The Instigator
Zaradi
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
TinyBudha
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Bad Debaters Should Be Removed from DDO

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Zaradi
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/13/2015 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,308 times Debate No: 77606
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (90)
Votes (2)

 

Zaradi

Con

First Round is Acceptance. No new arguments in the final round. Good luck to my opponent.
TinyBudha

Pro

The instigator has failed to define terms, meaning he gives me the power to do so now. Any attempt to deny this as the official definition of the round will be considered as an offense worthy of a fofeiture of all 7 voters points. I'm sick and tired of insitgators starting debates when we have no idea what the hell to debate because they don't define their terms.

The reason these definitions are set in stone is becasause I will have joined the match under false pretences if the debate means something else. Furthermore I can assume that the instigator wants me to define the terms given that she has refused to do so herself.

Bad: As in 'the child is actcing bad'.

Bad Debaters: Debaters who generally create or have misconduct and bad behavior.
Debate Round No. 1
Zaradi

Con

Thanks to TinyBudha for accepting. Let's start with definitions:
Bad - of poor quality; inferior or defective.[1][2][3][4][5]
Prefer this definition because
a) it best reflects the accuracy of the definition. The vast majority of dictionary texts give this as the definition, this is the most accurate and conversationally correct definition of the term, thus the one that should be used for this debate.
b) it best fits the spirit of the debate. The entire resolution is set up to discuss lower caliber debaters rather than debaters who, say, are rude and offensive. If I were wanting to debate about whether trolls or offensive members should be removed from the site, there are far better words to use than "bad", meaning that this is the more fitting definition to use.

And, let me posit a definition and ignore his calls for a full forfeiture because:

a) There's absolutely nothing in the Round One setup that has anything to do with this, so it's him being sore about it.
b) Definitions are half the scope of a debate round in the first place, meaning that denying the potential to contest definitions closes off an entire half of the resolution to be discussed.
c) Discussing definitions in round better adheres to real-life debate. Events such as Lincoln-Douglas, Public-Forum, Cross-Examination/Policy, Parlimentary, etc. all offer definitions in round to be contested and discussed by both sides, thus being the most accurate and publicly known form of debating.
d) My opponent knew damn well what my intentions were coming into this debate. I blatantly called him out in the forums for the argument he's running/going to run[6], so he should've expected this to happen. Don't blame me for him being oblivious.
e) There's no warrant for why me not defining terms in the first round means that he gets the power to set the "official terms" for what words mean. His response will be "that's just how debating is", which only begs the warrant of why we ought not be able to contest and debate definitions, especially in very word-focused resolutions such as this one where the entire scope of the resolution is focused around what this one word means.
f) Half of my arguments are going to be centered around the possibility that you buy his definition in the first place, so there's no reason to actually just forfeit the debate now: I can win under either definition.


Like I just said, my arguments will be two-sided; one half will be if you accept my definition, the other will be if you accept my opponent's definition. I'll start with my definition.

Why we ought not get rid of poor quality debaters:

a) It precludes the opportunity for advancement and improvement. The only way that bad debaters become good debaters is through practice. Removing them from the site precludes opportunities to learn and improve upon their mistakes, which robs the world of better debaters in the future. This means, if we affirm, we rob the world of a potential infinite number of intellectually substantial and engaging debates by removing them from being able to debate here rather than allowing them to learn from their mistakes and improve.

b) It flies in the face of the entire purpose of debating in learning more. If the reason we debate is to learn more things about the world around us and to discuss those things against other people, then it would be entirely contradictory to the point of debate.

c) It lowers the number of active members on the site, meaning that there's less traffic going through the site. This has two negative implications. First, with less traffic the owners of the website (Juggle) will be making less revenue, meaning they'll be less inclined to make beneficial changes to the site that improves and encourages academic debate. Since the entire point of the debate is to have the end goal of more good debate, this is very bad. Second, less people on the site means that there's just quantitatively less people to discuss ideas and issues with, leading to an increased possibility of growing bored with the site and leaving for other sites/other past times, which is bad.

