The problem with claiming that his points applied to communism and not socialism was that you were still being too broad. What helped was when you were clear about what your position was and how, by taking that position, you circumvented his arguments. What you want to do when you’re faced with general arguments like this that are meant to address any case you could present is de-link to your case, specifically. It’s the reason I don’t like what I call “pre-rebuttals” where one side drafts arguments against a case they anticipate rather than one that is clear: if the other side plays their cards right, they can make all those arguments virtually worthless simply by presenting a case that doesn’t work with them.
All that being said, you have to thread a needle to do it, simultaneously recognizing the definition as laid out in the description and establishing those ways that it doesn’t limit your case. For example, owning and regulating the means of production, distribution and exchange doesn’t prevent the government from appointing private entities to run them. I think you understood that, since you said that they could innovate anyway, but you have to really spell it out and clarify how it would work. Pointing to Finland may be demonstrative of some benefits, but you have to point to the specific mechanisms in that system and how they relate to yours. Based on the definition, yours and their system could not have been identical, but there are still lessons you could take from it.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Barney // 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 Votes Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote in question refers specifically to the Foregone Conclusion section of the voting policy. Here is that section in full and the relevant portion:
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#foregone-conclusions
"For debates in which any reasonable person would know the argument outcome from barest of skimming, they may rightly be declared a foregone conclusion and held to a somewhat lower standard when voting against the dolt. Effectively, if one side does not give enough of a topical argument to weigh, then there is no need to write a more detailed vote than their lack of a case.
While the sufficiency standard clearly points to appeals to the quantity of arguments not being enough, someone with a single line assertion against a warranted case with sources simply does not merit the same level of consideration."
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Pro (Conduct)
>Reason for Decision:
Con broke a rule and seemed to literally concede. Then Con seems to try to unconcede.
I will give conduct on its own. If this is not allowed, I will give Pro arguments most likely.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The awarding of conduct seems entirely predicated on the breaking of a rule within the debate, though the voter doesn't specify what that rule is and I don't see any rules in the description that were obviously broken.
**************************************************
This is next for me. Just so we’re clear: the most I’d ever give for violating a rule like that 3,500 character minimum is a conduct violation, so it will not be enough by itself for me to vote either way.
Just to add to Barney's point, there's a problem with arguing that those who receive news from social media are less news literate than those who receive news from other sources, and that is that it makes a fundamental assumption: all or many of those who receive their news through social media would otherwise get their news from a better source. In the absence of social media as a news source, many people who use it as a news source may just not seek out news from other sources at all, or may receive it from an even less savory source. So a point in favor of social media journalism would be that it exposes them to news at all.
You're welcome to discuss them publicly at any time. If you have MEEP ideas, I suggest you refine them into a set of standards that you believe are workable and shop them around to other people on the site, see if they're getting the kind of support that could lead to passing a MEEP.
…I’m at a loss. I’ve explained this now twice, and yet your response is that I’m somehow denying the integrity of debates? I’m saying that the voting standards aren’t built to ensure that all votes are “good” - they’re a checklist of things voters have to do in order to ensure that their votes don’t get removed by moderation. We aren’t here to determine whether a vote is good or require that voters exhaustively cover arguments made in the debate. That’s always been the case because that has always been the standards we’ve employed. I’m not sure what decision was the basis for removing your vote in the past and, once again, I am neither Ramshutu nor David.
I’m also not sure why you’re suddenly asserting that I don’t know how scripture works, either, since I haven’t given my opinion on this debate. I’m not telling you that Barney made the right call here.
I’m saying that he covered enough of the debate sufficiently to have his vote stand. You can call it a bad vote if you want, but the standards don’t require what you’re demanding of him.
I’m also saying that, since he says that Pro losing either the darkness or water points would be sufficient to award Con the point (the topic certainly seems to require it), his justification for either one would justify the point allocation from his perspective, i.e. if there are errors in his analysis of one of those issues, it still doesn’t change what the vote would be.
I'll make this informal since it's not a decision that would change anything at this point either way.
The vote is sufficient. Your issue is that Barney didn't recognize a verse given by Pro in the debate, though I'll note that it's not a requirement for the voter to exhaustively cover all arguments made in the debate. He just had to show that he read it, analyzed specific arguments presented by both sides, and came to a decision as a result. That might have been reason to question his decision, though I'll note that Barney also provides reasons why he believes Con is winning on Darkness as well, and clearly states that that would be sufficient for him to award the debate to Con. So even if he's completely inaccurate in his depiction of the water debate, that wouldn't affect the decision as a whole.
