I took away that trying to determine which group is authentic is too difficult to manage anything meaningful for either side. That uncertainty wasn’t biased against you, though considering that you had the burden of demonstrating that Islam supports terrorism, it meant you lacked a means to do so.
I appreciate it. The arguments are basically along the same lines as what I would argue in any debate on this topic, it's largely where I focus my attention when it comes to abortion, though I certainly emphasized certain points for the purposes of this debate.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: 3RU7AL // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
This vote is borderline. While the debate is long enough to have warranted a more extensive RFD, the voter did explain why he viewed this argument as central to the debate and furthered his reasoning in a long back-and-forth in the comments. Voters are not required to be exhaustive in their analysis, particularly if the voter explains why they see many of those points as irrelevant.
**************************************************
As a general rule, I prefer that we not engage in any kind of argumentation (even with others) here in the comments that is relevant to this debate. I'm seeing a couple of points that are swinging into that territory, so if you could please avoid adding further clarifications and arguments outside of the debate proper, I would appreciate that.
I think the main reason why you lost this debate in my opinion is on display in that last comment. You argued several times in response to Intelligence_06 that certain arguments of his have already been debunked, and largely assumed that it was obvious why that happened. I don't see any links in either of your rounds, so you're relying on the logic you provide to support statements that his arguments were either irrelevant or lacked support. I've seen debaters manage to defeat evidence with logic before, but doing that requires specific responses directly addressing the evidence presented. Voters aren't just going to take your word for it that these points are invalid - they need to see the specifics of why they're invalid, and assertions about the state of the universe (e.g. the existence of what can be called "nothing" and what that means for quantum fluctuation theories) cannot stand alone without meaningful support, either logical or evidence-based.
Part of the problem from where I'm sitting is that I have a hard time seeing this as "worse in every single way" when the topic just said "worse." I agree that it's subjective and that there was room to argue that any measure of "worse" or "better" could work, but there was a good deal of discussion over what would subjectively be the scale that would matter most when it comes to evaluating which was worse. From what I could see, there was a certain level of agreement that the physical harms Novice_II focused on would be the most significant in pushing things towards the "worse" side. After that, the question from where I'm sitting is: was there a big enough difference in those harms to justify voting for one side? I think you're right that Novice_II attributed too many of the harms to the BLM protesters, but I noted at least a couple of instances in the debate where you granted that some BLM protesters did cause some amount of physical harm. That's where I'd have to go back through the sources because I think both sides in this debate aren't very clear about how much damage that would equate to from the overall numbers that Novice_II was giving me. In that sense, yes, I think it was rather close. Your case was largely built on me being so uncertain that I just throw out this weighing system entirely, but I didn't get the impression that it was impossible to tease apart harms caused directly by BLM protesters and those caused by other individuals during the riots.
It's against the rules to conspire with other voters. It's not against the rules, as far as I can tell, for someone to decide that they will only post their vote under certain conditions, even conditions of "the side I'm voting for is currently losing." What we're talking about here is just intent, but again, I don't know of any rule on this site that disallows this behavior. The rules are posted publicly, so feel free to prove me wrong.
Not sure why you feel that. It’s strategic voting, but it strikes me that it isn’t particularly problematic. If it is something we should actively work against, then really all we could do is stop people from posting their intentions. People could still vote strategically and just not say anything about why they timed their vote the way they did.
Someone can choose to withhold their vote from a debate because they see that the side that they would be voting for is winning anyway. That's not against the rules. That same someone can then choose to add their vote to the debate if the votes begin favoring the other side. In a manner of speaking, that is an effort to "stop someone losing" the debate by adding your vote at a time that you feel those points will matter most. I don't see why either of those choices are against the rules, but if you happen to know of a rule on the site that says otherwise, please reference it.
If you're referring to something else entirely, please clarify.
The voting policy has been written this way for well over a year now. I don't think it was the result of any MEEP, just specifying what voters are allowed to do under different forfeit scenarios.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: FLRW // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 to pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
On debates where one side has forfeited at least 40% of the debate, the voter may choose to award conduct and argument points solely based on the weight of those forfeits without further explanation. From the Voting 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#forfeitures
**************************************************
It doesn’t look like FLRW was saying that he would vote against you regardless of whether he thought Oro won. It looks like he was planning to vote if it looked like votes were swinging against Oro. Maybe I’m interpreting it wrong, but that’s how I read it. If you are correct, then I very much doubt that FLRW would have produced a vote that met the voting standards if he had already decided the outcome without considering Oro’s arguments.
