Wow, then it really has been a while. I remember your debates on King_8 for sure. Still watching quite a bit of anime, so always happy to talk about it, debate on it, or vote on just about anything related to it.
Cool. Should be able to set aside an hour or so binge and score these. I get the basic concept of how you want voters to score it, so that shouldn't be a problem, but if I do end up erring in some way, let me know and I can delete and reformulate it when the time comes.
Would have been removed for ineligibility
Sting
07.24.2023 02:42AM
rational mcmahon doesn’t do a good job. he doesn’t have intricate vocabulary and writes like he’s talking instead of rapping. he was also difficult to understand so i had to go back and read a few times and that just did not work for me.
but fishrider uses complex rhyme scheme and dinosaur puns that hit hard. he is using lyricism that combines big vocab with poetry. so he wins
FishChaser was dropping bomb after bomb, so he takes this in my opinion. Rational did have good flow but that isn’t enough to turn the balance in his favor.
Removed for ineligibility
Boba_Tea
07.16.2023 08:32PM
RationalMadman
Lyricism = 4/4
Flow = 3/4
Diss = 2/4
Rhyme = 3/4
Sir.Lancelot
Lyricism = 2/4
Flow = 4/4
Diss = 4/4
Rhyme = 3/4
Lancelot wins by 1 point.
The truth is I was rooting for Rational by a long-shot. If the rules weren’t as they were, I would’ve given him the win because his lyricism is that much better.
However, Lancelot’s disses were the only redeeming quality that landed him in first place. In a No-Hold’s Barred, this is the priority.
Feel free to message me if either of you have any questions.
Removed for ineligibility
Boba_Tea
07.19.2023 03:08PM
Reason:
What we have here is a tag-team toss up between Chip and Devlin versus Stormy and Skepta.
I must admit Grime is a bit difficult for me to translate. I translated the lyrics and frankly, Pro’s artists are very impressive from an analysis standpoint.
But Con’s choice in the tracks made him come out ahead in this competition because the lyrics were decipherable and there were just a higher quantity of insults.
As stated in the description, I assign all points if I believe it was a severe win, so Con takes this.
Removed for ineligibility
Boba_Tea
07.19.2023 03:25PM
Pro told me Con concedes, but I can’t see this anywhere in the debate.
Pro argues that Diogenes is the wisest philosopher because of his social perception, spiritual knowledge, deeper understanding of people’s motives, having lived and experienced life as a poor man and inner knowledge of how the rich are.
Con argues Rene Descartes is smarter because he was academically inclined and made many intellectual contributions that are used today. His most notorious being the one he uses for existentialism. (Vaguely referenced.)
Pro and Con focus on details that don’t matter. Pro says Descartes’s achievements are separate from wisdom, but even I buy that from a logical standpoint, Pro needs to make more of a comparison. Con says that Diogenes wasn’t wise because he is a hobo. Pro counters this is irrelevant to whether or not he was wise.
Arguments go to Pro since he actually supported his case whereas Con makes a case but then kinda drops his half-way. I believe sources and legibility stayed consistent, so I rank them both a tie.
But Conduct to Pro because the rules say no rebuttals in Round 1 and Con violates that.
To be clear, I think Pro was arguing the resolution as it was written. I don’t see how he had to defend the broadest application of said topic, which is what you seemed to be holding him to doing. Debaters are allowed to specify a policy that allows them to uphold a topic so long as the topic doesn’t demand that they uphold it in full with absolutist terms like “all” or “every.” I just plain don’t agree that this particular topic was that demanding of Pro, nor do I think that what he did here was unpredictable on your part.
Alright, finished reading it, just have to process it. Been a while since I’ve had to judge a debate where the technicalities basically are the debate, but I think I’ve got the gist of it, even if I’m not yet sure who’s winning.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Pevensie // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con
Although I personally agree with the Pro position, I found Pro's arguments extremely weak and believe Con won debate.