Up to you. Tied votes don't have the same standards as votes that award points, but if this ends up being a full forfeit debate, it may still be moderated.
You could award points for neither side. if tatie.bella does effectively do a full forfeit at 40% or greater, then you would have to justify why you see that as equally important to violating a rule set out in the description (i.e. why multiple forfeits would not be considered multiple violations of that rule in the description, and why their general absenteeism is an equal grievance, especially if they haven't made an argument by the end of the debate).
There is nothing automatic here. Voters may decide how to apply rules as written in the description, and the debaters themselves can make a case for how voters should view them. As long as the voter can adequately justify their decision, even if that means allocating some points to each side or tying the score as a result (I guess both would be some form of a "double loss," as you put it), they can. That being said, if a voter decides to award points based on the rules in the description, they must consider all those rules, and if one side forfeits more than or equal to 40% of the rounds, the debate can be considered a full forfeit.
What Barney said is accurate. If it’s so obvious that one side in this debate was arguing against what you would consider to be a truism, then there should be arguments in the debate that demonstrate that. If it’s only a truism because you say it’s a truism, that’s not a sufficient basis casting a vote in and of itself.
If that’s the mindset you’re bringing to voting on this debate, then you’re necessarily biasing your view based on information you have and not considering the arguments given by each side. We all have biases, but saying that Pro lost this debate before a word was said is not sufficient for casting a vote on this site, no matter how lopsided you think the resolution is. You will either have to consider the arguments presented by each side, or you can choose not to award points and just post your thoughts here in the comments. Up to you.
Point taken, though there's the question of whether this evidence comes from police directly or from a less reliable source and simply being presented by police. Didn't end up taking that point very far anyway, but I appreciate the insight.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Decisively_Conservatist // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con
>Reason for Decision:
As much as I agree with Pro, and it pains me to vote Con, I have to vote him because;
This topic cannot be proven by pro, since the statistic, even if explainable and not an example of patriarchy, still exists, even if it shows practically NOTHING.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter has to explain the decision based on arguments made by both sides in the debate. If there is a particular statistic that the voter believes demonstrates the point made by one side so thoroughly that it warrants awarding them the victory on this debate, the voter has to designate what that statistic is and why any responses from Pro were insufficient to address it. It is not enough to simply say that the debate is won before any argument is had.
**************************************************
I think that the realistic offers more questions about what could happen, i.e. the mechanics of how the technology performs, whereas the theoretical offers more discussion about whether it should happen, since we can better define what the technology is and how it works as a baseline. I think both have their benefits. I don’t mind doing either one, but this is what we went with and this is what we are debating.
If you want to discuss the limits of existing tech, that might be a good basis for a debate, but I’m not sure how you’d define the parameters for it.
The literal title of this debate and the description involves technology from the movie, so that’s the focus of our discussion. It might be interesting to explore the ideas you’re discussing based on existing tech, but that’s not what we’re doing in this debate.
It's all good. Looking forward to a good debate. I do have an opinion on this one, but it's not a strong one and I think there are good cases to be made for both sides.