I’ve already given my thoughts on the debate itself, so I’ll abstain from restating to those in response to your frustrations. That being said, I do think this debate deserved more votes.
I'm re-thinking voting on this one. I'll give one of my reasons for it later (I'll post an RFD because I've got thoughts), but the other is that it's looking like we're likely to have a couple of votes coming in just in time and I can't both moderate the debate and vote on it. Like I said, I'll give thoughts anyway after the voting period ends.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: rbelivb // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 6 points to Con
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Though the voter goes into great detail on why they awarded arguments, the RFD does not include details on why they awarded conduct and sources. Even including the recent comment as an addition, the voter insufficiently explains both point allocations. Sources require specific evaluation of what makes one side more or less effective, and conduct requires more than just one side being more aggressive with regards to seeking point awards.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#concessions
**************************************************
PRO began their argument with the ridiculous claim that the BLM protests "created some of the most tragic and devastating periods of violence in American history" - but went on to nevertheless provide some quite convincing numbers. CON responded by pointing out that much of the violence cited by PRO was due to "opportunistic acts of violence and vandalism by people with no particular political motive." We could infer, however, that the intensity and chaos of the BLM protests were what created the opening for such opportunists. However, CON also later points out the role of right wing extremists and opportunists in escalating and contributing to the violence.
CON attempted to put the entire burden of proof on PRO, even though the description stipulated shared BOP, stating that "As the instigator of this debate, PRO bears the entire burden of proof for this debate." I don't think this makes sense, since both sides of this debate involve a positive claim (that one side was worse than the other).
CON pointed out that the claims motivating Stop the Steal were blatantly false, while the motivations of BLM are admirable and true. This is a convincing point, since a mere accounting of dollars in damage, or people harmed, does not give the sense of the historical role of a movement. CON also pointed out that the BLM protests were the "single greatest political protest in US history" - which presumably accounts at least partially for the different scale of violence and destruction.
Both sides deployed certain "fixed ideas" in the course of their arguments. PRO had a clear pro-police and anti-crime stance, while CON made reference to the constitution and democracy.
Then there was PRO's attempt to take away conduct points from CON for providing sources in the comments. This came across as quite petty, especially since the links seem to be just reposting the same sources that were hyperlinked in the text of the argument.
The discussion around much of the violence and death seems to come down to the chaotic nature and massive energy and scale of the BLM protests. I do not totally buy CON's attempt to separate the good from the bad actors, since to an extent the scale and furious atmosphere of the protests led to a level of disorder in which violence may have been inevitable. The CON case would need to be that the inflammatory climate created by the protests was a necessary collateral damage in the greater cause being advocated for. In this respect, CON was quite convincing in making the comparison to the Iraq War and World War II.
CON points out that PRO used a "questionable and far-Right" source, which in my view takes further points from PRO's conduct and sources. PRO attempts to call this the "genetic fallacy" which I view as an absurd misuse of that fallacy.
This was a very difficult debate to judge impartially. CON argued largely in terms of the intentions of the protesters, but did not do much to show that the actual outcomes of such a large scale protest justified the amount of unrest it caused. PRO made a convincing case about the violence and destruction that occurred in the course of the protests, but ignored the differences in scale, as well as failing entirely to address the intentions or worldview behind the protests. Therefore, one's opinion about which perspective was more convincing probably largely depends on their view of the intentions of BLM, as well as their opinion about the overall efficacy of such large-scale protests. I would suggest that the resolution should have been more specific, since I think this one is so broad that anyone's decision about "who won" will largely come down to their preexisting opinions.