The weakest argument I believe Pro made is the following: "if it at least is seen as something good by even one person then it cannot be inherently evil because they saw it as good it benefited them." Pro degrades evil to subjective opinion. It is theoretically possible, however unlikely, that every human agrees something is evil. Finally, suggesting that if at least one person benefits from evil means it is not inherently evil is absurdly consequentialist.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter does not sufficiently explain his reasoning. While the voter is welcome to provide some insights into how he perceives certain arguments within the debate, the voter should not award points to either side on the basis of points the voter himself is making. Decisions must be based on points made within the debate. Also, the voter must assess arguments made by both sides in the debate. The voter only assesses a single point made by Pro, and does not establish that Con had better arguments.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Pevensie // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro (Arguments), 2 points to Con (Sources)
Although I appreciated Con's usage of direct quotes from the show, I found Pro's logical reasoning to be more compelling. Both Pro and Con acted civilly and communicated clearly.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter does not sufficiently explain either point allocation. For arguments, the voter has to compare specific points presented by both sides in the debate. It is not sufficient to state that one side used "logical reasoning" that the voter found "more compelling." For sources, the voter points to the "direct quotes from the show" given by Con, but doesn't address the sources presented by Pro nor how they compare.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Barney // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro (Arguments)
>Reason for Decision:
See Voting Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter explains their decisions utilizing arguments made by each side and focusing on how the points made by Con in response to Pro's setup of the debate (both of his framework and his definitions) are sufficient to award these points. That is sufficient under the voting standards.
**************************************************
It’s not really a kritik. It’s more like you’re running a topicality/resolutionality on yourself, which… yeah, it’s weird and I don’t know how much mileage it will have with other voters. It works from where I’m sitting because GP didn’t bring up the original definition after that, and just seemed to accept that your definition could supplant it. When it’s part of the description rather than an opening argument, it’s easier for me to put some space between them and assume they’re separate.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Sting // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Pro (Legibility)
>Reason for Decision:
neither convinced me but pro wrote better styling
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter does not justify awarding legibility. It is unclear what he means by "better styling" or how that is sufficient under the voting standards. Please refer to the voting policy for the site and ensure that the basis for awarding legibility meets the listed standards:
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#legibility-formerly-spelling-and-grammar
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Sting // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Pro (Arguments, Legibility)
>Reason for Decision:
greyparrot makes better arguments, so i give points to bird boy.
sorry lancy
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter does not justify either point allocation. The voter does not even mention legibility, and his basis for awarding arguments is not explained beyond asserting that the side is being awarded better arguments has better arguments. The voter must evaluate specific arguments presented by each side in order to award these points.
**************************************************
Check out the "qualifications" tab on your profile. You have to have completed 3 debates before you can vote. Also, note that I haven't barred you from any activities on the site. If I had done that, I would at least have the decency to let you know that it had happened and why.
Thanks for the vote, and for the extensive reasoning. I know there are a lot of different ways to measure what makes a character tragic and your points are valid. Looks like there is too little time left for me to get up a vote on your debate, unfortunately.
I'm not getting into this with you. This isn't a job for me, it's something I volunteer to do. What you're apparently demanding of me is that I look through a vast swath of votes regularly, including those that aren't reported, to see if removal is justified. I don't do that, and I don't plan on doing that. Just because you aren't happy about it doesn't mean I'm going to vastly expand the amount of work I'm doing to meet your criteria for what you believe moderators should be doing.
Well, then you didn't give me much lead time to make a call, did you? I don't spend every waking hour on this site, so if you want me to address votes you've reported, try to give me more time to look at them. I'm not going to evaluate votes that are locked in because the voting period has ended.
I don’t mind if you use it in the forums. If you don’t use it in a debate, you likely won’t hear from me about it.
As for the basis for doing it, I would say that it’s at least implied in existing rules. I don’t have a bias against ChatGPT, but I do have a problem with people using it like this because it bears a lot of the hallmarks of plagiarism. We all take info from other sites, but we cite what we take and quote what we use directly. Just because it’s a tool you’re using instead of another website doesn’t make it substantially different. All that being said, I’m more than willing to clarify this in existing rules.
To my knowledge, there aren’t restrictions on posting AI generated content in the forums. In debates, there’s a problem with plagiarism, and whether the rules explicitly state that this is an example of plagiarism or not doesn’t affect how well it applies here. You can say this isn’t plagiarism if you want, but it seems blatant to me and, clearly, to others as well.
I feel like this is very simple: if you’re going to use ChatGPT, don’t represent the resulting text as your own words. Researching your profile doesn’t change what you did here and elsewhere. Your profile doesn’t designate what words are yours and what words aren’t - you’re claiming that your profile somehow grants you a blank check to utilize it as much as you want and represent it as yours, which is not nor has it ever been the case. You can develop a better understanding of the universe and practice the skill of debating simultaneously. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Speaking as someone who has read your bio, the disclaimer is not a blank check to use ChatGPT without attribution. I don’t see quotes or attribution of any kind within the debate. Currently, you require others to parse through your points to find the difference. That’s like telling us to randomly Google points you’ve made to find points you took from other webpages rather than quoting and sourcing them.
