won't get into specifics about it (at least not here) because those points that I would make at least partially relate to this debate and the arguments I made, but I think both sides make arbitrary arguments with problematic implications when it comes to what is considered the beginnings of personhood. We can discuss it elsewhere if you're interested.
I wish I could honestly say that that’s all you did here, but I won’t argue it with you in the comments. If you want to discuss your vote by PM, I’d be happy to do so after the voting period ends.
Yeah, that wouldn’t cut it since that’s assumption of each debater’s behaviors prior to and post acceptance. Using that as a basis for awarding points would not be sufficient.
Not to say that any of these invalidate your point, since I'd still say they're a minority on the issue, but I do agree with Barney that they exist and are relatively popular.
Eighty Six comes to mind as a particularly prominent example. Mobile Suit Gundam: Iron-Blooded Orphans does a great deal to tackle an issue that has plagued much of the rest of that franchise. I've heard Aldonoah.Zero does, though I haven't seen it. Violet Evergarden is in a similar boat, though that's probably an even better case than the rest, since it tackles what happens to someone after the fighting is done who has to live with both what they did and what they experienced on the battlefield, a very different perspective from most anime that deal in child soldiers. And I will point out that that's focusing on anime as a whole that address the issue. I think there are many more individual characters in anime (though I would note that those anime aren't necessarily the best for representing the issue as a whole) that address the issue. Guts from Berserk, Edward and Alphonse Elric from FMA, Subaru from Re:Zero, Eren Yaeger from AoT, several characters from Naruto (Haku, Obito and Pain being the clearest), Eri from MHA... the list goes on. I'd say each of these goes into some depths on the effects of battle (or side-effects, as is the case with some of these characters) on child soldiers caught in the middle of it. Not saying any of them are perfect examples, but they do dig down into what being a child soldier actually means for the children.
Note that I don't say any of this as a response to your choice of topic or your side, particularly as I think these examples can be used by both sides in this debate depending on what direction your argument takes.
I’m sorry, when did I say or hint at any aim or willingness on my part to remove Undefeatable’s vote? I’ll say it now: his vote would not be removed if it was reported. I’ve said multiple times now that if you re-posted your vote as you had written it, awarding only arguments, that it would stand. Both of you justified your choices to award arguments sufficiently.
MC is encouraging the voter to consider other arguments and recontextualize their decision. I’m not going to argue that his purpose in doing so is solely informative, as he clearly would prefer a decision in his favor, but again, since his focus is on the logic being used rather than the choice to award the points as he did, I wouldn’t call this manipulation.
Again, there’s a difference between engaging with how someone went through the debate and analyzed the given arguments and actively saying that someone who had their vote removed should then modify their point allocations and analysis to actively favor you. I don’t view engagement with the voter on their logic as manipulation because it’s about the substance of their vote and not the specific points they chose to allocate.
I don’t know what you want me to elaborate on here. You can engage with what a voter says happened in a debate, i.e. their logic. You cannot direct or suggest point allocations.
Arguing that the logic used by a voter is problematic or supporting that logic has always been above board. Specifically directing someone to change their point allocations in your favor is a different story.
Pretty sure you don’t need me to explain why disagreeing with a voter isn’t voter manipulation.
I disagree that I'm subjectively applying the standards. I'll note that, in my explanation for the removal, I directly quoted the standards I was using from the voting policy. I also responded to you on that claimed impossibility, though no, I didn't go into great detail about why. It was the middle of my workday and I wasn't going to get into specifics. I never said that "we enforce the rules however we want" and I'm honestly baffled that you think that's how I moderate. Again, if you want to go into the standards in more detail, I'm willing to do so in order to explain how I'm coming to these conclusions.
You’re not the first to have problems with the standards for each of these and, frankly, there’s always room for improvement. I’m not arguing that they’re perfect, and I’m not going to pretend that they are. It’s not my goal to sit here and tell you why you should follow the standards, especially not in the comments of someone else’s debate, only what you have to do to meet them. I understand if you are frustrated by them and don’t want to put in additional effort to meet them, but none of the standards require a dissertation. The goal isn’t to make you write an inordinately long RFD, though justifications for multiple point allocations can make them run a little longer than normal.
At this point, it’s your choice whether you feel it’s worth the effort to re-post your RFD, alter point allocations and/or add onto your RFD. If you want to walk through specific ways to improve your vote to meet the standards, I can help with that. If you want the standards clarified with regards to what can and cannot factor into a decision, we can walk through the voting policy and I can cover specifics. You don’t have to agree with the existing system in order to abide by it.