It was a good debate in which each side put in an admirable amount of effort. However, Pro took an altogether empirical approach which ignored the importance of history and philosophy, while Con's approach was much more philosophical and relied at times upon the abstractions of liberalism while neglecting concrete outcomes. In the end, my personal feeling was that Con's opinion was more convincing.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Conservallectual // Mod action: Not Removed (conceded debate)
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 0 points.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
This debate clearly falls into the conceded debate category. Votes on conceded debates are only moderated in the event that said vote awards the majority of points to the conceding side. Choosing to award no points does not violate the voting standards on conceded debates, and the standard for voting on these types of debates differs from the standard for other debates. Therefore, no intervention is merited.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#concessions
**************************************************
FYI, the whole point about the infinite void being a space of infinite size is never held up in the show. What we see is validation that the whole World of Void is shaking, but despite the name, no one ever says it's actually infinite in size. Worse yet, the use of infinite is a mistranslation of a Japanese word meaning eternity, which is a measure of time, not occupied space. That makes it really difficult to come to any conclusions regarding what shaking this space actually means.
A lot of what I know on Superman I learned second-hand (never been much of a comic reader and I've only got some basics under my belt for movies and TV shows), but I've watched plenty of DBZ, DBGT (unfortunately), and DBS, so I likely had more insight into Goku as a character than I do Superman.
That being said, these fantasy versus matches that cross universes are always a little iffy. Both of these characters have become much stronger over even the restricted runs that Untotalgenio uses, so comparing them to single match-ups is going to be tricky. I think focusing on what each of them has managed to tank in terms of hits at their best is a good choice, but you really have to scale those carefully, which yeah, does take time and research to do. I do think there's a good amount of evidence supporting Superman coming out on top in this matchup, but I also believe there's a case to be made for Goku managing this, it's just more of an uphill battle.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Mall // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 0
>Reason for Decision:
Both positions are actually in agreement. A lack of belief is a belief in a lack there of. Either position will have a negative or opposite like the yin and yang.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Even if the voter chooses not to award points, the voter must provide some evaluation of the arguments given in the debate. This RFD does not discuss any material from the debate itself, merely providing the voter's views on the resolution and the positions of the debaters.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Conservallectual // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to Con
>Reason for Decision:
The reasons are much better.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter must address specific points made by both sides in the debate and consider how they function with the resolution. The above RFD does not explain the voter's decision beyond vaguely stating that one side had better reasons.
I'd need to take a closer look at this debate before I make a call on his vote. You can report it if you wish, I haven't had an opportunity to get to the more recently reported votes on this debate just yet.
I'm not sure if there's a specific number of vote bombs, but if it becomes a common trend, we'll ban you from voting. You won't be banned from the site for vote bombing alone.
You're including implications that I did not imply.
"Not a number" means just what I said. It can be more than one if there is more than one pertinent point based on how you're evaluating it. If not, then it still remains important not to just exclude large portions of the debate without reason. So when you say:
"If there is a single argument that either supports or refutes the resolution, by itself, aren't all other arguments and counter-arguments superfluous (especially if they are repetitive logical fallacies)?"
that all comes with an explanation, a reason why that single argument is the most important and why other arguments in the debate are superfluous. Pointing out that that they are fallacious is one way to do that.
I don't know why you keep referencing things I haven't said.
I didn't specify a number of "specific points" because there is no number. You should be covering enough to represent the points that each side made. That doesn't mean you should be exhaustive, but that also doesn't mean that you can pick one point per side if there are a lot of points each side presents.
I never said there are "KEY POINTS" of any sort. Don't know why you keep putting that in quotes as though you're citing me. Generally, though, if you're going to call much of the debate "FILLER", it's a good idea to justify why you believe that's true, i.e. what makes those arguments unsubstantial from your perspective.
I didn't say anything about "key points." I said you need to cover specific arguments from both debaters and why you did or didn't find them convincing. Saying that Pro presented an argument that included an apolitical comparison to atheist doesn't tell me why you found the argument more convincing. Con presented arguments, not just quotes, so just dismissing his entire case on the basis that there were quotes is not sufficient.
