I deal with reports as I see them. If you have a reason for awarding legibility, state it explicitly, and make certain that it meets the voting standards.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: TWS1405_2 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 6 points to Con (Arguments, Sources, Legibility)
>Reason for Decision:
Pro begins by some factually inaccurate definitions, which will inevitably convolute the progression of the debate. For example, "A fetus is still a human, a clump of cells and abortion is premeditated." While a biologically and physiologically developing fetus is human in origin, it is neither [a] human (being) or [a] clump of cells. Said definition is directly contradictory to well-established and common knowledge scientific definitions of what a human fetus factually is. As I said in my previous vote, that Pro took issue with, remains factually accurate. Begin a debate on a false premise, your conclusion will be equally false.
Pro then states: "There are certain parts of the country where abortion is illegal. Murder is also illegal so without a doubt abortion is murder." This too is factually incorrect. RvW was only recently overturned; therefore, the standing law for 50 years is what truly needs to be debated, not the incredibly fluctuating political environment that is different from state to state over the past 10-12 months. Also, murder is illegal in every state, abortion is not. So, "without a doubt" abortion =/= murder in every state, let alone every conceivable situation.
Citing other countries where an abortion is illegal for a debate centered on US standards, laws and culturally based morality (without clarifying otherwise in the description/parameters of the debate) is nothing short of a red herring fallacy. It's a whataboutism argument.
Pro's entire argument is wholeheartedly subjective: "No matter how one looks at it, abortion is murder. The science of embryology states that from the moment of conception, a human being is formed." No, science states that at the moment of conception the very basic biological criteria for (cellular) life is met. A cell =/= a human being, commonly understood and referred to as a born person/individual, not a zygote, blastocyst, embryo and/or fetus.
Con's rebuttal here is simple, short, sweet and to the obvious point: "Here is where I agree with Pro, that conception is the beginning of life. But it’s not life in the conventional sense. The fetus at this point has more in common with a cell than a fully grown human being or even a newborn. It hasn’t advanced to the point that we can refer to it as a ‘person.’" Con draws the obvious distinction whereas Pro keeps muddying the waters with incoherent jargon and dots that should never be connected.
Given the observable clear lack of knowledge of the subject on the part of Pro, Con really didn't have much to debate/rebut with. Con replied with common sense, but more importantly, common knowledge (which does not require any citations, precisely because it is, "common").
Each provided one cited source, Pro's was irrelevant to the debate at hand whereas Con's was on point.
Con prevails, for obvious (and stated) reasons.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Though the vote is much improved, justifying both Arguments and Sources, the voter does not explain their reasoning for awarding Conduct or Legibility.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: TWS1405_2 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Pro (Arguments, Legibility)
>Reason for Decision:
Con’s argument is purely one of semantics laced with misnomers, which is why anyone who tries to engage in a debate/discussion on the subject of this debate – abortion is murder – ultimately fails to meet their BoP.
Con agrees to both definitions of murder Pro provides, but specifically chooses the second because it includes the term ‘a person’ within it, a term that is the crux of his entire position. Throughout the debate Con never defined what ‘a person’ is, and attributed this term to an “abortion anwhere (stage) in the pregnancy process…” In addition to Con’s misinterpretation and incorrect use of the terms ‘malice’ and ‘intent,’ this (never defining and/or correctly using the term ‘a person’) is where Con failed in his BoP and the debate on the whole.
Con also conflates a pregnancy, which is developing, as being equal to already born children. This is a false equivalency fallacy, since the pregnancy is a process of gestational development whereas a born person is in a process of biological and physiological growth (ie – maturation), it is not gestational development. Also, Con appears to not understand that being human in origin =/= being [a] human (being). This demonstrates to me a clear lack of understanding of the subject matter down to the basic use of factually accurate terminology in arguing their position.
While I could easily go on addressing the flaws in Con’s arguments, the fact remains that when you begin an argument with a false premise (and clear lack of understanding of the subject material), your conclusion will likewise be false.
Pro also did not seem to correctly use the term ‘a person’ either, but his final definition serves his purpose in prevailing in the debate. I do not agree with the insertion of the abortion on animal species into the debate (e.g. – red herring, irrelevant). Both parties spent too much time on definitions and how to interject their interpretation of terms into the debate, rather than debating the actual core issue: is abortion murder.
Pro could have used more sources to support his position but did not take the opportunity to do so. Con’s use of sources was basic (used to back up claimed definitions used in their argument, albeit incorrectly used); and one source, NPR… tisk tisk.
Pro clearly tried to stick to basic and scientific facts (ie - common knowledge), while Con repeated the usual unconvincing pro-life talking points, all of which are highly contestable and routinely debunked. Neither side used truly "reliable" sources; and both conducted themselves with proper decorum. Pro prevailed in this debate.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter sufficiently explains Arguments, but does not explain their reasoning for awarding Legibility.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: TheApprentice // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Pro (Arguments, Legibility)
>Reason for Decision:
Simply put, I don’t agree with Pro’s argument, but he does present it in a much more coherent manner than Con. Pro presented a large number of issues that weren’t really addressed by Con, but his most impactful points, to me, were the clear benefits to the economy. I think Con had a great rebuttal on the topic of a government’s moral responsibilities, but the focus of the debate stretched a bit further than just that topic, and I don’t think he handled those with quite the same level of attention.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter does not explain their reasoning for awarding Legibility.