There is quite a bit of leeway provided to voters when it comes to what kind of logic you use to come to a decision on arguments. It was not my goal, nor is it now, to tell you that there is a problem with the way you assessed the arguments given in the debate. How you decide who had the better arguments here is up to you so long as you show that you did the work going through the debate, which you already did. Like I said, you can literally copy-paste your vote without the justifications for the extra points, award arguments, and it will stand.
When it comes to other point allocations, the standard for awarding those points is pretty specific. Assessing sources requires digging into what specific sources say rather than generalizing about the quality of a set of sources because of what they cover. Assessing spelling and grammar requires that one of the debaters made it substantially more difficult to understand their arguments as a result of how they were written, not just that one side had fewer grammatical errors. Assessing conduct violations requires more than a debater's statement that they are likely to offend people, since it should be made clear that they did actively offend and how.
I understand your perspective on using epistemic logic and, in some cases, the differences might be blatantly obvious. However, when it comes to awarding extra points as you did here, we hold voters to a high standard when it comes to justifying those points. With regards to sources, that doesn't mean that a voter is solely restricted to assessing sources and other aspects of the debate in the same way that the debaters did, but it does require doing more than just stating that one type of source is automatically better than another. If a given source fails to provide sufficient support for a given argument, or if it just clearly falls short of a contradictory source from the other side, then that's what needs to be assessed. That may come down to issues of primary vs. secondary sourcing, but it has to specifically address the given sources.
I understand if you don't want to go through all this, and I understand if you feel your previous vote was justified. It's your choice what you do given the information you have about the voting standards, though I will say that I think you're applying them much more harshly than we would given how your explanation of how you see the debate as "ungradable without violating the TOS".
I explained how his justifications fell short and provided him with specifics on how to ensure that his justifications meet the standards. You gave specific pointers on how he could support the two point categories that he was already giving to you, and said he should eschew the other two, recognizing that both of those outcomes would benefit you. And yes, there is a difference between someone in the debate doing it in a way that specifically slants the points they would allocate in their favor.
@RM
...Seriously? That's a pretty flagrant attempt at voter manipulation, dude, and you pretty clearly realize that when you say that you have "a vested interest" and that you have "selfish reasons" for advocating that he ties certain points. This isn't just you giving him information that will help him support his point allocations, it's outright biasing what you believe he should do in your favor. Consider this a warning. Don't do it again.
@Public-Choice
If you have more questions about how you could justify each of your point allocations after you've read those parts of the voting policy, feel free to PM me and we can discuss them. RM is correct that you could just copy-paste your previous vote and award arguments as is, but we can discuss ways to improve on the justifications for the other point allocations if you want to keep them.
The voting policy should give you enough direction on that, though let me know if you want a more detailed set of info.
info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
Next debate on my list, guys. Not exactly my area of expertise (also means I have no position on the matter), so I’ll take my time going through it and considering the points.
I do encourage you to either modify your vote to better justify the points you’ve allocated or to simply award argument points.
I’ll try to get to this one next.
No need to explain, though thank you for the update. You’ve got plenty of time, just appreciate the attention and, whenever it comes, the vote.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Public-Choice // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 5 to con, 2 to pro
>Reason for Decision:
See previous comment
>Reason for Mod Action:
While the reasoning provided for awarding arguments is sufficient, the rest of the voter's reasoning for awarding points is insufficiently explained.
On sources, the voter provides reasons why he prefers certain sources in the context of this debate, but the provided reasoning bases this allocation on source number and emphasis rather than source quality. The voter's apparent preference for primary sources is not a sufficient basis for awarding these points, either. The voter must specify why at least one exemplar source is unreliable, not just lesser than, the opponent’s sources. A side with unreliable sources may be penalized, but the voter must specify why the sources were unreliable enough to diminish their own case (such as if the other side called attention to the flaws, thereby engaging with sources in a more effective manner with impacts to arguments; thereby flipping the source and harming the opposing argument). From the voting policy: “A side with unreliable sources may be penalized, but the voter must specify why the sources were unreliable enough to diminish their own case (such as if the other side called attention to the flaws, thereby engaging with sources in a more effective manner with impacts to arguments; thereby flipping the source and harming the opposing argument).”
On S&G, the voter does not meet the threshold required to award this point. From the voting policy: "The goal isn’t to nitpick, the problem(s) should usually be obvious at a glance."
On Conduct, it is not sufficient for the voter to non-specifically state that one side was more offensive. If there are specific instances where one side of the debate was offensive, they must be designated and explained. It should also be noted that these offenses should be considered excessive in order to warrant awarding this point. From the voting policy: "Awarded as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, such as extreme unsportsmanlike or outright toxic behavior which distracted from the topical debate. Common examples are repeatedly using personal attacks instead of arguments, committing plagiarism or otherwise cheating." While overuse of curse words and clearly insulting language may suffice for this, based on the vote as written, it must be made apparent that one or both of these have happened.
