It’s a good thing comments do not need to be considered in voting because on further reflection, Irealize my comments post were close minded, and I found a cause to vote on this alleged non-debate. Pro’s R1 did present an argument, though it was entirely allegorical. By simplifying the subject of debate from countries to individuals, he presented the argument the one person’s wealth does not necessarily impoverish another person unless the money supply is finite. It is clearly not. Pro wins on argument, regardless of Con’s full forfeit
I disagree that holding you to the voting standards somehow encourages bad behavior. Removing your vote does not remove your capacity to add to it and repost it to meet those standards.
>Vote: AdaptableRatman // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to Pro
>Reason for Decision:
If this was Rated maybe mods have issue with my vote.
I am ethically against final Round blitzkrieg strategy. It is feigning a forfeit, turned a 2 Round debate into a 1 Round debate.
Immoral, cunning not acceptable. I believe 0 new point raised in a final Round should be acknowledged in any situation outside a 1-Round debate (excpet on rebuttal to new points first speaker of last Round made but I am against that too unless they are direct rebuttal).
Reason for Removal: Both rated and unrated debates are held to the voting standards. The voter cannot just state and describe the reasons for their ethical qualms with one side's strategy and then award a winner selection. Regardless of any other reasons for awarding the point, the voter must assess arguments as part of their RFD. As the voter does not do so here, the vote is insufficient.
**************************************************
>Vote: TheRizzler // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to Pro
>Reason for Decision:
I agree with AdaptableRatman. The strategy by Con was very underhanded and sleazy.
Reason for Removal: The voter cannot simply lean on another voter's RFD for their purposes. The voter must provide all the necessary specifics for their own RFD to be sufficient.
**************************************************
>Vote: jonrohith // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 5 to Con (Arguments, Sources)
>Reason for Decision:
Atheism and agnosticism is different. con produced more links and arguments
Reason for Removal: This is not sufficient to award arguments. The voter cannot just say that one side is correct because they agree with them. They must point to specific arguments made by both debaters and state who did the best job making their case and why.
**************************************************
You pointed to arguments presented by Pro, said they outweigh everything, and then said they outweigh Con. That is not, nor has it ever been, sufficient to cast a vote on this site. Any vote is a comparison between sides, weighing one side's points against another. If you are proclaiming one side better because their impacts matter more, then you still have to say why the other side's points don't stack up by comparison, which requires pointing to what those impacts are and explaining why they matter less.
>Vote: same1234 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 6 to Con (Arguments, Sources, Legibility)
>Reason for Decision:
they were good
Reason for Removal: This is not an RFD. The voter must evaluate points made by both sides in the debate and establish why one point was better, not merely state that one side was "good."
**************************************************
There's a difference between not meeting your understanding of your arguments and not mentioning those arguments at all. We might disagree on what constitutes understanding of your arguments, but not whether or not someone even mentions the specifics of one sides' arguments in their RFD.
And I'm making my way through quite a few votes reports tonight. Some of the ones that you reported should be among those.
>Vote: jonrohith // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 7 to Con
>Reason for Decision:
Without immigrants america cant reach this economy.
Reason for Removal: The voter does not justify any of their point allocations. This is not an RFD, just a statement of the voter's own perception of the issue.
**************************************************
>Vote: FishChaser // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to Pro
>Reason for Decision:
Pro appeals to longevity and happiness, which are the most important things for individuals and thus outweighs con's arguments.
Reason for Removal: The voter points to specific arguments from Pro's side of the debate and declares them the most important without comparing them to Con's points. Voters must evaluate points made by both sides in the debate to award arguments.
**************************************************
>Vote: jonrohith // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to Con
>Reason for Decision:
Con gave his best arguments and detailed , con is forfeited in round 1 is not acceptable but pro also left round 2 by just saying ok, so that equalised both mistakes.
Reason for Removal: The voter does not sufficiently justify awarding the point here. Simply saying that one side has the "best arguments" and is "detailed" is not sufficient - the voter has to explain why those points are better than Pro's, which requires pointing to specific arguments from both sides.