The voter's explanation for awarding arguments is insufficiently explained. The voter is too vague in their analysis, saying that both sides had a good argument, but affording points on the basis that one of those arguments didn't cover the full breadth of the topic, which is unclear. If this point didn't work as well, the voter should explain why they weren't convincing in clearer terms.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: TheApprentice // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 5 points to Con (Arguments, Sources), 1 point to Pro (Conduct)
>Reason for Decision:
Con provided more convincing arguments for the short duration of debating. There were some interesting conflicts when defining the concept of person, but Con’s definition and examples in the final round were quite persuasive. I will contribute that to his position as final speaker, as well as how he handled the potential of the embryo, which I didn’t quite think Pro argued for as effectively.
When concerning the definition of malice, I do think Pro had a more reasonable and realistic approach to the term in the context of the debate, but I don’t think he responded directly enough on the points where he had more leverage. I could kind of predict where he was going to go, but as it wasn’t stated, and the debate was cut short, I have to give it to Con.
Would be interested in another round, though. Great debate.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter sufficiently explains Arguments, but does not explain either Sources or Conduct.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: TWS1405_2 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 6 points to Con (Arguments, Sources, Legibility)
>Reason for Decision:
Pro began with a false premise and ended with a false conclusion. More importantly, Pro demonstrated their lack of the requisite knowledge of the subject material to even have this debate.
Con did not have to argue much to dispel the weak and unsubstantiated position of Pro.
This was a no brainer. Con prevailed.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter does not explain the reasoning for awarding Legibility.
The reason provided for awarding Arguments is insufficiently explained. The voter imposes their views on the debate to dismiss one side's arguments and then says that the other side did enough to win without pointing to any specific arguments either side made.
The reason provided for awarding Sources is insufficiently explained. The voter simply says that one side lacked "the requisite knowledge of the subject material" without any discussion of either sides' sources.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Slainte // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con (Arguments)
>Reason for Decision:
See Voting Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter sufficiently explains their reasoning, even expounding upon his RFD in the comments. It is sufficient for the voter to pick an issue they view as pivotal to the debate and focus on how both sides addressed it, though I encourage voters to cover many of the points made in the debate wherever feasible to do so.
**************************************************
Not sure why, but this debate was reported. As far as I can tell, it's because it's unclear what will be argued here, which isn't a basis for mod intervention. The debaters involved can and should discuss the terms of the debate.
Nevermind, I can accept a little earlier. I'll go by the formatting you have listed for the first round, but I'll wait to see how you write it and try to be consistent with how much detail you provide.
Got my pick. Since you've already given yours and I have a pretty good idea of where you're going with it as a result, I'll give you mine here in the comments:
Kiritsugu Emiya from the Fate franchise.
It'll be a couple of days before I can accept, since I've got a lot on my plate through the workday Thursday. I'll accept after that.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Slainte // Mod action: Not Removed*
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Con (Arguments and Conduct)
>Reason for Decision:
See Voting Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
I have decided to leave the vote up in spite of persistent errors in the voter's choice to award conduct, hence the above asterisk. This is because the voting period is ending shortly and the voter in question has not been available to make the appropriate changes. The voter sufficiently explains arguments, providing detailed analyses, and is the only one who has awarded differential points on this debate. If the awarding of the conduct point was sufficient to change the outcome, this vote would be subject to removal.
That being said, the conduct point is still insufficiently explained for 3 reasons:
1) The voter provides independent reasons in his RFD for awarding conduct to both Con ("Con highlights the hypocrisy of Pro's statements brilliantly. Con says "this doesn’t point to the guiding influence of a divine", and I agree. Pro has yet to clearly show this connection. Con slaps back at Pro for a number of valid reasons. I accept Con's statement about honesty, and award conduct accordingly.") and Pro (vallinging [sic] someone dishonest is a very serious claim requiring a proof of intent. Evidence therewith was not provided. Conduct accordingly."), but decides to award conduct to Con regardless.
2) The reason for awarding conduct to Con is insufficient. The voter attributes it to instances of dishonesty on Con's part, but is not specific as to the instances of dishonesty. Additionally, dishonesty is not nor has it ever been sufficient reason to award conduct.
3) The reason for awarding conduct to Pro is insufficient. The voter appears to see Con's claims that Pro was dishonest as a personal attack, but what he points to addresses the arguments given in the debate rather than attacking the opponent directly. Even if he did, claiming misbehavior on the part of your opponent is not sufficient for awarding conduct.
**************************************************
He has been slow to get back to me and what I've seen so far has been... defensive without really engaging with the problems.
Long story short, there are multiple problems with how he's awarding conduct, but since he does provide sufficient analysis of arguments, since he's the only one who has a vote that awards points differentially on this debate, and since awarding conduct doesn't meaningfully alter the outcome of this debate, I'm going to leave it up with an asterisk. If he doesn't respond to me before time is up on this debate, I'll post the full reasoning for why it would have been removed here in the comments, but I don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. He clearly read the debate, but that doesn't justify the basis he used for awarding conduct.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: BennyEmerald// Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro (Arguments)
>Reason for Decision:
Pro's argument is basically: objective is absolute, and any human morality would have to be subjective as human experiences are subjective and not utterly objective like a divine being's is. Con's argument is basically why can't morality be an objective invention of humanity much like chess is, which doesn't work as morality is limited to the subjective human experience, something pro points out as a false equivalence.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Most of this RFD amounts to restating each side's basic arguments rather than stating anything regarding why the voter found certain points persuasive. It should be clarified, for example, why the voter finds the false equivalence response effective instead of simply stating that it was effective.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Slainte // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Con (Arguments and Conduct)
>Reason for Decision:
See comment #14
>Reason for Mod Action:
The conduct point is insufficiently explained. The voter explains it this way:
"I accept Con's statement about honesty, and award conduct accordingly."