We'll need to figure out a meaningful response to this kind of behavior, particularly as it can be sometimes difficult to determine whether they used an AI to generate their argument (not saying that's the case here), but it is against site rules to use an AI generated argument without having stated explicitly that it will be used in the description. This being a standard debate, it's less important, but still not acceptable.
The decision to change from Spelling and Grammar to Legibility was a recent one (long after that 2019 voting guide post from bsh1) made by the site admin, not me. If you find the term insufficient or problematic, you're welcome to take it up with him.
I'm not here to argue with you about this. You understand the rules for voting on the site. You can and do provide detailed votes. When you award multiple point categories, you have to explain all of them explicitly. If you want to draw my attention to something you said in your vote, then do so instead of jeering at me.
Wow, then it really has been a while. I remember your debates on King_8 for sure. Still watching quite a bit of anime, so always happy to talk about it, debate on it, or vote on just about anything related to it.
Cool. Should be able to set aside an hour or so binge and score these. I get the basic concept of how you want voters to score it, so that shouldn't be a problem, but if I do end up erring in some way, let me know and I can delete and reformulate it when the time comes.
I’ll confirm Savant’s response. They had a number of debates against one another, all of which I deleted.
Suffice it to say that I clearly got to this too late. For the moment, I'm doing what I can to handle it and investigating the situation.
Someone remind me of this when it finishes. I'll do a binge session on some anime music and post a vote.
Would have been removed for ineligibility
Sting
07.24.2023 02:42AM
rational mcmahon doesn’t do a good job. he doesn’t have intricate vocabulary and writes like he’s talking instead of rapping. he was also difficult to understand so i had to go back and read a few times and that just did not work for me.
but fishrider uses complex rhyme scheme and dinosaur puns that hit hard. he is using lyricism that combines big vocab with poetry. so he wins
Would have been removed for ineligibility
Boba_Tea
07.19.2023 03:02PM
Stronger Wordplay: FishChaser
Stronger Metaphors: FishChaser
Stronger Puns: FishChaser
FishChaser was dropping bomb after bomb, so he takes this in my opinion. Rational did have good flow but that isn’t enough to turn the balance in his favor.
Message me if either of you have any questions!
Removed for ineligibility
Boba_Tea
07.19.2023 02:59PM
All points go to Pro because Con forfeited one of the rounds. In rap, not showing up means a loss.
Message me if either of you have any questions!
Would have been removed for ineligibility
Boba_Tea
07.19.2023 02:57PM
The major problem here is Pro stayed in character throughout the whole battle. Con didn’t really sound like the rapper he was imitating.
The insults and flow were great from Pro, but everything else stayed even.
Message me if either of you have questions!
Removed for ineligibility
Boba_Tea
07.16.2023 08:32PM
RationalMadman
Lyricism = 4/4
Flow = 3/4
Diss = 2/4
Rhyme = 3/4
Sir.Lancelot
Lyricism = 2/4
Flow = 4/4
Diss = 4/4
Rhyme = 3/4
Lancelot wins by 1 point.
The truth is I was rooting for Rational by a long-shot. If the rules weren’t as they were, I would’ve given him the win because his lyricism is that much better.
However, Lancelot’s disses were the only redeeming quality that landed him in first place. In a No-Hold’s Barred, this is the priority.
Feel free to message me if either of you have any questions.
Removed for ineligibility
Boba_Tea
07.19.2023 03:08PM
Reason:
What we have here is a tag-team toss up between Chip and Devlin versus Stormy and Skepta.
I must admit Grime is a bit difficult for me to translate. I translated the lyrics and frankly, Pro’s artists are very impressive from an analysis standpoint.
But Con’s choice in the tracks made him come out ahead in this competition because the lyrics were decipherable and there were just a higher quantity of insults.
As stated in the description, I assign all points if I believe it was a severe win, so Con takes this.
Message me if either of you have questions!
Removed for ineligibility
Boba_Tea
07.19.2023 03:25PM
Pro told me Con concedes, but I can’t see this anywhere in the debate.
Pro argues that Diogenes is the wisest philosopher because of his social perception, spiritual knowledge, deeper understanding of people’s motives, having lived and experienced life as a poor man and inner knowledge of how the rich are.