Why we ought not get rid of behaviorally bad debaters:

a) Behaviorally bad members can still be academically great debaters. If the point of a debating website is to encourage intellectual discourse, we should be focusing our attentions on reforming bad members into valuable members of the community rather than exiling them from the get-go.

b) Getting rid of members, regardless of how toxic they are, still lowers site traffic, which leads to the same harms as my c) point above.

With that, I pass the ball over to my opponent.


Sources:

[1] - https://www.google.com...
[2] - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
[3] - http://dictionary.reference.com...
[4] - http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[5] - http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[6] - http://www.debate.org...;
TinyBudha

Pro

Con cannot change definitions partway through the debate. End of story. It doesn’t matter if the Website Vice President or Joe Biden himself was debating on the website, rules are rules and should be followed.

Bad: As in 'the child is actcing bad'.

Bad Debaters: Debaters who generally create or have misconduct and bad behavior.

Burden of Proof: Let the voters note that we currently remove bad debaters from the website, meaning I am only defending what is already going on. It is completely up to zaradi the Vice president, to prove we should let those who intend to troll and hurt the website run amuck.

Preference of the illegal definition

The arguments under this title are irrelevant, this definition is illegal. Just for fun however, I have a couple responses. ‘its what most dictionaries say’ –so what?.....’people in conversations would define it differently’ –proof?/so what? ‘I have poor resolutional word selection’ –And? None of these are arguments in the first place.

Allow zaradi to disregard the rules because…

You can’t argue your way out of the rules. Nevertheless:

a.) “this”? I have no idea what you are saying here

b.) ‘Now half of the round’s terms are defined’ So what? you have stated a fact but this means nothing about the round…In any case this is due to negligence, so you take responsibility.

c.) ‘its more like real debate’ So what?....Why do were have to adhere to this fabricated standard of “real debate”, your conceptions of “real debate” are flawed, debate happens anywhere there are two people discussion their opposing viewpoints. This is at best an appeal to authority and a bandwagon.

d.) I did not, I accepted your challenge and posted my arguments before I looked at your ridiculous forum post. In any case -So what? My intentions are irrelevant to the facts of the debate and the general practices and normative behavior of the website…as far as acceptance practices.

e.) Did you read the 1st round? “The reason these definitions are set in stone is because I will have joined the match under false pretenses if the debate means something else. Furthermore I can assume that the instigator wants me to define the terms given that she has refused to do so herself.”

f.) Sure, you can argue what you were meant to argue, but you still can’t use the faulty definition.


We should keep people who wish to cause trouble on the website\

This is ridiculous…

a.) ‘You can be a good academic debater’ you can also be really good at NFL football but if you’re caught breaking the rules and having bad behavior…aka knocking your girlfriend out or looting a store you should be removed. To say that we should keep debaters just because they are good is to completely throw morality out of the equation, just as your point C did. We cannot sacrifice morals for money, burden of proof is on you so if you keep this argument please find some ridiculous author to support this ideology. Let the voters know that zaradi wishes to cast out morality and replace it with money, this is the basis of this argument for keeping bad debaters………….This ‘Reformation Proposal’ isn’t proven as a viable option, zaradi needs to show that his standard for concluding someone is a bad debater is viable, that reformation will produce a positive change more than not, and needs to specify what a valuable member is (this alone is up for kritik). Who said anything about kicking members out ‘From the get go’. Bad debaters are removed despite how long they have been active.

b.) Same moral argument from above, in order for this to be an argument you have to argue via credible author that we should exchange money for morality.

...Having to waded through the muck we have arrived at the real argumentation...