It's unclear what issue of honesty is sufficient to award conduct in this instance. I haven't read the whole debate, but while there is some discussion on Con's part of Pro's dishonesty, the voter has to be clear how and why this warrants awarding conduct. This may also be connected with the voter's statements about hypocrisy, but it is similarly unclear how that satisfies as a conduct violation. See the voting policy on awarding conduct:
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#conduct
**************************************************
The following text was posted as a vote by Slainte on this debate:
Round 1: (Winner Con)
Pro says "Animals are barbaric and too primitive by nature to comprehend something as complex as morality." with no evidence. I find that statement very questionable, as many social animals have a construct of right and wrong, and discipline accordingly. The order in which who can eat, who can sleep where who can mate who..
Pro's opening argument is reductionist on a fallacy of only humans can have a sense of morality., as defined that being right and wrong. Because only humans have moral understanding, there must be a god. Not a good start.
Con's opening argument with respect to chess is interesting. It is not persuasive. However because the BOP is on Pro, Con wins round one.
Round 2: (Winner Con)
Pro says "It is based only on your own personal feelings validating what you believe to be right or wrong, and whether this conforms with society’s expectations. " Pro is asserting that the concept of morality is based on individual personal feelings. Pro then asserts that, as they did in round 1, it must be because of a God. Pro asks Con a couple of questions, yet the BOP is on Pro. Pro has an impressive disassembly of the chess argument.
Con, rebuts Pro's round one, as anticipated, and hits all the valid points. In addition, Con does a great job showing that there are two issues here, morality being a human invention, caused by a deity. Con nails this round by stating "The absence of structuredoes (sic)not equal the absence of objectivity and vice versa". I am not sure I would have gone down the Christianity route, however, it is an interesting point. Con does well to push back on the BOP.
Round 3: (Winner Con, plus conduct)
Pro starts off with a confirmation bias claim, and then uses a story example, without proof. There are countless examples of animals helping humans. Intentional or not. Pro rightfully states that morality is everchanging, and not fixed. Pro seems to imply that if it was left to a human mind, it should be fixed. Pro states this with no proof, and observationally we know peoples minds change all the time with experience. Pro then says "For morality to have any objective value and meaning, it requires a divine power with sentience assigning it such". The problem is that pro has to demonstrate WHY it requires divine power, and yas yet to do so. Pro makes this statement "morality without an intuition or empathy," Is Pro stating that empathy and intuition are actually divinely driven? The BOP is on Pro. Con doesn't have to answer any questions.
Con highlights the hypocrisy of Pro's statements brilliantly. Con says "this doesn’t point to the guiding influence of a divine", and I agree. Pro has yet to clearly show this connection. Con slaps back at Pro for a number of valid reasons. I accept Con's statement about honesty, and award conduct accordingly.
Round 4. (Winner Con)
Pro uses laws an example of the lack of unified morality, The definitions show that objective morality is individually based. Pro even argues against social morality claims in earlier rounds. So why use laws as an example of objective morality? I am genuinely confused. I am still looking for that objective morality is driven from the divine. Morality is from obedience, which is from.... where? There is nothing Pro has stated to show that obedience or morality is from the divine, other than repeating the statement. Pro is incorrect in asserting they have met their burden of proof. If they feel they have, they certainly have not made it clear.
Con hits all the right points here, and is correct in claiming Pro is tryiing to shift the burden.
Round 5: (Winner Con)
Pro's argument is reductionist, without any supporting examples. Repeating the same conclusion over and over again does not prove a point.
I accept Con's points except for the last point about a concession. It was only in the last round that I started to get a sense of what Pro was trying to argue. There were a lot of distractions here, and Con did a fine job trying to tie them up.
Pro came nowhere close to meeting the BOP they stated they had. Any vote for Pro misses this. While Pro had more sources, I do not think they had an impact.
To be specific, I’m talking about weighing impacts against one another. How many lives should I consider $9 trillion to be worth? I don’t think you can do that kind of lives-to-dollars analysis, but I think you can evaluate where that money is coming from and the kind of effect it’s having. How has the economy suffered and how have the people in Russia felt it? That’s the kind of thing I’m looking for. The dollar amounts feel empty on their own.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Slainte // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Con (Arguments and Legibility)
>Reason for Decision:
Pro did not come close to establishing a BOP based on the resolution. In fact, Pro quotes "the understanding among all parties that antisemitism is an insidious threat, and more tools are needed to fight it." Pro literally quotes the Canadian government's narrative on the purpose of the legislation, which does not support a punitive objective contemplated in the resolution.
I would award conduct points against Pro because of their Round 3 comments, however, the Boop round neautralized that. Sources equal.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The legibility point is not explained.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Americandebater24 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con (Conduct)
>Reason for Decision:
The debate was unprofessional, as Pro claimed that clinical abortion is homicide, a legal assertion. This means Pro should have argued from a legal standpoint to prove that clinical abortion is homicidal. Instead, they simply used the biological consideration of a fetus being alive without addressing any legal complexities on the subject of abortion. Con provided more sources and had a better format but still failed to address the actual legal rebuttals one would expect in a discussion on a legal topic such as abortion. Therefore they neither made a more convincing argument nor provided more reliable sources as neither Pro nor Con were on topic when it came to the Primus of the debate.
However, Con presented a more structured argument and provided more sources than Pro, leading me to vote for Con based on better conduct.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter's explanation for why they're choosing not to award arguments or sources is sufficient, but the conduct point does not meet the voting standards. Quoting the voting policy:
"Awarded as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, such as extreme unsportsmanlike or outright toxic behavior which distracted from the topical debate. Common examples are repeatedly using personal attacks instead of arguments, committing plagiarism or otherwise cheating."