Con argues Rene Descartes is smarter because he was academically inclined and made many intellectual contributions that are used today. His most notorious being the one he uses for existentialism. (Vaguely referenced.)
Pro and Con focus on details that don’t matter. Pro says Descartes’s achievements are separate from wisdom, but even I buy that from a logical standpoint, Pro needs to make more of a comparison. Con says that Diogenes wasn’t wise because he is a hobo. Pro counters this is irrelevant to whether or not he was wise.
Arguments go to Pro since he actually supported his case whereas Con makes a case but then kinda drops his half-way. I believe sources and legibility stayed consistent, so I rank them both a tie.
But Conduct to Pro because the rules say no rebuttals in Round 1 and Con violates that.
Let me know if either of you have any questions!
To be clear, I think Pro was arguing the resolution as it was written. I don’t see how he had to defend the broadest application of said topic, which is what you seemed to be holding him to doing. Debaters are allowed to specify a policy that allows them to uphold a topic so long as the topic doesn’t demand that they uphold it in full with absolutist terms like “all” or “every.” I just plain don’t agree that this particular topic was that demanding of Pro, nor do I think that what he did here was unpredictable on your part.
Thanks for the ping, though there's still time. Got another debate that needs voting before I can get to this one.
Alright, finished reading it, just have to process it. Been a while since I’ve had to judge a debate where the technicalities basically are the debate, but I think I’ve got the gist of it, even if I’m not yet sure who’s winning.
I'm working on it, should have something up before the deadline.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Pevensie // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con
Although I personally agree with the Pro position, I found Pro's arguments extremely weak and believe Con won debate.
The weakest argument I believe Pro made is the following: "if it at least is seen as something good by even one person then it cannot be inherently evil because they saw it as good it benefited them." Pro degrades evil to subjective opinion. It is theoretically possible, however unlikely, that every human agrees something is evil. Finally, suggesting that if at least one person benefits from evil means it is not inherently evil is absurdly consequentialist.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter does not sufficiently explain his reasoning. While the voter is welcome to provide some insights into how he perceives certain arguments within the debate, the voter should not award points to either side on the basis of points the voter himself is making. Decisions must be based on points made within the debate. Also, the voter must assess arguments made by both sides in the debate. The voter only assesses a single point made by Pro, and does not establish that Con had better arguments.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Pevensie // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro (Arguments), 2 points to Con (Sources)
Although I appreciated Con's usage of direct quotes from the show, I found Pro's logical reasoning to be more compelling. Both Pro and Con acted civilly and communicated clearly.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter does not sufficiently explain either point allocation. For arguments, the voter has to compare specific points presented by both sides in the debate. It is not sufficient to state that one side used "logical reasoning" that the voter found "more compelling." For sources, the voter points to the "direct quotes from the show" given by Con, but doesn't address the sources presented by Pro nor how they compare.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Barney // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro (Arguments)
>Reason for Decision:
See Voting Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter explains their decisions utilizing arguments made by each side and focusing on how the points made by Con in response to Pro's setup of the debate (both of his framework and his definitions) are sufficient to award these points. That is sufficient under the voting standards.
**************************************************
It’s not really a kritik. It’s more like you’re running a topicality/resolutionality on yourself, which… yeah, it’s weird and I don’t know how much mileage it will have with other voters. It works from where I’m sitting because GP didn’t bring up the original definition after that, and just seemed to accept that your definition could supplant it. When it’s part of the description rather than an opening argument, it’s easier for me to put some space between them and assume they’re separate.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Sting // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Pro (Legibility)
>Reason for Decision:
neither convinced me but pro wrote better styling
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter does not justify awarding legibility. It is unclear what he means by "better styling" or how that is sufficient under the voting standards. Please refer to the voting policy for the site and ensure that the basis for awarding legibility meets the listed standards:
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#legibility-formerly-spelling-and-grammar
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Sting // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Pro (Arguments, Legibility)
>Reason for Decision:
greyparrot makes better arguments, so i give points to bird boy.
sorry lancy
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter does not justify either point allocation. The voter does not even mention legibility, and his basis for awarding arguments is not explained beyond asserting that the side is being awarded better arguments has better arguments. The voter must evaluate specific arguments presented by each side in order to award these points.
**************************************************
I'll work on it, should have it up before the deadline.
Appreciate that you think so, Barney. We'll have to see how it does in the voting.