**************************************************
>Vote: jonrohith // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to Con
>Reason for Decision:
It is a unnecessary topic, pro made mistake.
Reason for Removal: Considering that this is a debate where one side has forfeited 50% of the rounds, this could be called a full forfeit and therefore subject to the rules that govern debates with that outcome. However, the voter awards the debate to the forfeiting side, so they have to provide sufficient reason why that side is warranted the point they've given them based on their first round. Simply saying that one side "made mistake" is not sufficient.
**************************************************
>Vote: jonrohith // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to Con
>Reason for Decision:
Pro arguing out of the topic.
Reason for Removal: The voter does not justify any of their point allocation. Stating that one side is off-topic is not sufficient.
**************************************************
>Vote: jonrohith // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to Con
>Reason for Decision:
Changes must be acceptable.
Reason for Removal: The voter does not justify any of their point allocation. It is not sufficient for the voter to give their opinion on the topic.
**************************************************
>Vote: jonrohith // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 7 to Con
>Reason for Decision:
con's argument is perfect, he is asking for facts, myths are not acceptable.
Reason for Removal: The voter does not justify any of their point allocations, instead merely stating that one side is “perfect” and implying that the other side presents only myths with their argument. Each point allocation must be justified with specific examples taken from the debate.
**************************************************
There was some discussion of how we could change the standards after the decision was made to shift from spelling and grammar to legibility, but to my knowledge at least, we did not make any substantial alterations to those standards. As for why not, the change-over happened when the site owner Mike decided to make a number of big changes to the site and I think this one just never got all that much attention. It’s past time we opened the issue up to public comment and at least determined whether enough people would like the standard to change, then we can workshop some ideas for how to do it.
I’ll go ahead and remove the vote. It looks like Sir.Lancelot has already posted the whole text of it below.
If that's how you see it, I very much disagree with all of your take-aways, but so be it. I'm not going to continue to belabor this in the comments here. If you think the votes are so fundamentally flawed, then there's no way all three should stand under the voting standards. Report them. Invite more people to give their thoughts on the debate. Haranguing us for taking the time to vote on this when this is the first attention the debate is getting is not helping you or anyone else.
Again, I'd say fulfillment and quality of life are distinct terms. You can argue that if you'd like, but I didn't see any kind of reframing of the topic on your part that put the terminology into a different perspective. Just pointing back at the topic and saying you meet it with your argument because it wasn't spelled out that fulfillment is individual doesn't tell me anything about how you'd define fulfillment and why I should believe your framing. Pro gave me a great deal of reasoning for what fulfillment looks like in his first round, so yes, I'm favoring that.
I don't know what standard you think I'm holding you to that does not apply to him. He set up his case on a pretty clear standard of what fulfillment looks like and argued that throughout. If you want, I can go through all the ways in which he does that, I just didn't feel the need to point to multiple dropped arguments. They set up a sufficient case that required challenges that undermined his perspective and supported yours. To that end, I expected that, if you were going to challenge his view of fulfillment, you would have engaged on how he presented fulfillment and not just say that quality of life improving = fulfillment because a shitty life isn't fulfilling.
I've removed several of Barney's votes before and I know he wouldn't hesitate to remove mine if it didn't meet the standards for voting on the site. But it's up to you what you choose to do about it.
I didn't say he "did better in the evidence department," I said "I think both sides don't do enough to support the historical truth of their respective religions." You were the only one to include examples to support your side, but you didn't provide any evidence to support their historical truth. At best, I'd give you that there's some chance of historical truth from your argument whereas Pro provided none, but the standard for truth is a high bar.
I addressed the quality of life argument. Fulfillment and quality of life are not interchangeable terms.
I'd say if you're conceding that meditation is a positive, then you're conceding Pro's entire argument as to why it's a positive and how that interrelates with fulfillment from a Buddhist perspective. At best, that's mitigation of the benefits of meditation because some Christians will garner it too. And yes, I'd say that's a negative connotation when you're conceding that meditation is a distinct positive and not acknowledging all the specifics of why, in a Buddhist context, Pro established that to be important for fulfillment.