In other words, the voter must provide some reason to believe that one side was abusive to the other or otherwise acted inappropriately. What the voter has presented here falls more in line with slight legibility improvements (which would not be sufficient to award legibility by themselves) and more sources (which would also not be sufficient to award sources). As such, the vote is insufficient.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Americandebater24 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Pro (Arguments and Legibility)
>Reason for Decision:
Pro and Con present compelling arguments, but I lean towards Pro's case for two reasons: 1) Ukraine is a sovereign entity, and 2) the invasion violates UN law, as evidenced by Pro's sources. Con's primary rebuttal is that Russia did not attack without warning. However, I personally disagree since Russia initially denied plans to attack Ukraine while gradually increasing its military presence along Ukraine's borders. Furthermore, Putin later enacted a law making it illegal to call the conflict a war under the guise of preventing false information. Even if Russia did issue a warning, the war was illegally planned and executed, violating the established norms of international law. Pro offers improved legibility by utilizing the UN's legal interpretations of the war, which is supported by the fact that Russia is not only economically sanctioned heavily for the war but Putin himself has recently been declared a war criminal by the international criminal court. Con only claims that the agreements that they admit Russia violated have no legal bindings which are not proven to be accurate despite their claims.
Both participants used excellent sources and exhibited exceptional conduct in this debate. As a result, I cannot favor either side concerning their behavior or the credibility of their sources. Overall, I side with the Pro in terms of argument and legibility. Although Con performed well in the debate, they fell short in these two aspects compared to Pro.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The legibility point is insufficiently explained. Legibility refers to the clarity required to be able to read the arguments, i.e. it evaluates whether the arguments are presented in a manner that they are understandable. The voter refers to legibility in a different manner, as though it is associated with better proof for a specific claim. That is not sufficient to award this point.
Argument points are borderline. The voter should refrain from inserting personal disagreements into their RFD as counterpoints to arguments made by either side, though as there may be some basis for arguing that the debaters made those points (I haven't fully read through this debate yet, only skimmed it), that may still be valid. If this vote is posted again awarding only arguments with the same reasoning, it may be subject to further review should it be reported again.
**************************************************
It depends somewhat on the topic, somewhat on how the debaters approach it, but mostly on how the debaters engage with one another. If the back-and-forth is investing, then I’m on board for whatever because it feels consistently dynamic.
All that being said, I’ve read enough abortion debates that the subject has nearly lost all meaning to me. Hard to get motivated to read those.
In general, though, I’m at the point where I prefer voting on debates to actually debating most of the time. I like to really dedicate the time to a solid debate every once in a while, but I enjoy seeing the ways people tackle a variety of topics. Maybe it’s just because I’ve been debating for long enough that I’ve taken on more of an external perspective.
I’d be willing to take this, but as it set, this would balloon like crazy. 30,000 is way too high on the character count, I think it’s worth restricting the debate to a single vaccine or at least a vaccine type (mRNA), and 5 rounds seems a bit much. We want to make sure voters are willing to read through it and, with this much stuff to cover and so much space to do it in, most people just wouldn’t be willing to do that kind of work.
We can work out a topic, though we’ll probably have to hammer out some of the larger views on COVID and the research on it that you have and what you’re willing to debate.
You can call these minor, but they have been the standards for voting on the site and, regardless of how obvious you feel your decision is, they’re the standards you have to meet if you want to vote, particularly when you’ve chosen to award an array of points for different reasons.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: TWS1405_2 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 6 points to Con (Arguments, Legibility and Conduct)
>Reason for Decision:
Pro took the shotgun approach to their position, use our source(s), and oft patronizing responses.
Pro basically regurgitated the all too familiar talking points, cherry picking only data that they perceived to substantiate their view. That being said, what was put forth was incorrectly read, interpreted and put forth akin to both an appeal to authority but mostly emotion.
Pro didn’t adequately define necessary terms that were central to the debate, whereas Con did. This clarity gave a foundation for Con’s argument to build upon moving forward.
I so no concession in any round. Just the assumption of one, and a denial of the rules by Pro, who established those rules.
Con made, for the better part of the arguments put forth, factually accurate assertions. Much of which is just basic common sense/knowledge of the coexisting topic material as it directly relates to the abortion subject.
Overall, Con’s position was the better (more convincing) argument with more rationale, and also with less tone (attitude) than what Pro put forth.
>Reason for Mod Action:
All the voter's point allocations are vaguely established. I don't see any justification for legibility. The conduct point is based on things like "tone" "attitude" and being "patronizing," which is too general to clearly suffice as a conduct violation. The standards for awarding conduct are spelled out here:
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#conduct
As for arguments, the voter doesn't assess any specific points, instead choosing to discuss issues with Pro's argument generally and say that Con's had a better foundation based on terminology. While that might be true, the voter does have to assess specific arguments, not just say that one side stuck to "familiar talking points" from "incorrectly read" sources while the other side used more "factually accurate assertions" based on "common sense/knowledge". This also reads as the voter inserting their view on the topic into the RFD rather than assessing the points as given by each side based on their merit.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Barney // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con (Arguments), 1 point to Pro (Conduct)
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter justifies both point allocations. While the voter may not exhaustively cover all arguments presented by both sides, he did due diligence covering points required to show that he read and considered arguments from both sides.
**************************************************
I deal with reports as I see them. If you have a reason for awarding legibility, state it explicitly, and make certain that it meets the voting standards.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: TWS1405_2 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 6 points to Con (Arguments, Sources, Legibility)
>Reason for Decision:
Pro begins by some factually inaccurate definitions, which will inevitably convolute the progression of the debate. For example, "A fetus is still a human, a clump of cells and abortion is premeditated." While a biologically and physiologically developing fetus is human in origin, it is neither [a] human (being) or [a] clump of cells. Said definition is directly contradictory to well-established and common knowledge scientific definitions of what a human fetus factually is. As I said in my previous vote, that Pro took issue with, remains factually accurate. Begin a debate on a false premise, your conclusion will be equally false.