**************************************************
Vote by Public-Choice
Added: Today
Arguments: CON
PRO came out the gate really strongly in round one with a very strong argument from deontology. But PRO ultimately failed (further along in the debate) when he argued that PSA should be understood the way Christians understand it, and then failing to defend how his understanding is THE proper Christian interpretation as opposed to CON's understanding of it. PRO relied on a couple Christian answer websites that openly admit their biases toward a certain type of Christianity in the websites themselves, and two (three?) theologians to claim what the "proper" Christian believe was. While these sources would normally be good usage, PRO said his argument rested on the understanding of PSA for "the Christian." He did not, at any point, prove that most Christians understand Christianity in the way he is describing it. He cited about 4 different experts, but not a collective view of Christianity. Therefore, PRO failed to prove his view of PSA was the real Christian view.
CON also failed to do this. But CON did not make the claim that we must understand PSA according to how Christians understand it. He claimed the Christian understanding is flawed for reasons he gave. Remember that both parties already agreed to a definition of PSA. They did not agree to perceive it as a Christian would. That claim was put forward by PRO and therefore the burden of proof is on PRO for such claim. PRO offered no such proof for his claim. He offered anecdotal evidence of two or three theologians and then interpreted the Scriptures according to the theologians' interpretations and not the other way around.
This is important for one reason: PRO and CON both implicitly agreed that the Scriptures are the primary source document. And CON made his argument from the primary source document, whereas PRO made his argument from choice theologians who supposedly spoke for all Christians, and then shoehorned the primary source document to agree with his experts.
Therefore, CON simply gave better arguments, since he did provide justification for his beliefs on Christianity when asked by PRO, according to the implicitly agreed upon primary source document. He also showed ample evidence from the primary source that his beliefs are Christian.
Sources: CON
PRO mainly relied on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and Theologians. While these things can hold true statements, they are not, in fact, primary sources and can be subject to commentary and marred analysis. PRO did cite 11 scriptures, but Scripture was not the main source for PRO, but rather a secondary source to confirm the opinions of his experts, which bore the brunt of his argument.
CON mainly relied on Scripture, which he cited, and made an argument based on primary source material. CON, therefore, used better sources because he went straight to the primary source as a main tool of evidence, and not secondary sources for commentary and analysis OF the primary source.
Spelling and Grammar: PRO
CON had multiple instances of bad grammar. PRO also had some grammar errors, but overall had better proofed statements.
Conduct: PRO
CON admitted his statements were going to be offensive. PRO used more neutral language and did not use insults or cuss words regularly.
Done.
Would you prefer that I delete the existing vote? That would give you the opportunity to vote again.
Done.
Done.
Assuming that it is possible, I would support having a mod decision on FLRW's vote, particularly if it provides the opportunity for further voting.
Much obliged for the vote and RFD!
Yeah, this would be a first. I encourage you to ask Mike. Wouldn't be opposed personally, but regardless, I would appreciate your decision and RFD.
Thanks for the new link. I'll take a look at this later.
Appreciate the vote and analysis, even if I disagree with some of the reasoning that I can view. I can’t actually view the whole thing, though, since it says that I’m required to sign into this paper in particular in order to view it. Any way you could share it without requiring that?
Regardless, well played. Not upset with a tie.
Well… that was a flurry of votes at the end. I wouldn’t be able to make a call on FLRW’s vote regardless as one of the debaters in this (also traveling for much of the day today), but it looks like it would at least be suspect. Not my call to make. I won’t get a chance to look over either of the last two votes in detail until later.
Thank you both for voting! Seems both of you took a different route to your weighing analyses and while I have some issues with them, the analyses are nonetheless well done and appreciated.
Appreciate the attention, you've got plenty of time.
I disagree.
Thanks for voting!
This isn’t about adding judgement. It’s about inserting points that weren’t made by the debaters into the debate.
After the voting period ends, I can explain to you how this source supports my point if you’re still interested. Until then, I’ll leave off this discussion.
There’s a lot in there about the specific source and I’m not going to cover that. This also isn’t about your rights as a voter, though you keep bringing it back to that.