If you have that much of a problem with it, report the vote. Barney will take a look at it.
It’s valid to argue that the way legibility is awarded should change, but at this moment, the view you’ve provided on legibility is not how it is applied. We would need to alter the voting standards to reflect that, which would require some public discussion. For the time being, even if I fully defer to your judgement on the term, it’s not how the voting standards apply in this case.
Again, though, that reads to me as an issue of argument, not one of legibility. If he effectively conceded the debate, no matter how he did it, it would not be reflected in the Legibility scoring.
I don't recall that specific instance and I'm not challenging your credentials. I'm just trying to get a clear idea of what makes Pro's case hard to understand as a result of said word salad. I haven't read through the debate, but if we're talking legibility, there's a pretty clear voting standard for that:
Awarded as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, wherein sections of the debate become illegible or at least comparatively burdensome to decipher.
Examples:
Unbroken walls of text, or similar formatting attempts to make an argument hard to follow.
Terrible punctuation throughout.
Overwhelming word confusion, or regularly distracting misspellings.
As for Legibility, I'll need to see more on why it's difficult to decipher. I understand what you mean by "word salad," but I'll need some examples of what made it difficult to understand. We can work this out here and then I can delete it for your re-post.
Yeah, I'm afraid you're going to need a better reason for withholding the conduct point than "it didn't amount to enough of the debate for me to award this point." The 40% threshold is the threshold for an automatic loss on the debate i.e. a full forfeit. I'm likely going to need a better reason for legibility as well because the afforded reasoning doesn't appear to have anything to do with the legibility of his argument. It looks like you're stating that he got off topic, which can factor into your argument points, but not legibility.
I'll keep this loose. Are you good with re-posting the rest of your reasoning avoiding legibility while awarding conduct to Pro? Or do you have another reason why these should be awarded differently?
>Vote: 21Pilots // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to Pro
>Reason for Decision:
Con really sold on this one
Reason for Removal: The voter must explain why they believe one side in this debate had better arguments at minimum in order to award points. Saying that one side "really sold" is not sufficient.
**************************************************
>Vote: 21Pilots // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 5 points to Pro (Arguments, Legibility, Conduct), 2 points to Con (Sources)
>Reason for Decision:
I believe that pro did better then con except for the sources, I would’ve probably voted con more because of the sue of reliable sources.
Reason for Removal: The voter provides no reasoning for awarding Legibility and Conduct.
On both arguments and sources, the voter merely states that one side "did better" or had more "reliable sources." To award points like this, the voter must explain their decision, not merely repeat it with more words. What aspects of Pro's arguments made them "better"? What makes Con's sources more "reliable"? These have to be explained to cast a vote with those points.
**************************************************
Also, I should be good to start this over the next couple of days. Appreciate the leniency of a week to post, since I'll be on vacation in the middle of it (not going to affect my access to the internet, visiting my family).
Yes, I'd put Kiritsugu among my favorites. Love him for a lot of reasons, but being the subject of a Greek tragedy that plays out in grand fashion definitely helps.
How voters view those points isn’t something we prescribe. They are required to at least do more than just ignore them entirely, particularly in the context of this debate.
As per always, voters are allowed a good deal of leeway when it comes to what they do and do not consider a legitimate argument. So long as they explain their reasoning and provide justifications for considering or not considering certain points, it can be valid.
That being said, considering that this debate’s topic explicitly challenges one of the main reasons for dismissing points that are written by AI, voters will be expected to at least show that they considered points from the debate itself and not just dismiss them off hand.
>Vote: TheRizzler // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Pro
>Reason for Decision:
Pro never refuted any points brought up by Con and immediately resorted to use of disrespectful language. Even though Con forfeited the first round, Pro's terrible conduct alone constitutes a win for Con.
Reason for Removal: when awarding points in the winner-take-all format, the voter is required, at minimum, to assess arguments in order to award points. Even if the debaters’ conduct ends up being a factor in their decision, that argument analysis must be present. Simply stating that one side did not refute the other is insufficient - the voter must provide analysis of specific points brought up by both sides in the debate.