Kritik on bad ‘quality’ debaters

I am running the K from my previous debate solely because zardi requested it in his post on my forum. The reasons we shouldn’t accept that people are poorly skilled at debate: Is a statement of permanence and inescapability, which is bad because it leads to social rejection. there is always a perceived struggle between good and bad. Having such a divide and accepting such a divide undermines the purpose of DDO which is to promote growth in education, learning retention, analytical skills, data collection and other vital functions. It pushes debaters away from the website and is thus unacceptable. Again, this is all another reason to prefer my definition to con's, although mine should be prefered by fault of the broken rules. It discourages people from getting better because it labels them as 'lower than acceptable'. Our goal is to promote growth, just as con says, and thus this course of action is bad. It prevents learning. All of these impacts are reasons to prefer my definition of 'bad', and thus every single outcome accepting 'bad' to mean skill must be rejected.

Here is this same perspective but from a psychological point of view.

"Throughout my time working as a therapist, I’ve learned how powerful our thoughts are. When we attach negative thoughts to things, we will treat those things worse than if we think positively about them. This is true for ourselves, our husbands, and our kids....We will not have as much patience, we will not be as kind, and the relationship can easily be strained because of it...When we talk like this, we assign them character traits, and it changes our thoughts about them. We put them, as a person, in a negative light." [1] -mental health counsler



Why Zaradi cannot bring up a new definition now.

When an individual accepts a debate there is a certain standard which must be upheld. So the deal goes that the instigator will provided the topic of debate and for the contender, having spotted the debate can agree that they want to do this debate. Yet if a debate is not defined then what's up for debate relies on intuition, yet intuition varies widely, especially on a website where people from the global community conjoin. Being that this is the case, two people who view the same topic think they are debating seperate issues. For the Native American who views the resolution 'god is real' he simply scoffs, because for him this is obvious, for him perhaps the trees and the movement of the leaves blowing in the wind represents god. Yet for your average Western empiricist clearly one cannot prove a singular, defined deity exists. Thus both accept the debate yet with a completely different debate in mind. Thus intuition is not a sound basis of creating resolutions and debating them, we need something objective. Thus we make it the absolute requirement that an instigator define his debate and in doing so create a debate which can be, at least substantially more, objective. Failure to define your debate religates the task of defining to the contender, as it is unfair to force someone to debate something they did not intend, although the instigator must suffer this consequence it is justly so, in this way we create a reliable system for creating good, objective debates, and violation of that system represent a negligence through wich allowance of the contender to define the debate preserves order; furthermore we prevent debates meant to entrap and shift goal posts.

Thus we are left with the resolution that that, again, behaviorally bad debaters should be removed from DDO, which happens readily now in the Squo. I affirm and await argumentation which affirms zaradi's burden of proof and does not hold the irreprehensible as true (money/morals...ect). As of now, a vote for me is a vote for common sense...I affirm


Back to the Vice President





Sources
[1] http://dirtandboogers.com...


Debate Round No. 2
Zaradi

Con

There's a few things that need to be clarified in this debate:

1. I'm 100%, entirely befuddled as to these "rules" Pro references constantly. The only rules to this debate was that first round was to be acceptance and that we couldn't make new arguments in the final round. Any rules that he keeps referencing are rules that I never agreed to abide by nor enacted for this debate.

2. His response of "the rules are the rules and you can't break them" only begs the question of why those rules should be followed in the first place and if there isn't a better version of debate that we can have i.e. we can contest definitions. Even if his resposne of "we should follow the rules because they're the rules" is valid, which it's not because it's entirely circular, it's literally the is/ought fallacy -- just because they *are* the rules, doesn't mean they ought to be the rules. He needs to actually be advocating for why we ought not be able to contest definitions within the debate in order to be winning here, without it there's no reason not to be preferring my definition.


With that, let's go to my definition. Extend out my definition of bad as being of poor quality, meaning that we're talking about bad debaters in terms of skill rather than bad behavioral debaters. And, extend out the two reasons I gave for why you're preferring this definition, a) being that it's the most accurate definition meaning it's best to use for the debate and b) it's the best fitting definition for the entire point of the debate, since if I wanted to talk about behaviorally bad debaters there's a lot better words to use than "bad" for that.