Pro then states: "There are certain parts of the country where abortion is illegal. Murder is also illegal so without a doubt abortion is murder." This too is factually incorrect. RvW was only recently overturned; therefore, the standing law for 50 years is what truly needs to be debated, not the incredibly fluctuating political environment that is different from state to state over the past 10-12 months. Also, murder is illegal in every state, abortion is not. So, "without a doubt" abortion =/= murder in every state, let alone every conceivable situation.
Citing other countries where an abortion is illegal for a debate centered on US standards, laws and culturally based morality (without clarifying otherwise in the description/parameters of the debate) is nothing short of a red herring fallacy. It's a whataboutism argument.
Pro's entire argument is wholeheartedly subjective: "No matter how one looks at it, abortion is murder. The science of embryology states that from the moment of conception, a human being is formed." No, science states that at the moment of conception the very basic biological criteria for (cellular) life is met. A cell =/= a human being, commonly understood and referred to as a born person/individual, not a zygote, blastocyst, embryo and/or fetus.
Con's rebuttal here is simple, short, sweet and to the obvious point: "Here is where I agree with Pro, that conception is the beginning of life. But it’s not life in the conventional sense. The fetus at this point has more in common with a cell than a fully grown human being or even a newborn. It hasn’t advanced to the point that we can refer to it as a ‘person.’" Con draws the obvious distinction whereas Pro keeps muddying the waters with incoherent jargon and dots that should never be connected.
Given the observable clear lack of knowledge of the subject on the part of Pro, Con really didn't have much to debate/rebut with. Con replied with common sense, but more importantly, common knowledge (which does not require any citations, precisely because it is, "common").
Each provided one cited source, Pro's was irrelevant to the debate at hand whereas Con's was on point.
Con prevails, for obvious (and stated) reasons.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Though the vote is much improved, justifying both Arguments and Sources, the voter does not explain their reasoning for awarding Conduct or Legibility.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: TWS1405_2 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Pro (Arguments, Legibility)
>Reason for Decision:
Con’s argument is purely one of semantics laced with misnomers, which is why anyone who tries to engage in a debate/discussion on the subject of this debate – abortion is murder – ultimately fails to meet their BoP.
Con agrees to both definitions of murder Pro provides, but specifically chooses the second because it includes the term ‘a person’ within it, a term that is the crux of his entire position. Throughout the debate Con never defined what ‘a person’ is, and attributed this term to an “abortion anwhere (stage) in the pregnancy process…” In addition to Con’s misinterpretation and incorrect use of the terms ‘malice’ and ‘intent,’ this (never defining and/or correctly using the term ‘a person’) is where Con failed in his BoP and the debate on the whole.
Con also conflates a pregnancy, which is developing, as being equal to already born children. This is a false equivalency fallacy, since the pregnancy is a process of gestational development whereas a born person is in a process of biological and physiological growth (ie – maturation), it is not gestational development. Also, Con appears to not understand that being human in origin =/= being [a] human (being). This demonstrates to me a clear lack of understanding of the subject matter down to the basic use of factually accurate terminology in arguing their position.
While I could easily go on addressing the flaws in Con’s arguments, the fact remains that when you begin an argument with a false premise (and clear lack of understanding of the subject material), your conclusion will likewise be false.
Pro also did not seem to correctly use the term ‘a person’ either, but his final definition serves his purpose in prevailing in the debate. I do not agree with the insertion of the abortion on animal species into the debate (e.g. – red herring, irrelevant). Both parties spent too much time on definitions and how to interject their interpretation of terms into the debate, rather than debating the actual core issue: is abortion murder.
Pro could have used more sources to support his position but did not take the opportunity to do so. Con’s use of sources was basic (used to back up claimed definitions used in their argument, albeit incorrectly used); and one source, NPR… tisk tisk.
Pro clearly tried to stick to basic and scientific facts (ie - common knowledge), while Con repeated the usual unconvincing pro-life talking points, all of which are highly contestable and routinely debunked. Neither side used truly "reliable" sources; and both conducted themselves with proper decorum. Pro prevailed in this debate.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter sufficiently explains Arguments, but does not explain their reasoning for awarding Legibility.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: TheApprentice // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Pro (Arguments, Legibility)
>Reason for Decision:
Simply put, I don’t agree with Pro’s argument, but he does present it in a much more coherent manner than Con. Pro presented a large number of issues that weren’t really addressed by Con, but his most impactful points, to me, were the clear benefits to the economy. I think Con had a great rebuttal on the topic of a government’s moral responsibilities, but the focus of the debate stretched a bit further than just that topic, and I don’t think he handled those with quite the same level of attention.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter does not explain their reasoning for awarding Legibility.
The voter's explanation for awarding arguments is insufficiently explained. The voter is too vague in their analysis, saying that both sides had a good argument, but affording points on the basis that one of those arguments didn't cover the full breadth of the topic, which is unclear. If this point didn't work as well, the voter should explain why they weren't convincing in clearer terms.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: TheApprentice // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 5 points to Con (Arguments, Sources), 1 point to Pro (Conduct)
>Reason for Decision:
Con provided more convincing arguments for the short duration of debating. There were some interesting conflicts when defining the concept of person, but Con’s definition and examples in the final round were quite persuasive. I will contribute that to his position as final speaker, as well as how he handled the potential of the embryo, which I didn’t quite think Pro argued for as effectively.
When concerning the definition of malice, I do think Pro had a more reasonable and realistic approach to the term in the context of the debate, but I don’t think he responded directly enough on the points where he had more leverage. I could kind of predict where he was going to go, but as it wasn’t stated, and the debate was cut short, I have to give it to Con.