My apologies, thank you for letting me know Austin. I've gone ahead and deleted the previous post as the reason for removal is still here in the comments.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Barney // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Pro
>Reason for Decision: see voting tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter points to a specific argument provided by Pro in the debate, says it's never addressed, and votes on it. Considering that Con apparently doesn't make any arguments against this, nor does he make any independent points, the vote satisfies the standards. I'll note as well that when there are three debates that are virtually identical to one another, copy-pasting the same RFD is not grounds for removal.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Barney // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Pro
>Reason for Decision: see voting tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter points to a specific argument provided by Pro in the debate, says it's never addressed, and votes on it. Considering that Con apparently doesn't make any arguments against this, nor does he make any independent points, the vote satisfies the standards. I'll note as well that when there are three debates that are virtually identical to one another, copy-pasting the same RFD is not grounds for removal.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Barney // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Pro
>Reason for Decision: see voting tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter points to a specific argument provided by Pro in the debate, says it's never addressed, and votes on it. Considering that Con apparently doesn't make any arguments against this, nor does he make any independent points, the vote satisfies the standards. I'll note as well that when there are three debates that are virtually identical to one another, copy-pasting the same RFD is not grounds for removal.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: FLRW // 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 provides specific analysis of a number of points presented in the debate and evaluates them in the context of the debate. While the voter does at one point reference "research [he has] done" outside the debate, the voter also evaluates that argument in terms of how well it addresses what he sees as the main argument in the debate, so it is unclear that the voter based any substantial portion of their decision on information from outside the debate.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Public-Choice // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 2 points to Pro (Sources)
>Reason for Decision: see voting tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter sufficiently covers the issue of sources. While he does leave out discussion of sources presented by Con in R1, the RFD clearly details what the voter sees as the biggest deficits in Con's sources, which stands even with those sources taken into consideration.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: WeaverofFate // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Pro (Arguments, S&G), 3 points to Con (Sources, Conduct)
>Reason for Decision: see voting tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter goes into great depth on how he views the arguments and sources presented in the debate, which is sufficient to award these points. The voter is allowed to use the tally system he's employed here to award those points. S&G and Conduct are done via the same method, and while that does mean that they do not meet the voting standards since each of these require meeting certain thresholds and not a certain number of mistakes/instances of misconduct, these two points nonetheless balance out so, given how close this voting period is to ending, the vote will stand as is.
**************************************************
If you look at the way that each vote distributes points, a fully tied vote would give both sides 7 points. Every category that's awarded to one side grants some subset of that 7 point total to a single debater, taking it away from the other debater. The argument points are worth 3, meaning that, if one side gave you arguments, you won 3 points of that 7 point total that your opponent did not.
So when Sir.Lancelot gave you arguments, you won 7 points from that vote, while your opponent won 4. That's what I call "3 points to Con" because that's the point difference. The opposite was true of Novice_II's vote, which awarded 7 points to Austin and 4 points to you. Hence, each of you got 11 points total.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: AustinL0926 // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Con (Arguments, Conduct)
>Reason for Decision: see voting tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter sufficiently explains both point allocations, even citing the voting policy for the conduct point. The argument points are explained rather lightly, but sufficiently examine the points made in the debate and how they factored into the voter's decision.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Sir.Lancelot // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con
>Reason for Decision: see voting tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter sufficiently explains their point allocation and covers many of the applicable arguments to the debate. The voter is allowed, so long as he is not actively making new arguments for one side, to interpret the validity or strength of a given point with regards to the resolution, especially on a single round debate.
**************************************************
And I'll warn him not to do it again. That doesn't mean that I'm going to retroactively change this to unrated to deny Austin a win. Wylted's forfeits are not Austin's failings, but you sure make it sound like that's how I should treat them.
Wylted forfeited several rounds. That's been the basis for practically every vote against him, not the plagiarism. If you view that as the problem, then there have been an awful lot of people absolutely gaming the system since this site started.
Not sure what you want us to do here. If he was gaining points off of plagiarism, I'd agree that we should change this over to unrated, but he forfeited every round after the first and he's getting hammered for it in the votes. It's not like we're going to ban him for doing this anyway, and I'm not going to change it over to unrated when his opponent is the only one benefitting from this being rated.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: K_Michael // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con
>Reason for Decision: see voting tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
See the voting policy under "Forfeitures": https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#forfeitures
"Repeated forfeitures waives the need to consider arguments (you still may, but by the choice of one side to miss at least 40% of the debate, the requirement ceases. And yes, this does apply to Choose Winner, which otherwise would not allow conduct to be the sole determinant)."
**************************************************
The problem with claiming that his points applied to communism and not socialism was that you were still being too broad. What helped was when you were clear about what your position was and how, by taking that position, you circumvented his arguments. What you want to do when you’re faced with general arguments like this that are meant to address any case you could present is de-link to your case, specifically. It’s the reason I don’t like what I call “pre-rebuttals” where one side drafts arguments against a case they anticipate rather than one that is clear: if the other side plays their cards right, they can make all those arguments virtually worthless simply by presenting a case that doesn’t work with them.