Should be able to get to this this weekend.
I'm on it.
Check out the "qualifications" tab on your profile. You have to have completed 3 debates before you can vote. Also, note that I haven't barred you from any activities on the site. If I had done that, I would at least have the decency to let you know that it had happened and why.
Remind me over the weekend.
Thanks for the vote, and for the extensive reasoning. I know there are a lot of different ways to measure what makes a character tragic and your points are valid. Looks like there is too little time left for me to get up a vote on your debate, unfortunately.
Happy to do it. Well done to both debaters.
I promise, I will get a vote up in time. Got about halfway through the RFD a couple of nights back and just haven't gotten back to finishing it yet.
Alright, can't say I've heard from either of those accounts or from anyone else in an attempt to get you banned, but I'll keep that in mind.
Thank you for voting, I’m glad you enjoyed the debate! I expected some pushback on the framework, so I see your point.
I’ll start reading through this today.
Cool, just wanted to be sure.
To be fair, Star Wars is under the Disney umbrella. I hope you'll focus on other factors if and when you vote.
And you’re entitled to your opinion.
Have a nice day.
I'm not getting into this with you. This isn't a job for me, it's something I volunteer to do. What you're apparently demanding of me is that I look through a vast swath of votes regularly, including those that aren't reported, to see if removal is justified. I don't do that, and I don't plan on doing that. Just because you aren't happy about it doesn't mean I'm going to vastly expand the amount of work I'm doing to meet your criteria for what you believe moderators should be doing.
Well, then you didn't give me much lead time to make a call, did you? I don't spend every waking hour on this site, so if you want me to address votes you've reported, try to give me more time to look at them. I'm not going to evaluate votes that are locked in because the voting period has ended.
I'm not sure why you're asking me to do the impossible. I cannot remove votes from debates that have already finished.
I don’t mind if you use it in the forums. If you don’t use it in a debate, you likely won’t hear from me about it.
As for the basis for doing it, I would say that it’s at least implied in existing rules. I don’t have a bias against ChatGPT, but I do have a problem with people using it like this because it bears a lot of the hallmarks of plagiarism. We all take info from other sites, but we cite what we take and quote what we use directly. Just because it’s a tool you’re using instead of another website doesn’t make it substantially different. All that being said, I’m more than willing to clarify this in existing rules.
To my knowledge, there aren’t restrictions on posting AI generated content in the forums. In debates, there’s a problem with plagiarism, and whether the rules explicitly state that this is an example of plagiarism or not doesn’t affect how well it applies here. You can say this isn’t plagiarism if you want, but it seems blatant to me and, clearly, to others as well.
I feel like this is very simple: if you’re going to use ChatGPT, don’t represent the resulting text as your own words. Researching your profile doesn’t change what you did here and elsewhere. Your profile doesn’t designate what words are yours and what words aren’t - you’re claiming that your profile somehow grants you a blank check to utilize it as much as you want and represent it as yours, which is not nor has it ever been the case. You can develop a better understanding of the universe and practice the skill of debating simultaneously. The two are not mutually exclusive.
It doesn’t matter from where you personally derive merit for a given argument. Plagiarism exists regardless of your preferences.
Speaking as someone who has read your bio, the disclaimer is not a blank check to use ChatGPT without attribution. I don’t see quotes or attribution of any kind within the debate. Currently, you require others to parse through your points to find the difference. That’s like telling us to randomly Google points you’ve made to find points you took from other webpages rather than quoting and sourcing them.
Yes, I can do that.
We'll need to figure out a meaningful response to this kind of behavior, particularly as it can be sometimes difficult to determine whether they used an AI to generate their argument (not saying that's the case here), but it is against site rules to use an AI generated argument without having stated explicitly that it will be used in the description. This being a standard debate, it's less important, but still not acceptable.
I support any change that would increase clarity on the issue.
The decision to change from Spelling and Grammar to Legibility was a recent one (long after that 2019 voting guide post from bsh1) made by the site admin, not me. If you find the term insufficient or problematic, you're welcome to take it up with him.
Thank you. That would be lovely. I always appreciate when someone makes an effort to comb through votes - it ensures that I'm doing my job thoroughly.
I'm not here to argue with you about this. You understand the rules for voting on the site. You can and do provide detailed votes. When you award multiple point categories, you have to explain all of them explicitly. If you want to draw my attention to something you said in your vote, then do so instead of jeering at me.