Even if one side barely contributes, you still have to at least point to an argument the other side made that upheld their position. It’s not automatic that a contribution is pertinent.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: FLRW // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 6 to Con
>Reason for Decision:
Pro is advocating the overthrow of the Federal Government.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter must address specific points made by both sides in the debate and consider how they function with the resolution. The voter instead presents their views on the general argument made by one side, does not consider any specific points made by either side, and casts a vote for arguments, sources and conduct on that basis. That is not sufficient for any of these.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Conservallectual // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to Pro
>Reason for Decision:
Better reasons
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter must address specific points made by both sides in the debate and consider how they function with the resolution. The voter does not consider any points made by either debater and simply asserts that Pro had "Better reasons". That is not sufficient to award arguments.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: 3RU7AL // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to Pro
>Reason for Decision:
PRO confirms the resolution with sound logic
CON fails to address PRO's argument and instead present famous quotes which have absolutely no bearing on arguments presented
PRO wins "more convincing arguments" with the "apolitical" comparison to "atheist"
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter must address specific points made by both sides in the debate and consider how they function with the resolution. The voter does not consider specific points presented by either side aside from pointing out an argument from Con that he dismisses, nor does he consider how any of these points impact under the resolution. The voter does add onto his RFD in the comments, but as written, this is insufficient.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: zedvictor4 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to Pro
>Reason for Decision:
#1. Instigator Con doesn't seem to know what's what, so should have declined contender Pro's request.
#3. Con gives us a brief intro into life on the streets.
#5 Con unwisely rests upon the strength of #3.
#2.4.6. Pro, at least provides 3 rounds of relative substance, emotion and thoughtfulness. Thereby they should be acknowledged for their effort.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter must address specific points made by both sides in the debate and consider how they function with the resolution. The voter is kind of specific about what Con said in R2, but doesn't consider specific points made by Pro, nor does he consider how any of these points impact under the resolution. Acknowledging effort is nice, but not sufficient.
You barely responded to the warrants that Pro gave for this debate. What you focused on was whether China presents a threat to the US militarily in the status quo and that their trade relations with us matter quite a bit. That doesn't tell me why Pro's warrants and evidence don't uphold his claims, that just tells me that China hasn't been pushed over the edge yet. Considering that Pro's points are based on how China is likely to use its full control over Taiwan to exert wider control that affects the world order, I needed to see some reasons why that brink (taking over Taiwan leads to substantial changes in China's behavior) fails rather than just telling me that China hasn't exerted that wider control yet.
And again, telling me that China was very tolerant of the US taking the role of the bad actor doesn't engage with the points on whataboutism from Pro in R2.
This wasn't a coin toss, dude. You had every opportunity to win this if you had focused more time on building up your impact calculus and establishing that the US putting itself in direct conflict with China over Taiwan is a big problem. Hell, I'm surprised you didn't just turn the whole argument Pro made about credibility against him, since the US would almost certainly drag other nations into direct conflict with China, particularly Japan, on the basis that we are defending the independence of a country we have largely kept at arm's length. If you really wanted to go the hypocrisy route, then attach a meaningful impact to it. I didn't see one, and I certainly didn't see you weigh your impacts against Pro's. You can claim that this is just Oro and I getting this wrong because we don't understand geopolitical impact, but I really didn't see you weighing yours at all beyond some points about trade losses.
I never claimed to be capable of leading a country, though I have an RFD and none of that comment addresses it. Don’t mind if you disagree, but I generally appreciate specific responses to how I went through the debate rather than generalizations.
Thanks for the reminder. I've read through it, just have to find the time to sit down and write out an RFD. Should have it up before the voting period ends.
I took away that trying to determine which group is authentic is too difficult to manage anything meaningful for either side. That uncertainty wasn’t biased against you, though considering that you had the burden of demonstrating that Islam supports terrorism, it meant you lacked a means to do so.
I appreciate it. The arguments are basically along the same lines as what I would argue in any debate on this topic, it's largely where I focus my attention when it comes to abortion, though I certainly emphasized certain points for the purposes of this debate.
For convenience, I'll post the full list of my sources each round in order here in the comments.
R1 sources:
1. http://digitalcommons.conncoll.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=hisphp
2. http://triumphdebate.com/structural-violence/
3. http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/05/10/1097734167/in-texas-abortion-laws-inhibit-care-for-miscarriages
4. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2206246
5. http://journals.library.columbia.edu/index.php/cswr/article/view/1827/825
6. http://www.bu.edu/articles/2022/overturning-roe-v-wade-will-worsen-health-inequities/
7. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2442136/
8. http://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24439939/
9. http://shmpublications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jhm.12787
10. http://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/Abstract/2012/02000/The_Comparative_Safety_of_Legal_Induced_Abortion.3.aspx
11. http://read.dukeupress.edu/demography/article/58/6/2019/265968/The-Pregnancy-Related-Mortality-Impact-of-a-Total
12. http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.67.6.568
13. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK532992/
14. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59214544
15. http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/half-us-abortions-done-pills-survey-finds-rcna17546
16. http://www.msdmanuals.com/professional/gynecology-and-obstetrics/family-planning/induced-abortion
17. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/06/24/what-the-data-says-about-abortion-in-the-u-s-2/
18. http://www.gymglish.com/en/gymglish/english-grammar/ought-to
19. http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2022/05/27/1099739656/do-restrictive-abortion-laws-actually-reduce-abortion-a-global-map-offers-insigh
Ehyeh's vote was removed at the voter's request.