All that being said, you have to thread a needle to do it, simultaneously recognizing the definition as laid out in the description and establishing those ways that it doesn’t limit your case. For example, owning and regulating the means of production, distribution and exchange doesn’t prevent the government from appointing private entities to run them. I think you understood that, since you said that they could innovate anyway, but you have to really spell it out and clarify how it would work. Pointing to Finland may be demonstrative of some benefits, but you have to point to the specific mechanisms in that system and how they relate to yours. Based on the definition, yours and their system could not have been identical, but there are still lessons you could take from it.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Barney // 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 Votes Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote in question refers specifically to the Foregone Conclusion section of the voting policy. Here is that section in full and the relevant portion:
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#foregone-conclusions
"For debates in which any reasonable person would know the argument outcome from barest of skimming, they may rightly be declared a foregone conclusion and held to a somewhat lower standard when voting against the dolt. Effectively, if one side does not give enough of a topical argument to weigh, then there is no need to write a more detailed vote than their lack of a case.
While the sufficiency standard clearly points to appeals to the quantity of arguments not being enough, someone with a single line assertion against a warranted case with sources simply does not merit the same level of consideration."
**************************************************
The voting period is over 50 days on this one. There’s no rush.
Honestly, so did I. Had to bring the two up side-by-side before I realized what was going on.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Pro (Conduct)
>Reason for Decision:
Con broke a rule and seemed to literally concede. Then Con seems to try to unconcede.
I will give conduct on its own. If this is not allowed, I will give Pro arguments most likely.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The awarding of conduct seems entirely predicated on the breaking of a rule within the debate, though the voter doesn't specify what that rule is and I don't see any rules in the description that were obviously broken.
**************************************************
Not too surprised by that. It came off as somewhat slapdash. Still, worked out.
Haven't read it yet, but I'll give you feedback.
This is next for me. Just so we’re clear: the most I’d ever give for violating a rule like that 3,500 character minimum is a conduct violation, so it will not be enough by itself for me to vote either way.
Can't promise it, but I should be able to get a vote up before the end of the voting period.
Just to add to Barney's point, there's a problem with arguing that those who receive news from social media are less news literate than those who receive news from other sources, and that is that it makes a fundamental assumption: all or many of those who receive their news through social media would otherwise get their news from a better source. In the absence of social media as a news source, many people who use it as a news source may just not seek out news from other sources at all, or may receive it from an even less savory source. So a point in favor of social media journalism would be that it exposes them to news at all.
Your choice. If you are truly against the standards, then just start an open discussion of them. Seems like a reasonable place to begin.
You're welcome to discuss them publicly at any time. If you have MEEP ideas, I suggest you refine them into a set of standards that you believe are workable and shop them around to other people on the site, see if they're getting the kind of support that could lead to passing a MEEP.
…I’m at a loss. I’ve explained this now twice, and yet your response is that I’m somehow denying the integrity of debates? I’m saying that the voting standards aren’t built to ensure that all votes are “good” - they’re a checklist of things voters have to do in order to ensure that their votes don’t get removed by moderation. We aren’t here to determine whether a vote is good or require that voters exhaustively cover arguments made in the debate. That’s always been the case because that has always been the standards we’ve employed. I’m not sure what decision was the basis for removing your vote in the past and, once again, I am neither Ramshutu nor David.
I’m also not sure why you’re suddenly asserting that I don’t know how scripture works, either, since I haven’t given my opinion on this debate. I’m not telling you that Barney made the right call here.
I’m saying that he covered enough of the debate sufficiently to have his vote stand. You can call it a bad vote if you want, but the standards don’t require what you’re demanding of him.
I’m also saying that, since he says that Pro losing either the darkness or water points would be sufficient to award Con the point (the topic certainly seems to require it), his justification for either one would justify the point allocation from his perspective, i.e. if there are errors in his analysis of one of those issues, it still doesn’t change what the vote would be.
I'll make this informal since it's not a decision that would change anything at this point either way.
The vote is sufficient. Your issue is that Barney didn't recognize a verse given by Pro in the debate, though I'll note that it's not a requirement for the voter to exhaustively cover all arguments made in the debate. He just had to show that he read it, analyzed specific arguments presented by both sides, and came to a decision as a result. That might have been reason to question his decision, though I'll note that Barney also provides reasons why he believes Con is winning on Darkness as well, and clearly states that that would be sufficient for him to award the debate to Con. So even if he's completely inaccurate in his depiction of the water debate, that wouldn't affect the decision as a whole.