Would be interested in another round, though. Great debate.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter sufficiently explains Arguments, but does not explain either Sources or Conduct.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: TWS1405_2 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 6 points to Con (Arguments, Sources, Legibility)
>Reason for Decision:
Pro began with a false premise and ended with a false conclusion. More importantly, Pro demonstrated their lack of the requisite knowledge of the subject material to even have this debate.
Con did not have to argue much to dispel the weak and unsubstantiated position of Pro.
This was a no brainer. Con prevailed.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter does not explain the reasoning for awarding Legibility.
The reason provided for awarding Arguments is insufficiently explained. The voter imposes their views on the debate to dismiss one side's arguments and then says that the other side did enough to win without pointing to any specific arguments either side made.
The reason provided for awarding Sources is insufficiently explained. The voter simply says that one side lacked "the requisite knowledge of the subject material" without any discussion of either sides' sources.
**************************************************
Out of curiosity, who were you expecting?
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Slainte // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con (Arguments)
>Reason for Decision:
See Voting Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter sufficiently explains their reasoning, even expounding upon his RFD in the comments. It is sufficient for the voter to pick an issue they view as pivotal to the debate and focus on how both sides addressed it, though I encourage voters to cover many of the points made in the debate wherever feasible to do so.
**************************************************
Not sure why, but this debate was reported. As far as I can tell, it's because it's unclear what will be argued here, which isn't a basis for mod intervention. The debaters involved can and should discuss the terms of the debate.
Nevermind, I can accept a little earlier. I'll go by the formatting you have listed for the first round, but I'll wait to see how you write it and try to be consistent with how much detail you provide.
Got my pick. Since you've already given yours and I have a pretty good idea of where you're going with it as a result, I'll give you mine here in the comments:
Kiritsugu Emiya from the Fate franchise.
It'll be a couple of days before I can accept, since I've got a lot on my plate through the workday Thursday. I'll accept after that.
I'll work on it.
I am absolutely down for this. Toughest part is narrowing down the options. I’ll accept once I figure it out.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Slainte // Mod action: Not Removed*
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Con (Arguments and Conduct)
>Reason for Decision:
See Voting Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
I have decided to leave the vote up in spite of persistent errors in the voter's choice to award conduct, hence the above asterisk. This is because the voting period is ending shortly and the voter in question has not been available to make the appropriate changes. The voter sufficiently explains arguments, providing detailed analyses, and is the only one who has awarded differential points on this debate. If the awarding of the conduct point was sufficient to change the outcome, this vote would be subject to removal.
That being said, the conduct point is still insufficiently explained for 3 reasons:
1) The voter provides independent reasons in his RFD for awarding conduct to both Con ("Con highlights the hypocrisy of Pro's statements brilliantly. Con says "this doesn’t point to the guiding influence of a divine", and I agree. Pro has yet to clearly show this connection. Con slaps back at Pro for a number of valid reasons. I accept Con's statement about honesty, and award conduct accordingly.") and Pro (vallinging [sic] someone dishonest is a very serious claim requiring a proof of intent. Evidence therewith was not provided. Conduct accordingly."), but decides to award conduct to Con regardless.
2) The reason for awarding conduct to Con is insufficient. The voter attributes it to instances of dishonesty on Con's part, but is not specific as to the instances of dishonesty. Additionally, dishonesty is not nor has it ever been sufficient reason to award conduct.
3) The reason for awarding conduct to Pro is insufficient. The voter appears to see Con's claims that Pro was dishonest as a personal attack, but what he points to addresses the arguments given in the debate rather than attacking the opponent directly. Even if he did, claiming misbehavior on the part of your opponent is not sufficient for awarding conduct.
**************************************************
He has been slow to get back to me and what I've seen so far has been... defensive without really engaging with the problems.
Long story short, there are multiple problems with how he's awarding conduct, but since he does provide sufficient analysis of arguments, since he's the only one who has a vote that awards points differentially on this debate, and since awarding conduct doesn't meaningfully alter the outcome of this debate, I'm going to leave it up with an asterisk. If he doesn't respond to me before time is up on this debate, I'll post the full reasoning for why it would have been removed here in the comments, but I don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. He clearly read the debate, but that doesn't justify the basis he used for awarding conduct.
I'll vote on this before time's up.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: BennyEmerald// Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro (Arguments)
>Reason for Decision:
Pro's argument is basically: objective is absolute, and any human morality would have to be subjective as human experiences are subjective and not utterly objective like a divine being's is. Con's argument is basically why can't morality be an objective invention of humanity much like chess is, which doesn't work as morality is limited to the subjective human experience, something pro points out as a false equivalence.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Most of this RFD amounts to restating each side's basic arguments rather than stating anything regarding why the voter found certain points persuasive. It should be clarified, for example, why the voter finds the false equivalence response effective instead of simply stating that it was effective.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Slainte // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Con (Arguments and Conduct)
>Reason for Decision:
See comment #14
>Reason for Mod Action:
The conduct point is insufficiently explained. The voter explains it this way:
"I accept Con's statement about honesty, and award conduct accordingly."
It's unclear what issue of honesty is sufficient to award conduct in this instance. I haven't read the whole debate, but while there is some discussion on Con's part of Pro's dishonesty, the voter has to be clear how and why this warrants awarding conduct. This may also be connected with the voter's statements about hypocrisy, but it is similarly unclear how that satisfies as a conduct violation. See the voting policy on awarding conduct:
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#conduct
**************************************************
The following text was posted as a vote by Slainte on this debate:
Round 1: (Winner Con)
Pro says "Animals are barbaric and too primitive by nature to comprehend something as complex as morality." with no evidence. I find that statement very questionable, as many social animals have a construct of right and wrong, and discipline accordingly. The order in which who can eat, who can sleep where who can mate who..