His responses to these reasons are all asking me what the point of those are, but I explained the warrants and impacts behind those arguments pretty clearly. You're preferring my definition.

My opponent also has the most annoying habit of quoting 1-2 words of my argument and using those words to strawman my argument.

Extend out the six reasons I give for me introducing a new definition doesn't mean this debate should just be ff'd. Extend the first out saying that there was no rule about a forfeit in this scenario in the round one set up, so there's no reason for you as a judge to go for this. He only says he doesn't understand what I'm saying in response, which means he doesn't actually make a response to it. Extend my second response saying that by denying us the opportunity to contest definitions you cut off an entire half of the debate to be discussed. His only response to this is to say that it's negligence on my part, which isn't even my argument (hint - misquoting me to strawman). Extend the fifth reason out that there's no reason why me not defining stuff in the first round means that he gets to set the "official" definitions. His response of it's unfair to him because he joined the debate under false pretenses which is a) horsesh*t because he knew full well what I wanted to discuss, and b) applies the same way the other way around -- it's unfair to me for him to force his definition onto me when my intentions were to discuss bad quality debaters, not behaviorally bad debaters. And then extend the sixth argument saying that there's no reason to forfeit the debate when I have arguments for his definition as well. He effectively agrees to this, but that doesn't mean I can't argue for my own definition as well.

So what we have so far is that a) you're preferring my definition and his attempts to strawman my reasons to prefer my definition over his have failed, and that b) you're not just straight 7-pointing in his favor because I'm contesting the definition.

So extend out the three arguments I make for why bad quality debaters shouldn't be kicked off the site. It goes 100% dropped. Hold him to this mistake.

But then off the reasons why we still don't kick people off on his definition. Extend out my first reason saying that behaviorally bad debaters can still be academically good debaters, so kicking them off as opposed to reforming them lowers the amount of quality discussion on the site, which is bad for the site overall. His response is that I'm throwing away morality for money, which has never been and never will be the argument I'm making. The only possible monetary argument I could be making is that there will be less traffic on the site, but that only matters insofar as it gives less incentive for Juggle to make improvements to the site that aid academic and intellectual debate, which isn't a "money over morality" thing at all. His repeated attempts to strawman my arguments are costing him the debate.

His other response is that we don't know if reforming bad members is even an option, but a) my opponent has given us no reason to believe that we can't do it, and b) even if it's not probable, we still ought to try rather than just forsake the possibility of reforming them and giving them the boot entirely. The more behaviorally good members we can have on the site to increase academic and intellectual discussion on the site, the better off the site is, which isn't possible if we just kick off members outright.

He puts the same argument against my second reason, and I already responded to it above, so you can extend out the second reason as kicking off bad members lowers site traffic, which gives juggle less incentive to improve the site for better debating.

So at this point of the debate the following is clear: a) you're preferring my definition of bad over his and he dropped all the reasons I give for why we don't get rid of all bad quality debaters so I'm winning on my definition and b) My arguments on his definition for why we don't get rid of behaviorally bad debaters stand against his strawmanned responses. Meaning that no matter which definition you go with as a judge, *I'M STILL WINNING THIS DEBATE*. So that just leaves one question: what about the K?

Long story short: the K is garbage. Let's look at it in detail.

First off is that the link story is garbage. There's nothing inherently linking the K to my case. I'm not calling anyone bad, and my case isn't doing that either.

Second off is that the link story isn't unique to just me, if I'm even calling people bad: by sheer necesity of advocating for kicking off behaviorally bad members of the site, he's still calling them bad behaviorally, which leads to this same social rejection. Meaning he bites into the K himself.

Third off is that there's nothing linking calling someone bad and this social rejection that the debaters in question feel. His source talks about how if I think someone is an a**hole I'm more likely to treat them as if they are an a**hole, but that's not what his K is advocating for.