I'll try, but given that it has less than 24 hours left, I can't promise anything.
I'll try to get to this as I don't want it to go without any votes. Controversial as it is, I think I can manage.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: 3RU7AL // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
This vote is borderline. While the debate is long enough to have warranted a more extensive RFD, the voter did explain why he viewed this argument as central to the debate and furthered his reasoning in a long back-and-forth in the comments. Voters are not required to be exhaustive in their analysis, particularly if the voter explains why they see many of those points as irrelevant.
**************************************************
As a general rule, I prefer that we not engage in any kind of argumentation (even with others) here in the comments that is relevant to this debate. I'm seeing a couple of points that are swinging into that territory, so if you could please avoid adding further clarifications and arguments outside of the debate proper, I would appreciate that.
I think the main reason why you lost this debate in my opinion is on display in that last comment. You argued several times in response to Intelligence_06 that certain arguments of his have already been debunked, and largely assumed that it was obvious why that happened. I don't see any links in either of your rounds, so you're relying on the logic you provide to support statements that his arguments were either irrelevant or lacked support. I've seen debaters manage to defeat evidence with logic before, but doing that requires specific responses directly addressing the evidence presented. Voters aren't just going to take your word for it that these points are invalid - they need to see the specifics of why they're invalid, and assertions about the state of the universe (e.g. the existence of what can be called "nothing" and what that means for quantum fluctuation theories) cannot stand alone without meaningful support, either logical or evidence-based.
I'll try to get through it over the weekend.
Part of the problem from where I'm sitting is that I have a hard time seeing this as "worse in every single way" when the topic just said "worse." I agree that it's subjective and that there was room to argue that any measure of "worse" or "better" could work, but there was a good deal of discussion over what would subjectively be the scale that would matter most when it comes to evaluating which was worse. From what I could see, there was a certain level of agreement that the physical harms Novice_II focused on would be the most significant in pushing things towards the "worse" side. After that, the question from where I'm sitting is: was there a big enough difference in those harms to justify voting for one side? I think you're right that Novice_II attributed too many of the harms to the BLM protesters, but I noted at least a couple of instances in the debate where you granted that some BLM protesters did cause some amount of physical harm. That's where I'd have to go back through the sources because I think both sides in this debate aren't very clear about how much damage that would equate to from the overall numbers that Novice_II was giving me. In that sense, yes, I think it was rather close. Your case was largely built on me being so uncertain that I just throw out this weighing system entirely, but I didn't get the impression that it was impossible to tease apart harms caused directly by BLM protesters and those caused by other individuals during the riots.
It's against the rules to conspire with other voters. It's not against the rules, as far as I can tell, for someone to decide that they will only post their vote under certain conditions, even conditions of "the side I'm voting for is currently losing." What we're talking about here is just intent, but again, I don't know of any rule on this site that disallows this behavior. The rules are posted publicly, so feel free to prove me wrong.
Not sure why you feel that. It’s strategic voting, but it strikes me that it isn’t particularly problematic. If it is something we should actively work against, then really all we could do is stop people from posting their intentions. People could still vote strategically and just not say anything about why they timed their vote the way they did.
Someone can choose to withhold their vote from a debate because they see that the side that they would be voting for is winning anyway. That's not against the rules. That same someone can then choose to add their vote to the debate if the votes begin favoring the other side. In a manner of speaking, that is an effort to "stop someone losing" the debate by adding your vote at a time that you feel those points will matter most. I don't see why either of those choices are against the rules, but if you happen to know of a rule on the site that says otherwise, please reference it.
If you're referring to something else entirely, please clarify.