Also, to be clear, since the debate is over, any decision I make will not result in removal of the vote. I can no longer do that.
Well, I’m not David or Ramshutu, but I’ll give it a look and post a comment with a decision later.
I'll try to plug through this this weekend.
Up to you. Tied votes don't have the same standards as votes that award points, but if this ends up being a full forfeit debate, it may still be moderated.
You could award points for neither side. if tatie.bella does effectively do a full forfeit at 40% or greater, then you would have to justify why you see that as equally important to violating a rule set out in the description (i.e. why multiple forfeits would not be considered multiple violations of that rule in the description, and why their general absenteeism is an equal grievance, especially if they haven't made an argument by the end of the debate).
To be clear, there is no way for both sides to lose a debate. They can tie or one side can lose. There is no other option.
There is nothing automatic here. Voters may decide how to apply rules as written in the description, and the debaters themselves can make a case for how voters should view them. As long as the voter can adequately justify their decision, even if that means allocating some points to each side or tying the score as a result (I guess both would be some form of a "double loss," as you put it), they can. That being said, if a voter decides to award points based on the rules in the description, they must consider all those rules, and if one side forfeits more than or equal to 40% of the rounds, the debate can be considered a full forfeit.
Can’t tell if it’s a reference to the MCU or the Simpsons, but I’m going with the latter.
https://youtu.be/zRdNOQcfp-8
Thanks for voting! I’ll add it to the pile of shows I plan to watch.
What Barney said is accurate. If it’s so obvious that one side in this debate was arguing against what you would consider to be a truism, then there should be arguments in the debate that demonstrate that. If it’s only a truism because you say it’s a truism, that’s not a sufficient basis casting a vote in and of itself.
If that’s the mindset you’re bringing to voting on this debate, then you’re necessarily biasing your view based on information you have and not considering the arguments given by each side. We all have biases, but saying that Pro lost this debate before a word was said is not sufficient for casting a vote on this site, no matter how lopsided you think the resolution is. You will either have to consider the arguments presented by each side, or you can choose not to award points and just post your thoughts here in the comments. Up to you.
Point taken, though there's the question of whether this evidence comes from police directly or from a less reliable source and simply being presented by police. Didn't end up taking that point very far anyway, but I appreciate the insight.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Decisively_Conservatist // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con
>Reason for Decision:
As much as I agree with Pro, and it pains me to vote Con, I have to vote him because;
This topic cannot be proven by pro, since the statistic, even if explainable and not an example of patriarchy, still exists, even if it shows practically NOTHING.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter has to explain the decision based on arguments made by both sides in the debate. If there is a particular statistic that the voter believes demonstrates the point made by one side so thoroughly that it warrants awarding them the victory on this debate, the voter has to designate what that statistic is and why any responses from Pro were insufficient to address it. It is not enough to simply say that the debate is won before any argument is had.
**************************************************
Wow… you have my condolences, that sounds awful. Generally, when the reason is good, I tend not to factor forfeits, even when it comes to conduct.
I think that the realistic offers more questions about what could happen, i.e. the mechanics of how the technology performs, whereas the theoretical offers more discussion about whether it should happen, since we can better define what the technology is and how it works as a baseline. I think both have their benefits. I don’t mind doing either one, but this is what we went with and this is what we are debating.
If you want to discuss the limits of existing tech, that might be a good basis for a debate, but I’m not sure how you’d define the parameters for it.
The literal title of this debate and the description involves technology from the movie, so that’s the focus of our discussion. It might be interesting to explore the ideas you’re discussing based on existing tech, but that’s not what we’re doing in this debate.
It's all good. Looking forward to a good debate. I do have an opinion on this one, but it's not a strong one and I think there are good cases to be made for both sides.
After reviewing the decision, I find it to be in line with the voting standards of the site. The decision is upheld.
I’d be good to do that so long as both sides agree to shift it to rated. Do you have any debates that you currently want changed?
My apologies, thank you for letting me know Austin. I've gone ahead and deleted the previous post as the reason for removal is still here in the comments.