Fourth off is that negative emotions expressed against us can actually motivate us to improve and be used against people who are of poor quality to motivate them to improve[1]. So this social rejection he's talking about isn't even the necessary internal link, nor is it even necessarily bad.

Fifth is that even if his internal link story is real and that people feel this bad social rejection and don't improve because of it. there's no impact to the K. The only kind of impact he's extending off of the K is as a reason to prefer his definition, so even if you buy the K, it just means we use his definition which is a definition I'm still winning on.

Sixth is that affirming the resolution doesn't actually solve for the harms of the K. If anything it makes the impacts of this social rejection amplified. If you thought that being rejected and told that you were bad was the worst of it, imagine being so bad that you're kicked off the site. Talk about social rejection.

Seventh is that the solution to the problem posed by the K is actually negating the resolution. I'm the one trying to encourage people to become better and not giving them the boot from the site. This means that I'm the one fixing the social rejection that they're feeling and helping them improve, whereas my opponent is only making the problem worse.

So at the end of the day, the K is just really, really, really, really, really bad. There's about four different reasons you don't buy the K, a reason to ignore the K entirely because it's irrelevant, and a few reasons to straight up vote for me because of the K.

So this makes the debate really, really simple to understand.

1. You're preferring my definition, and he hasn't made a single argument in favor of it. This means I win the debate by default.
2. Even if you go for his definition, my arguments are standing at the end of the day meaning I'm winning on his definition as well.
3. Read his last round really carefully. 100% of his last round was spent responding to me. Where are his arguments for why we ought to be kicking people off of DDO for behing behaviorally bad? There's physically nothing he can advance for why he's winning the debate because he has 0 offense.
4. Even if you view the K as offense, which it isn't because there isn't any kind of impact to it, there's absolutely nothing behind the K because it's just sooooooo bad....if anything you vote for me off of it.

Source:

[1] - http://www.positivityblog.com...;
TinyBudha

Pro

I was being dramatic, I a forfeit is too much, but the definition shoulsn't be accepted.

The reason is because( as I stated and as was ignored by Z)

"When an individual accepts a debate there is a certain standard which must be upheld. So the deal goes that the instigator will provided the topic of debate and for the contender, having spotted the debate can agree that they want to do this debate. Yet if a debate is not defined then what's up for debate relies on intuition, yet intuition varies widely, especially on a website where people from the global community conjoin. Being that this is the case, two people who view the same topic think they are debating seperate issues. For the Native American who views the resolution 'god is real' he simply scoffs, because for him this is obvious, for him perhaps the trees and the movement of the leaves blowing in the wind represents god. Yet for your average Western empiricist clearly one cannot prove a singular, defined deity exists. Thus both accept the debate yet with a completely different debate in mind. Thus intuition is not a sound basis of creating resolutions and debating them, we need something objective. Thus we make it the absolute requirement that an instigator define his debate and in doing so create a debate which can be, at least substantially more, objective. Failure to define your debate religates the task of defining to the contender, as it is unfair to force someone to debate something they did not intend, although the instigator must suffer this consequence it is justly so, in this way we create a reliable system for creating good, objective debates, and violation of that system represent a negligence through wich allowance of the contender to define the debate preserves order; furthermore we prevent debates meant to entrap and shift goal posts."


I only did the K for the VP's benifit but it doesn't mean anything to me, so I simply leave it up to the voters to decid if we should label people as quote "defective" debaters....

Nothing else in the debate really matters, if we zaradi should use my definition he loses plain and simple


Debate Round No. 3
Zaradi

Con

My opponent's last statement might have actuall been true if he didn't just drop literally everything in his last round.

Let's make a list of all the things that were dropped and I'm extending across:

- The reasons you're preferring my definition of bad over his definition of bad.
- the reasons why this isn't a forfeit because I didn't set definitions in round one (this one is also the game over mistake for for my opponent, which I'll get to in a bit.)
- the reasons why we shouldn't kick off bad quality debaters from the site.
- the reasons why we shouldn't kick off behaviorally bad members from the site.
- the seven-point response to the K, especially the turn I make where I argue that only my side allows for solvin for the harms of the K.