I'm not sure when that changed, only when the written policy did.
The voting policy has been written this way for well over a year now. I don't think it was the result of any MEEP, just specifying what voters are allowed to do under different forfeit scenarios.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: FLRW // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 to pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
On debates where one side has forfeited at least 40% of the debate, the voter may choose to award conduct and argument points solely based on the weight of those forfeits without further explanation. From the Voting 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#forfeitures
**************************************************
It doesn’t look like FLRW was saying that he would vote against you regardless of whether he thought Oro won. It looks like he was planning to vote if it looked like votes were swinging against Oro. Maybe I’m interpreting it wrong, but that’s how I read it. If you are correct, then I very much doubt that FLRW would have produced a vote that met the voting standards if he had already decided the outcome without considering Oro’s arguments.
I’ve already given my thoughts on the debate itself, so I’ll abstain from restating to those in response to your frustrations. That being said, I do think this debate deserved more votes.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1evCuI6WmgTX0HzShaCNmhBzmmDTM3_QsBTwDMF85t_c/edit?usp=sharing
Here are my thoughts guys. Would've been nice if more people had voted on this debate, but here we are.
I'm re-thinking voting on this one. I'll give one of my reasons for it later (I'll post an RFD because I've got thoughts), but the other is that it's looking like we're likely to have a couple of votes coming in just in time and I can't both moderate the debate and vote on it. Like I said, I'll give thoughts anyway after the voting period ends.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: rbelivb // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 6 points to Con
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Though the voter goes into great detail on why they awarded arguments, the RFD does not include details on why they awarded conduct and sources. Even including the recent comment as an addition, the voter insufficiently explains both point allocations. Sources require specific evaluation of what makes one side more or less effective, and conduct requires more than just one side being more aggressive with regards to seeking point awards.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#concessions
**************************************************
RFD text:
PRO began their argument with the ridiculous claim that the BLM protests "created some of the most tragic and devastating periods of violence in American history" - but went on to nevertheless provide some quite convincing numbers. CON responded by pointing out that much of the violence cited by PRO was due to "opportunistic acts of violence and vandalism by people with no particular political motive." We could infer, however, that the intensity and chaos of the BLM protests were what created the opening for such opportunists. However, CON also later points out the role of right wing extremists and opportunists in escalating and contributing to the violence.
CON attempted to put the entire burden of proof on PRO, even though the description stipulated shared BOP, stating that "As the instigator of this debate, PRO bears the entire burden of proof for this debate." I don't think this makes sense, since both sides of this debate involve a positive claim (that one side was worse than the other).
CON pointed out that the claims motivating Stop the Steal were blatantly false, while the motivations of BLM are admirable and true. This is a convincing point, since a mere accounting of dollars in damage, or people harmed, does not give the sense of the historical role of a movement. CON also pointed out that the BLM protests were the "single greatest political protest in US history" - which presumably accounts at least partially for the different scale of violence and destruction.
Both sides deployed certain "fixed ideas" in the course of their arguments. PRO had a clear pro-police and anti-crime stance, while CON made reference to the constitution and democracy.
Then there was PRO's attempt to take away conduct points from CON for providing sources in the comments. This came across as quite petty, especially since the links seem to be just reposting the same sources that were hyperlinked in the text of the argument.
The discussion around much of the violence and death seems to come down to the chaotic nature and massive energy and scale of the BLM protests. I do not totally buy CON's attempt to separate the good from the bad actors, since to an extent the scale and furious atmosphere of the protests led to a level of disorder in which violence may have been inevitable. The CON case would need to be that the inflammatory climate created by the protests was a necessary collateral damage in the greater cause being advocated for. In this respect, CON was quite convincing in making the comparison to the Iraq War and World War II.
CON points out that PRO used a "questionable and far-Right" source, which in my view takes further points from PRO's conduct and sources. PRO attempts to call this the "genetic fallacy" which I view as an absurd misuse of that fallacy.
This was a very difficult debate to judge impartially. CON argued largely in terms of the intentions of the protesters, but did not do much to show that the actual outcomes of such a large scale protest justified the amount of unrest it caused. PRO made a convincing case about the violence and destruction that occurred in the course of the protests, but ignored the differences in scale, as well as failing entirely to address the intentions or worldview behind the protests. Therefore, one's opinion about which perspective was more convincing probably largely depends on their view of the intentions of BLM, as well as their opinion about the overall efficacy of such large-scale protests. I would suggest that the resolution should have been more specific, since I think this one is so broad that anyone's decision about "who won" will largely come down to their preexisting opinions.