Happy to do it.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Barney // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Pro
>Reason for Decision: see voting tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter points to a specific argument provided by Pro in the debate, says it's never addressed, and votes on it. Considering that Con apparently doesn't make any arguments against this, nor does he make any independent points, the vote satisfies the standards. I'll note as well that when there are three debates that are virtually identical to one another, copy-pasting the same RFD is not grounds for removal.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Barney // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Pro
>Reason for Decision: see voting tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter points to a specific argument provided by Pro in the debate, says it's never addressed, and votes on it. Considering that Con apparently doesn't make any arguments against this, nor does he make any independent points, the vote satisfies the standards. I'll note as well that when there are three debates that are virtually identical to one another, copy-pasting the same RFD is not grounds for removal.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Barney // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Pro
>Reason for Decision: see voting tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter points to a specific argument provided by Pro in the debate, says it's never addressed, and votes on it. Considering that Con apparently doesn't make any arguments against this, nor does he make any independent points, the vote satisfies the standards. I'll note as well that when there are three debates that are virtually identical to one another, copy-pasting the same RFD is not grounds for removal.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: FLRW // 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 provides specific analysis of a number of points presented in the debate and evaluates them in the context of the debate. While the voter does at one point reference "research [he has] done" outside the debate, the voter also evaluates that argument in terms of how well it addresses what he sees as the main argument in the debate, so it is unclear that the voter based any substantial portion of their decision on information from outside the debate.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Public-Choice // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 2 points to Pro (Sources)
>Reason for Decision: see voting tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter sufficiently covers the issue of sources. While he does leave out discussion of sources presented by Con in R1, the RFD clearly details what the voter sees as the biggest deficits in Con's sources, which stands even with those sources taken into consideration.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: WeaverofFate // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Pro (Arguments, S&G), 3 points to Con (Sources, Conduct)
>Reason for Decision: see voting tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter goes into great depth on how he views the arguments and sources presented in the debate, which is sufficient to award these points. The voter is allowed to use the tally system he's employed here to award those points. S&G and Conduct are done via the same method, and while that does mean that they do not meet the voting standards since each of these require meeting certain thresholds and not a certain number of mistakes/instances of misconduct, these two points nonetheless balance out so, given how close this voting period is to ending, the vote will stand as is.
**************************************************
If you look at the way that each vote distributes points, a fully tied vote would give both sides 7 points. Every category that's awarded to one side grants some subset of that 7 point total to a single debater, taking it away from the other debater. The argument points are worth 3, meaning that, if one side gave you arguments, you won 3 points of that 7 point total that your opponent did not.
So when Sir.Lancelot gave you arguments, you won 7 points from that vote, while your opponent won 4. That's what I call "3 points to Con" because that's the point difference. The opposite was true of Novice_II's vote, which awarded 7 points to Austin and 4 points to you. Hence, each of you got 11 points total.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: AustinL0926 // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Con (Arguments, Conduct)
>Reason for Decision: see voting tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter sufficiently explains both point allocations, even citing the voting policy for the conduct point. The argument points are explained rather lightly, but sufficiently examine the points made in the debate and how they factored into the voter's decision.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Sir.Lancelot // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con
>Reason for Decision: see voting tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter sufficiently explains their point allocation and covers many of the applicable arguments to the debate. The voter is allowed, so long as he is not actively making new arguments for one side, to interpret the validity or strength of a given point with regards to the resolution, especially on a single round debate.
**************************************************
Then why are you still tagging me in messages where you express your frustration? Move on.
And I'll warn him not to do it again. That doesn't mean that I'm going to retroactively change this to unrated to deny Austin a win. Wylted's forfeits are not Austin's failings, but you sure make it sound like that's how I should treat them.
Unfairly... what?
Wylted forfeited several rounds. That's been the basis for practically every vote against him, not the plagiarism. If you view that as the problem, then there have been an awful lot of people absolutely gaming the system since this site started.
Not sure what you want us to do here. If he was gaining points off of plagiarism, I'd agree that we should change this over to unrated, but he forfeited every round after the first and he's getting hammered for it in the votes. It's not like we're going to ban him for doing this anyway, and I'm not going to change it over to unrated when his opponent is the only one benefitting from this being rated.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: K_Michael // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con
>Reason for Decision: see voting tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
See the voting policy under "Forfeitures": https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#forfeitures
"Repeated forfeitures waives the need to consider arguments (you still may, but by the choice of one side to miss at least 40% of the debate, the requirement ceases. And yes, this does apply to Choose Winner, which otherwise would not allow conduct to be the sole determinant)."
**************************************************