**************************************************
Didn't mention it in my RFD, but while the point about alcohol being yeast urine made me giggle a bit, asserting that that makes it "unclean" is pretty strange, especially when you consider that alcohol is such an effective antibacterial. The ick factor of where it came from doesn't make the end product unclean or poisonous (though it is the latter in large enough amounts).
>Vote: AnonYmous_Icon // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 5 to Pro (Arguments, Sources)
>Reason for Decision:
I c that our Pro , align his arguments with Christianity as it is while our Con try to blend rational logic and science with his religious interpretations , that's goes in diff direction , Even both consider Christianity as a legitimate source for debate
Reason for Removal: The voter explains neither point allocation clearly. To award argument points, the voter must explain why one side's argument was more successful than the other, but all I see here is a brief overview of the general strategies of each side, not what made either successful or unsuccessful. The voter similarly only states that both sides consider a given source legitimate, not why one side should win source points as a result.
**************************************************
>Vote: AnonYmous_Icon // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 to Pro (Arguments, Conduct)
>Reason for Decision:
As debate is about Zaleski and pro try his best to tell good about him , but our con critic on the Ukraine (and its system) that goes in different direction .....
Reason for Removal: The voter explains neither point allocation clearly. To award argument points, the voter must explain why one side's argument was more successful than the other, but all I see here is a brief overview of the general strategies of each side, not what made either successful or unsuccessful. The voter does not explain why they chose to award conduct.
**************************************************
Done. I’ll post the vote content here:
It’s a good thing comments do not need to be considered in voting because on further reflection, Irealize my comments post were close minded, and I found a cause to vote on this alleged non-debate. Pro’s R1 did present an argument, though it was entirely allegorical. By simplifying the subject of debate from countries to individuals, he presented the argument the one person’s wealth does not necessarily impoverish another person unless the money supply is finite. It is clearly not. Pro wins on argument, regardless of Con’s full forfeit
I disagree that holding you to the voting standards somehow encourages bad behavior. Removing your vote does not remove your capacity to add to it and repost it to meet those standards.
>Vote: AdaptableRatman // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to Pro
>Reason for Decision:
If this was Rated maybe mods have issue with my vote.
I am ethically against final Round blitzkrieg strategy. It is feigning a forfeit, turned a 2 Round debate into a 1 Round debate.
Immoral, cunning not acceptable. I believe 0 new point raised in a final Round should be acknowledged in any situation outside a 1-Round debate (excpet on rebuttal to new points first speaker of last Round made but I am against that too unless they are direct rebuttal).
Reason for Removal: Both rated and unrated debates are held to the voting standards. The voter cannot just state and describe the reasons for their ethical qualms with one side's strategy and then award a winner selection. Regardless of any other reasons for awarding the point, the voter must assess arguments as part of their RFD. As the voter does not do so here, the vote is insufficient.
**************************************************
>Vote: TheRizzler // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to Pro
>Reason for Decision:
I agree with AdaptableRatman. The strategy by Con was very underhanded and sleazy.
Reason for Removal: The voter cannot simply lean on another voter's RFD for their purposes. The voter must provide all the necessary specifics for their own RFD to be sufficient.
**************************************************
You can report them. I'll take a look later.
>Vote: jonrohith // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 5 to Con (Arguments, Sources)
>Reason for Decision:
Atheism and agnosticism is different. con produced more links and arguments
Reason for Removal: This is not sufficient to award arguments. The voter cannot just say that one side is correct because they agree with them. They must point to specific arguments made by both debaters and state who did the best job making their case and why.
**************************************************
You pointed to arguments presented by Pro, said they outweigh everything, and then said they outweigh Con. That is not, nor has it ever been, sufficient to cast a vote on this site. Any vote is a comparison between sides, weighing one side's points against another. If you are proclaiming one side better because their impacts matter more, then you still have to say why the other side's points don't stack up by comparison, which requires pointing to what those impacts are and explaining why they matter less.