It was a good debate in which each side put in an admirable amount of effort. However, Pro took an altogether empirical approach which ignored the importance of history and philosophy, while Con's approach was much more philosophical and relied at times upon the abstractions of liberalism while neglecting concrete outcomes. In the end, my personal feeling was that Con's opinion was more convincing.
I'll try to blitz through this and get a vote up by tomorrow.
Will do when it’s finished.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Conservallectual // Mod action: Not Removed (conceded debate)
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 0 points.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
This debate clearly falls into the conceded debate category. Votes on conceded debates are only moderated in the event that said vote awards the majority of points to the conceding side. Choosing to award no points does not violate the voting standards on conceded debates, and the standard for voting on these types of debates differs from the standard for other debates. Therefore, no intervention is merited.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#concessions
**************************************************
I deleted it for you.
FYI, the whole point about the infinite void being a space of infinite size is never held up in the show. What we see is validation that the whole World of Void is shaking, but despite the name, no one ever says it's actually infinite in size. Worse yet, the use of infinite is a mistranslation of a Japanese word meaning eternity, which is a measure of time, not occupied space. That makes it really difficult to come to any conclusions regarding what shaking this space actually means.
Not so sure I agree, but I get your point.
A lot of what I know on Superman I learned second-hand (never been much of a comic reader and I've only got some basics under my belt for movies and TV shows), but I've watched plenty of DBZ, DBGT (unfortunately), and DBS, so I likely had more insight into Goku as a character than I do Superman.
That being said, these fantasy versus matches that cross universes are always a little iffy. Both of these characters have become much stronger over even the restricted runs that Untotalgenio uses, so comparing them to single match-ups is going to be tricky. I think focusing on what each of them has managed to tank in terms of hits at their best is a good choice, but you really have to scale those carefully, which yeah, does take time and research to do. I do think there's a good amount of evidence supporting Superman coming out on top in this matchup, but I also believe there's a case to be made for Goku managing this, it's just more of an uphill battle.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Mall // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 0
>Reason for Decision:
Both positions are actually in agreement. A lack of belief is a belief in a lack there of. Either position will have a negative or opposite like the yin and yang.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Even if the voter chooses not to award points, the voter must provide some evaluation of the arguments given in the debate. This RFD does not discuss any material from the debate itself, merely providing the voter's views on the resolution and the positions of the debaters.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Conservallectual // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to Con
>Reason for Decision:
The reasons are much better.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter must address specific points made by both sides in the debate and consider how they function with the resolution. The above RFD does not explain the voter's decision beyond vaguely stating that one side had better reasons.
I'd need to take a closer look at this debate before I make a call on his vote. You can report it if you wish, I haven't had an opportunity to get to the more recently reported votes on this debate just yet.
I'm not sure if there's a specific number of vote bombs, but if it becomes a common trend, we'll ban you from voting. You won't be banned from the site for vote bombing alone.
You're including implications that I did not imply.
"Not a number" means just what I said. It can be more than one if there is more than one pertinent point based on how you're evaluating it. If not, then it still remains important not to just exclude large portions of the debate without reason. So when you say:
"If there is a single argument that either supports or refutes the resolution, by itself, aren't all other arguments and counter-arguments superfluous (especially if they are repetitive logical fallacies)?"
that all comes with an explanation, a reason why that single argument is the most important and why other arguments in the debate are superfluous. Pointing out that that they are fallacious is one way to do that.
I don't know why you keep referencing things I haven't said.
I didn't specify a number of "specific points" because there is no number. You should be covering enough to represent the points that each side made. That doesn't mean you should be exhaustive, but that also doesn't mean that you can pick one point per side if there are a lot of points each side presents.
I never said there are "KEY POINTS" of any sort. Don't know why you keep putting that in quotes as though you're citing me. Generally, though, if you're going to call much of the debate "FILLER", it's a good idea to justify why you believe that's true, i.e. what makes those arguments unsubstantial from your perspective.