Pro's opening argument is reductionist on a fallacy of only humans can have a sense of morality., as defined that being right and wrong. Because only humans have moral understanding, there must be a god. Not a good start.
Con's opening argument with respect to chess is interesting. It is not persuasive. However because the BOP is on Pro, Con wins round one.
Round 2: (Winner Con)
Pro says "It is based only on your own personal feelings validating what you believe to be right or wrong, and whether this conforms with society’s expectations. " Pro is asserting that the concept of morality is based on individual personal feelings. Pro then asserts that, as they did in round 1, it must be because of a God. Pro asks Con a couple of questions, yet the BOP is on Pro. Pro has an impressive disassembly of the chess argument.
Con, rebuts Pro's round one, as anticipated, and hits all the valid points. In addition, Con does a great job showing that there are two issues here, morality being a human invention, caused by a deity. Con nails this round by stating "The absence of structuredoes (sic)not equal the absence of objectivity and vice versa". I am not sure I would have gone down the Christianity route, however, it is an interesting point. Con does well to push back on the BOP.
Round 3: (Winner Con, plus conduct)
Pro starts off with a confirmation bias claim, and then uses a story example, without proof. There are countless examples of animals helping humans. Intentional or not. Pro rightfully states that morality is everchanging, and not fixed. Pro seems to imply that if it was left to a human mind, it should be fixed. Pro states this with no proof, and observationally we know peoples minds change all the time with experience. Pro then says "For morality to have any objective value and meaning, it requires a divine power with sentience assigning it such". The problem is that pro has to demonstrate WHY it requires divine power, and yas yet to do so. Pro makes this statement "morality without an intuition or empathy," Is Pro stating that empathy and intuition are actually divinely driven? The BOP is on Pro. Con doesn't have to answer any questions.
Con highlights the hypocrisy of Pro's statements brilliantly. Con says "this doesn’t point to the guiding influence of a divine", and I agree. Pro has yet to clearly show this connection. Con slaps back at Pro for a number of valid reasons. I accept Con's statement about honesty, and award conduct accordingly.
Round 4. (Winner Con)
Pro uses laws an example of the lack of unified morality, The definitions show that objective morality is individually based. Pro even argues against social morality claims in earlier rounds. So why use laws as an example of objective morality? I am genuinely confused. I am still looking for that objective morality is driven from the divine. Morality is from obedience, which is from.... where? There is nothing Pro has stated to show that obedience or morality is from the divine, other than repeating the statement. Pro is incorrect in asserting they have met their burden of proof. If they feel they have, they certainly have not made it clear.
Con hits all the right points here, and is correct in claiming Pro is tryiing to shift the burden.
Round 5: (Winner Con)
Pro's argument is reductionist, without any supporting examples. Repeating the same conclusion over and over again does not prove a point.
I accept Con's points except for the last point about a concession. It was only in the last round that I started to get a sense of what Pro was trying to argue. There were a lot of distractions here, and Con did a fine job trying to tie them up.
Pro came nowhere close to meeting the BOP they stated they had. Any vote for Pro misses this. While Pro had more sources, I do not think they had an impact.
I haven’t forgotten about this guys, I’m working on it.
Not really my cup of tea for a topic I’m afraid, also don’t have the time to commit to something this big. Good luck though!
I’ll see what I can do. Best to ping at 48 hours or earlier if you can.
No problem.
I will get to this, just a matter of when. Should be either Sunday or Monday, might cut it close.
I'll start reading this today.
Done.
To be specific, I’m talking about weighing impacts against one another. How many lives should I consider $9 trillion to be worth? I don’t think you can do that kind of lives-to-dollars analysis, but I think you can evaluate where that money is coming from and the kind of effect it’s having. How has the economy suffered and how have the people in Russia felt it? That’s the kind of thing I’m looking for. The dollar amounts feel empty on their own.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Slainte // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Con (Arguments and Legibility)
>Reason for Decision:
Pro did not come close to establishing a BOP based on the resolution. In fact, Pro quotes "the understanding among all parties that antisemitism is an insidious threat, and more tools are needed to fight it." Pro literally quotes the Canadian government's narrative on the purpose of the legislation, which does not support a punitive objective contemplated in the resolution.
I would award conduct points against Pro because of their Round 3 comments, however, the Boop round neautralized that. Sources equal.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The legibility point is not explained.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Americandebater24 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con (Conduct)
>Reason for Decision:
The debate was unprofessional, as Pro claimed that clinical abortion is homicide, a legal assertion. This means Pro should have argued from a legal standpoint to prove that clinical abortion is homicidal. Instead, they simply used the biological consideration of a fetus being alive without addressing any legal complexities on the subject of abortion. Con provided more sources and had a better format but still failed to address the actual legal rebuttals one would expect in a discussion on a legal topic such as abortion. Therefore they neither made a more convincing argument nor provided more reliable sources as neither Pro nor Con were on topic when it came to the Primus of the debate.
However, Con presented a more structured argument and provided more sources than Pro, leading me to vote for Con based on better conduct.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter's explanation for why they're choosing not to award arguments or sources is sufficient, but the conduct point does not meet the voting standards. Quoting the voting policy:
"Awarded as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, such as extreme unsportsmanlike or outright toxic behavior which distracted from the topical debate. Common examples are repeatedly using personal attacks instead of arguments, committing plagiarism or otherwise cheating."