>Vote: same1234 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 6 to Con (Arguments, Sources, Legibility)
>Reason for Decision:
they were good
Reason for Removal: This is not an RFD. The voter must evaluate points made by both sides in the debate and establish why one point was better, not merely state that one side was "good."
**************************************************
There's a difference between not meeting your understanding of your arguments and not mentioning those arguments at all. We might disagree on what constitutes understanding of your arguments, but not whether or not someone even mentions the specifics of one sides' arguments in their RFD.
And I'm making my way through quite a few votes reports tonight. Some of the ones that you reported should be among those.
Deleted your vote as well due to the nature of a CVB.
Deleted your vote as well due to the nature of a CVB.
>Vote: jonrohith // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 7 to Con
>Reason for Decision:
Without immigrants america cant reach this economy.
Reason for Removal: The voter does not justify any of their point allocations. This is not an RFD, just a statement of the voter's own perception of the issue.
**************************************************
>Vote: FishChaser // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to Pro
>Reason for Decision:
Pro appeals to longevity and happiness, which are the most important things for individuals and thus outweighs con's arguments.
Reason for Removal: The voter points to specific arguments from Pro's side of the debate and declares them the most important without comparing them to Con's points. Voters must evaluate points made by both sides in the debate to award arguments.
**************************************************
>Vote: jonrohith // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to Con
>Reason for Decision:
Con gave his best arguments and detailed , con is forfeited in round 1 is not acceptable but pro also left round 2 by just saying ok, so that equalised both mistakes.
Reason for Removal: The voter does not sufficiently justify awarding the point here. Simply saying that one side has the "best arguments" and is "detailed" is not sufficient - the voter has to explain why those points are better than Pro's, which requires pointing to specific arguments from both sides.
**************************************************
>Vote: jonrohith // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to Con
>Reason for Decision:
It is a unnecessary topic, pro made mistake.
Reason for Removal: Considering that this is a debate where one side has forfeited 50% of the rounds, this could be called a full forfeit and therefore subject to the rules that govern debates with that outcome. However, the voter awards the debate to the forfeiting side, so they have to provide sufficient reason why that side is warranted the point they've given them based on their first round. Simply saying that one side "made mistake" is not sufficient.
**************************************************
Deleted your vote as a reverse vote bomb, but I understand why you cast it.
>Vote: jonrohith // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to Con
>Reason for Decision:
Pro arguing out of the topic.
Reason for Removal: The voter does not justify any of their point allocation. Stating that one side is off-topic is not sufficient.
**************************************************
Noted and appreciated. I’m taking appropriate measures.
>Vote: jonrohith // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to Con
>Reason for Decision:
Changes must be acceptable.
Reason for Removal: The voter does not justify any of their point allocation. It is not sufficient for the voter to give their opinion on the topic.
**************************************************
>Vote: jonrohith // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 7 to Con
>Reason for Decision:
con's argument is perfect, he is asking for facts, myths are not acceptable.
Reason for Removal: The voter does not justify any of their point allocations, instead merely stating that one side is “perfect” and implying that the other side presents only myths with their argument. Each point allocation must be justified with specific examples taken from the debate.
**************************************************
There was some discussion of how we could change the standards after the decision was made to shift from spelling and grammar to legibility, but to my knowledge at least, we did not make any substantial alterations to those standards. As for why not, the change-over happened when the site owner Mike decided to make a number of big changes to the site and I think this one just never got all that much attention. It’s past time we opened the issue up to public comment and at least determined whether enough people would like the standard to change, then we can workshop some ideas for how to do it.
I’ll go ahead and remove the vote. It looks like Sir.Lancelot has already posted the whole text of it below.
If that's how you see it, I very much disagree with all of your take-aways, but so be it. I'm not going to continue to belabor this in the comments here. If you think the votes are so fundamentally flawed, then there's no way all three should stand under the voting standards. Report them. Invite more people to give their thoughts on the debate. Haranguing us for taking the time to vote on this when this is the first attention the debate is getting is not helping you or anyone else.