I’m arguing that you are intervening in the debate by doing that kind of digging into the source, and that if my opponent had done the same, I would have addressed it. You’re effectively punishing me for something you did that my opponent neglected to do. You can argue that it’s justified because the issue is obvious, but you can’t argue that you’re putting the onus on me to preemptively defend against potential issues with my sources, functionally saying that in any debate the opponent shouldn’t have to do any work addressing sources so long as the voter is willing do so in their stead. Is there a point at which a debater might abuse their sourcing to make it impossible for their opponent to adequately respond? Sure. Did that happen here? No. You’re clearly fine with that, and I’ll stop here because you’ve made that clear, though saying that that is just weighting the arguments is disingenuous. It doesn’t help that this isn’t just a weighting difference, this is an outright dismissal of the point in total.
Thank you for voting!
“You say it was impossible for you to explain the relevance. However, you had 3 rounds. All you had to do was post a source that doesnt obviously contradict to your claim. Pro was able to do that, when he posted source about Mens rea.”
That’s actually not the point I was making. I did argue why it was relevant to my point. I’m saying that you then took your own independent look at the evidence, came to a different conclusion, and dismissed it. If you were in the debate and had argued that something was wrong with one or more of my sources, I would have had the opportunity to further demonstrate their relevance or address supposed contradictions. You weren’t, so addressing them would have been needlessly defensive and covered points that weren’t made in the debate. I’m sure why you wanted me to preemptively cover every potential contradiction in my sources, but that’s what you’re demanding of me.
FYI, I’ve voted on debates where I’ve felt similarly about certain sources. I’m not saying that you shouldn’t point out the problem or even weigh the source differently, but there’s a big difference between saying that a source isn’t consistent and therefore doesn’t support the argument as well as the debater wants vs. saying that the source nullifies itself and should be dismissed entirely.
You don’t need to get defensive with me about whether your vote meets the standards laid out in the voting policy. I’m not arguing that.
I am, however, making a point about how a voter introducing concerns with sources and/or arguments of a debater that are not presented in the debate effectively make it impossible for the debater in question to explain their reasoning. It is an imposition that goes beyond just weighing arguments, one where the voter is providing entirely new reasons to dismiss the points in question without providing a means for the debater to respond. Even if you feel that it’s justified in this instance, it does effectively nullify portions of the debate based on work the voter did rather than the work of the debaters.
I didn’t want to butt in here, especially as I’m trying to steer clear of any discussion of the specifics of this debate, though as this regards a style of voting, I think I can keep it general.. I do still think that source supports my point, though more pertinent to this discussion, I would have explained how it supports my point if I had been pressed on it. What you’ve done here is challenge that relevance independent of what my opponent did, and while I agree there’s a point to be made here, by making that point as a voter, you’re denying the debater (me) the opportunity to explain themselves. You may believe that that’s justified because this looks like a clear-cut case, though I’d argue that that requires a certain amount of voter intervention above and beyond the given arguments. I’m not going to get into a discussion regarding whether the voting policy allows that as I have little doubt that your vote will stand (and, if I had a choice on the matter, I would agree that it should stand), but it doesn’t come off as just weighting the arguments, either.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: zing_book // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 5 to con, 1 to pro
>Reason for Decision:
The biggest myth, however, is that they truly did risk that much. As I said, if this debate were about the top 10% of incomes, you'd find self-made people do exist and fill the 5-9% are but when we go top 4, 3, 2 and 1% suddenly it's curious to observe just how huge of a leg-up these people had things in life. the quote proves he point well
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter provides some idea of what their own opinion on the topic is, but does not specifically analyze any points made by either of the debaters, nor does he explain the source or conduct point allocations. The voter must use what the debaters said to form his decision.
**************************************************
I appreciate the attention and interest, but that vote does not look like it will meet the voting standards for the site. You have to analyze specific arguments given by both debaters, and this seems rather vague as to what arguments did and didn’t work.
Of course. Be happy to ping you later, appreciate the attention and interest.
I know it has a while left yet, but it deserves some attention. Bump.
It’s all good. Doesn’t even have to be in a forum if you just want to discuss it via PM, though I’m good with leaving it be regardless.
I won't get into specifics about it (at least not here) because those points that I would make at least partially relate to this debate and the arguments I made, but I think both sides make arbitrary arguments with problematic implications when it comes to what is considered the beginnings of personhood. We can discuss it elsewhere if you're interested.
Done.
I wish I could honestly say that that’s all you did here, but I won’t argue it with you in the comments. If you want to discuss your vote by PM, I’d be happy to do so after the voting period ends.
I appreciate the time and effort you put into this RFD, though I take issue with much of your characterization of my points.
Yeah, that wouldn’t cut it since that’s assumption of each debater’s behaviors prior to and post acceptance. Using that as a basis for awarding points would not be sufficient.