In other words, the voter must provide some reason to believe that one side was abusive to the other or otherwise acted inappropriately. What the voter has presented here falls more in line with slight legibility improvements (which would not be sufficient to award legibility by themselves) and more sources (which would also not be sufficient to award sources). As such, the vote is insufficient.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Americandebater24 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Pro (Arguments and Legibility)
>Reason for Decision:
Pro and Con present compelling arguments, but I lean towards Pro's case for two reasons: 1) Ukraine is a sovereign entity, and 2) the invasion violates UN law, as evidenced by Pro's sources. Con's primary rebuttal is that Russia did not attack without warning. However, I personally disagree since Russia initially denied plans to attack Ukraine while gradually increasing its military presence along Ukraine's borders. Furthermore, Putin later enacted a law making it illegal to call the conflict a war under the guise of preventing false information. Even if Russia did issue a warning, the war was illegally planned and executed, violating the established norms of international law. Pro offers improved legibility by utilizing the UN's legal interpretations of the war, which is supported by the fact that Russia is not only economically sanctioned heavily for the war but Putin himself has recently been declared a war criminal by the international criminal court. Con only claims that the agreements that they admit Russia violated have no legal bindings which are not proven to be accurate despite their claims.
Both participants used excellent sources and exhibited exceptional conduct in this debate. As a result, I cannot favor either side concerning their behavior or the credibility of their sources. Overall, I side with the Pro in terms of argument and legibility. Although Con performed well in the debate, they fell short in these two aspects compared to Pro.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The legibility point is insufficiently explained. Legibility refers to the clarity required to be able to read the arguments, i.e. it evaluates whether the arguments are presented in a manner that they are understandable. The voter refers to legibility in a different manner, as though it is associated with better proof for a specific claim. That is not sufficient to award this point.
Argument points are borderline. The voter should refrain from inserting personal disagreements into their RFD as counterpoints to arguments made by either side, though as there may be some basis for arguing that the debaters made those points (I haven't fully read through this debate yet, only skimmed it), that may still be valid. If this vote is posted again awarding only arguments with the same reasoning, it may be subject to further review should it be reported again.
**************************************************
Should be able to get to it.
I’ll get to it
Yep, Jewish.
It depends somewhat on the topic, somewhat on how the debaters approach it, but mostly on how the debaters engage with one another. If the back-and-forth is investing, then I’m on board for whatever because it feels consistently dynamic.
All that being said, I’ve read enough abortion debates that the subject has nearly lost all meaning to me. Hard to get motivated to read those.
In general, though, I’m at the point where I prefer voting on debates to actually debating most of the time. I like to really dedicate the time to a solid debate every once in a while, but I enjoy seeing the ways people tackle a variety of topics. Maybe it’s just because I’ve been debating for long enough that I’ve taken on more of an external perspective.
Just FYI, I’m not opposed to judging topics like this.
I’ll aim to get to it.
I'll be working on this over the course of the week, guys. It's the only debate on my plate at the moment.
Appreciate it. I'll admit that I'm one to talk about shorter arguments - not exactly known for my brevity.
Guessing you don’t want to be doing several of these simultaneously, so we can arrange the details later.
Thanks, but no. Not planning on using ChatGPT for any purpose during a debate.
I’d be willing to take this, but as it set, this would balloon like crazy. 30,000 is way too high on the character count, I think it’s worth restricting the debate to a single vaccine or at least a vaccine type (mRNA), and 5 rounds seems a bit much. We want to make sure voters are willing to read through it and, with this much stuff to cover and so much space to do it in, most people just wouldn’t be willing to do that kind of work.
I’ll work on this, might be a few days.
We can work out a topic, though we’ll probably have to hammer out some of the larger views on COVID and the research on it that you have and what you’re willing to debate.
I'll aim to get a vote up.
Yep… guess YouFound_Lxam has been too busy to do this. That’s a shame.
Feel free to test it. Standards are pretty clear.
You can call these minor, but they have been the standards for voting on the site and, regardless of how obvious you feel your decision is, they’re the standards you have to meet if you want to vote, particularly when you’ve chosen to award an array of points for different reasons.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: TWS1405_2 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 6 points to Con (Arguments, Legibility and Conduct)
>Reason for Decision:
Pro took the shotgun approach to their position, use our source(s), and oft patronizing responses.
Pro basically regurgitated the all too familiar talking points, cherry picking only data that they perceived to substantiate their view. That being said, what was put forth was incorrectly read, interpreted and put forth akin to both an appeal to authority but mostly emotion.
Pro didn’t adequately define necessary terms that were central to the debate, whereas Con did. This clarity gave a foundation for Con’s argument to build upon moving forward.
I so no concession in any round. Just the assumption of one, and a denial of the rules by Pro, who established those rules.
Con made, for the better part of the arguments put forth, factually accurate assertions. Much of which is just basic common sense/knowledge of the coexisting topic material as it directly relates to the abortion subject.
Overall, Con’s position was the better (more convincing) argument with more rationale, and also with less tone (attitude) than what Pro put forth.
>Reason for Mod Action:
All the voter's point allocations are vaguely established. I don't see any justification for legibility. The conduct point is based on things like "tone" "attitude" and being "patronizing," which is too general to clearly suffice as a conduct violation. The standards for awarding conduct are spelled out here:
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#conduct
As for arguments, the voter doesn't assess any specific points, instead choosing to discuss issues with Pro's argument generally and say that Con's had a better foundation based on terminology. While that might be true, the voter does have to assess specific arguments, not just say that one side stuck to "familiar talking points" from "incorrectly read" sources while the other side used more "factually accurate assertions" based on "common sense/knowledge". This also reads as the voter inserting their view on the topic into the RFD rather than assessing the points as given by each side based on their merit.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Barney // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con (Arguments), 1 point to Pro (Conduct)
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter justifies both point allocations. While the voter may not exhaustively cover all arguments presented by both sides, he did due diligence covering points required to show that he read and considered arguments from both sides.
**************************************************
Not a great start. Hopefully you'll contribute something next round.