Again, I'd say fulfillment and quality of life are distinct terms. You can argue that if you'd like, but I didn't see any kind of reframing of the topic on your part that put the terminology into a different perspective. Just pointing back at the topic and saying you meet it with your argument because it wasn't spelled out that fulfillment is individual doesn't tell me anything about how you'd define fulfillment and why I should believe your framing. Pro gave me a great deal of reasoning for what fulfillment looks like in his first round, so yes, I'm favoring that.
I don't know what standard you think I'm holding you to that does not apply to him. He set up his case on a pretty clear standard of what fulfillment looks like and argued that throughout. If you want, I can go through all the ways in which he does that, I just didn't feel the need to point to multiple dropped arguments. They set up a sufficient case that required challenges that undermined his perspective and supported yours. To that end, I expected that, if you were going to challenge his view of fulfillment, you would have engaged on how he presented fulfillment and not just say that quality of life improving = fulfillment because a shitty life isn't fulfilling.
I've removed several of Barney's votes before and I know he wouldn't hesitate to remove mine if it didn't meet the standards for voting on the site. But it's up to you what you choose to do about it.
That's a... very selective reading of my vote.
I didn't say he "did better in the evidence department," I said "I think both sides don't do enough to support the historical truth of their respective religions." You were the only one to include examples to support your side, but you didn't provide any evidence to support their historical truth. At best, I'd give you that there's some chance of historical truth from your argument whereas Pro provided none, but the standard for truth is a high bar.
I addressed the quality of life argument. Fulfillment and quality of life are not interchangeable terms.
I'd say if you're conceding that meditation is a positive, then you're conceding Pro's entire argument as to why it's a positive and how that interrelates with fulfillment from a Buddhist perspective. At best, that's mitigation of the benefits of meditation because some Christians will garner it too. And yes, I'd say that's a negative connotation when you're conceding that meditation is a distinct positive and not acknowledging all the specifics of why, in a Buddhist context, Pro established that to be important for fulfillment.
If you have that much of a problem with it, report the vote. Barney will take a look at it.
Solid first round. I'll have to think about how I want to approach this.
It’s valid to argue that the way legibility is awarded should change, but at this moment, the view you’ve provided on legibility is not how it is applied. We would need to alter the voting standards to reflect that, which would require some public discussion. For the time being, even if I fully defer to your judgement on the term, it’s not how the voting standards apply in this case.
Again, though, that reads to me as an issue of argument, not one of legibility. If he effectively conceded the debate, no matter how he did it, it would not be reflected in the Legibility scoring.
I don't recall that specific instance and I'm not challenging your credentials. I'm just trying to get a clear idea of what makes Pro's case hard to understand as a result of said word salad. I haven't read through the debate, but if we're talking legibility, there's a pretty clear voting standard for that:
Awarded as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, wherein sections of the debate become illegible or at least comparatively burdensome to decipher.
Examples:
Unbroken walls of text, or similar formatting attempts to make an argument hard to follow.
Terrible punctuation throughout.
Overwhelming word confusion, or regularly distracting misspellings.
Jarring font and/or formatting changes.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
So it has to meet some clear standard for awarding the point, and I'm asking you to explain how this instance meets that standard.
Damn, I completely lost track of this. Still got a day, I'm going to try and blitz through it and post a vote.
Yeah, it'll have to be re-posted.
As for Legibility, I'll need to see more on why it's difficult to decipher. I understand what you mean by "word salad," but I'll need some examples of what made it difficult to understand. We can work this out here and then I can delete it for your re-post.
Yeah, I'm afraid you're going to need a better reason for withholding the conduct point than "it didn't amount to enough of the debate for me to award this point." The 40% threshold is the threshold for an automatic loss on the debate i.e. a full forfeit. I'm likely going to need a better reason for legibility as well because the afforded reasoning doesn't appear to have anything to do with the legibility of his argument. It looks like you're stating that he got off topic, which can factor into your argument points, but not legibility.
I'll keep this loose. Are you good with re-posting the rest of your reasoning avoiding legibility while awarding conduct to Pro? Or do you have another reason why these should be awarded differently?