I didn't say anything about "key points." I said you need to cover specific arguments from both debaters and why you did or didn't find them convincing. Saying that Pro presented an argument that included an apolitical comparison to atheist doesn't tell me why you found the argument more convincing. Con presented arguments, not just quotes, so just dismissing his entire case on the basis that there were quotes is not sufficient.
Even if one side barely contributes, you still have to at least point to an argument the other side made that upheld their position. It’s not automatic that a contribution is pertinent.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: FLRW // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 6 to Con
>Reason for Decision:
Pro is advocating the overthrow of the Federal Government.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter must address specific points made by both sides in the debate and consider how they function with the resolution. The voter instead presents their views on the general argument made by one side, does not consider any specific points made by either side, and casts a vote for arguments, sources and conduct on that basis. That is not sufficient for any of these.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Conservallectual // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to Pro
>Reason for Decision:
Better reasons
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter must address specific points made by both sides in the debate and consider how they function with the resolution. The voter does not consider any points made by either debater and simply asserts that Pro had "Better reasons". That is not sufficient to award arguments.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: 3RU7AL // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to Pro
>Reason for Decision:
PRO confirms the resolution with sound logic
CON fails to address PRO's argument and instead present famous quotes which have absolutely no bearing on arguments presented
PRO wins "more convincing arguments" with the "apolitical" comparison to "atheist"
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter must address specific points made by both sides in the debate and consider how they function with the resolution. The voter does not consider specific points presented by either side aside from pointing out an argument from Con that he dismisses, nor does he consider how any of these points impact under the resolution. The voter does add onto his RFD in the comments, but as written, this is insufficient.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: zedvictor4 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to Pro
>Reason for Decision:
#1. Instigator Con doesn't seem to know what's what, so should have declined contender Pro's request.
#3. Con gives us a brief intro into life on the streets.
#5 Con unwisely rests upon the strength of #3.
#2.4.6. Pro, at least provides 3 rounds of relative substance, emotion and thoughtfulness. Thereby they should be acknowledged for their effort.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter must address specific points made by both sides in the debate and consider how they function with the resolution. The voter is kind of specific about what Con said in R2, but doesn't consider specific points made by Pro, nor does he consider how any of these points impact under the resolution. Acknowledging effort is nice, but not sufficient.
I'll try to get to this.
I'll try to get to this.
If that really is all you saw, then you only read his R2 and part of his R3, which might explain your consternation.
Pretty sure I explained that at some length.
You barely responded to the warrants that Pro gave for this debate. What you focused on was whether China presents a threat to the US militarily in the status quo and that their trade relations with us matter quite a bit. That doesn't tell me why Pro's warrants and evidence don't uphold his claims, that just tells me that China hasn't been pushed over the edge yet. Considering that Pro's points are based on how China is likely to use its full control over Taiwan to exert wider control that affects the world order, I needed to see some reasons why that brink (taking over Taiwan leads to substantial changes in China's behavior) fails rather than just telling me that China hasn't exerted that wider control yet.
And again, telling me that China was very tolerant of the US taking the role of the bad actor doesn't engage with the points on whataboutism from Pro in R2.
This wasn't a coin toss, dude. You had every opportunity to win this if you had focused more time on building up your impact calculus and establishing that the US putting itself in direct conflict with China over Taiwan is a big problem. Hell, I'm surprised you didn't just turn the whole argument Pro made about credibility against him, since the US would almost certainly drag other nations into direct conflict with China, particularly Japan, on the basis that we are defending the independence of a country we have largely kept at arm's length. If you really wanted to go the hypocrisy route, then attach a meaningful impact to it. I didn't see one, and I certainly didn't see you weigh your impacts against Pro's. You can claim that this is just Oro and I getting this wrong because we don't understand geopolitical impact, but I really didn't see you weighing yours at all beyond some points about trade losses.
My bad. I just shared with viewing permission.
I never claimed to be capable of leading a country, though I have an RFD and none of that comment addresses it. Don’t mind if you disagree, but I generally appreciate specific responses to how I went through the debate rather than generalizations.
Thanks for the reminder. I've read through it, just have to find the time to sit down and write out an RFD. Should have it up before the voting period ends.
Alright then.
I’ll post a vote. Might be a bit, but if I haven’t said anything in a week, PM or tag me again.