>Vote: 21Pilots // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to Pro
>Reason for Decision:
Con really sold on this one
Reason for Removal: The voter must explain why they believe one side in this debate had better arguments at minimum in order to award points. Saying that one side "really sold" is not sufficient.
**************************************************
>Vote: 21Pilots // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 5 points to Pro (Arguments, Legibility, Conduct), 2 points to Con (Sources)
>Reason for Decision:
I believe that pro did better then con except for the sources, I would’ve probably voted con more because of the sue of reliable sources.
Reason for Removal: The voter provides no reasoning for awarding Legibility and Conduct.
On both arguments and sources, the voter merely states that one side "did better" or had more "reliable sources." To award points like this, the voter must explain their decision, not merely repeat it with more words. What aspects of Pro's arguments made them "better"? What makes Con's sources more "reliable"? These have to be explained to cast a vote with those points.
**************************************************
Remind me, but sure.
Let the battle commence!
Also, I should be good to start this over the next couple of days. Appreciate the leniency of a week to post, since I'll be on vacation in the middle of it (not going to affect my access to the internet, visiting my family).
Yes, I'd put Kiritsugu among my favorites. Love him for a lot of reasons, but being the subject of a Greek tragedy that plays out in grand fashion definitely helps.
Cool, I should be able to respond to this in a couple of days.
I'll work on this.
I'll try to get to this, remind me if I'm slow.
How voters view those points isn’t something we prescribe. They are required to at least do more than just ignore them entirely, particularly in the context of this debate.
As per always, voters are allowed a good deal of leeway when it comes to what they do and do not consider a legitimate argument. So long as they explain their reasoning and provide justifications for considering or not considering certain points, it can be valid.
That being said, considering that this debate’s topic explicitly challenges one of the main reasons for dismissing points that are written by AI, voters will be expected to at least show that they considered points from the debate itself and not just dismiss them off hand.
Done.
It doesn't allow for edits. If you want to copy it, I can delete it and you can re-post it.
>Vote: TheRizzler // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Pro
>Reason for Decision:
Pro never refuted any points brought up by Con and immediately resorted to use of disrespectful language. Even though Con forfeited the first round, Pro's terrible conduct alone constitutes a win for Con.
Reason for Removal: when awarding points in the winner-take-all format, the voter is required, at minimum, to assess arguments in order to award points. Even if the debaters’ conduct ends up being a factor in their decision, that argument analysis must be present. Simply stating that one side did not refute the other is insufficient - the voter must provide analysis of specific points brought up by both sides in the debate.
**************************************************
I’ll take a look at this.
Didn't mention it in my RFD, but while the point about alcohol being yeast urine made me giggle a bit, asserting that that makes it "unclean" is pretty strange, especially when you consider that alcohol is such an effective antibacterial. The ick factor of where it came from doesn't make the end product unclean or poisonous (though it is the latter in large enough amounts).
>Vote: AnonYmous_Icon // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 5 to Pro (Arguments, Sources)
>Reason for Decision:
I c that our Pro , align his arguments with Christianity as it is while our Con try to blend rational logic and science with his religious interpretations , that's goes in diff direction , Even both consider Christianity as a legitimate source for debate
Reason for Removal: The voter explains neither point allocation clearly. To award argument points, the voter must explain why one side's argument was more successful than the other, but all I see here is a brief overview of the general strategies of each side, not what made either successful or unsuccessful. The voter similarly only states that both sides consider a given source legitimate, not why one side should win source points as a result.
**************************************************
>Vote: AnonYmous_Icon // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 to Pro (Arguments, Conduct)
>Reason for Decision:
As debate is about Zaleski and pro try his best to tell good about him , but our con critic on the Ukraine (and its system) that goes in different direction .....
Reason for Removal: The voter explains neither point allocation clearly. To award argument points, the voter must explain why one side's argument was more successful than the other, but all I see here is a brief overview of the general strategies of each side, not what made either successful or unsuccessful. The voter does not explain why they chose to award conduct.
**************************************************
I'll see what I can do. Looks like it has a while in the voting period, so just remind me.