So at this point the debate is essentially over. There's physically nothing left that he can show to say that he's refuting my case. There's no way he can preven me from winning the debate. Don't let him make new responses to these in the last round because, as the rules for this debate *actually state*, there should be no new arguments in the final round.

The only thing he extends across is saying that not defining things in the first round leaves it up to him to define things because the resolution can mean inuitively different things to different people and it's unfair to make him debate something he didn't intend to debate. But there's a few problems with this:

First is that he drops a response to this from when I said "applies the same way the other way around -- it's unfair to me for him to force his definition onto me when my intentions were to discuss bad quality debaters, not behaviorally bad debaters." So his argument here is non-unique.

Second is that he drops the second reason I give for preferring my definition when I say that it's the definition that best meets the spirit of the debate. There were better words I could've chose for the resolution instead of bad if I wanted to discuss behavior meaning that I have a more objectie base via dictionaries the actual meaning of words for my definition.

Third is that even if you buy this and we use his definition, I still win anyway because 1) he doesn't provide a single argument for why we should kick people off the site and b) he drops my reasons why we shouldn't, meaning I'm winning regardless of the definition we end up using.

So the debate is a really simple negative vote at this point:

- I'm winning the debate on either Definition
- the K literally doesn't do anything in the debate
- he doesn't provide arguments of his own rather spent the entire debate trying to refute mine.
TinyBudha

Pro

Zaradi loves to scream and yell that he is right on this and that I have lost that. He should do more debating and less asserting victory, its an annoying habit. Unlike Zaradi when I say that he has ignored one of my issues he really has, honesty vs simply asserting correctness.

Matches against popular people are always a btch because you have to fight against people who will assume their correctness on the issue and ignore your arguments if they are too complex and then of course there are those people who will vote for them despite what is said. In this case it would be ridiculous to vote for zaradi, if the VP wins the topic that we basically should never ban people then we know what happened.

....

So this match goes very, very, very simply. Zaradi litterally ignored both of the two only relevant arguments of mine in this match.

I will operate under the belief that not responding to, is conceding, an argument.

First he conceded my argument that not posting definitionsin round 1 religates the task of defining to the opponent upon acceptance. Actually, he does respond to this, in his last speech, after conceeding it, he points to my statement that it is unfair to make someone argue something they did not intend and then says that I am making him argue something he doesn't want which would be unfair, however if he were to look back at the argument which he ignored and then apparantly half-read, it says, quote: "Failure to define your debate religates the task of defining to the contender, as it is unfair to force someone to debate something they did not intend, although the instigator must suffer this consequence it is justly so, in this way we create a reliable system for creating good, objective debates, and violation of that system represent a negligence through wich allowance of the contender to define the debate preserves order"

I have already argued against this point, this just goes to show that the vp is putting a halfassed effort into a debate which he challenged me. So in sum, the argument that my definition must be accepted is conceded meaning we go with my definition of behaviorally bad debaters.




The next important argument in this match were my arguments against his case for Not Banning behaviorally bad debaters. Litterally his only points supporting his case here, were that we would be losing site visitors which might remove a small amount of revenue from the site, I then argued against this by pointing out that he is prioritizing money over morality, meaning he is sarificing the experiences of the users of the site for a few dollors of website visitor revenue. His only response was 'no I am not', he essentially laughed off my arguments and then had the gaul to say that I conceded them. Its cocksure at its finest.

In anycase this is an open and shut case, zaradi conceded that my definitions must be accepted, and his arguments for allowing behaviorally bad debaters are weak and refuted. I would again like to remind everyone that because we already get rid of behaviorally bad debaters right now, I am simply defending the status quo meaning Zardi has the burden of proof. If you believe that allowing trolls and people who harras other members is a good policy to have, then please vote for zaradi, if however you would prefer to keep things as they currently are on debate.org then for all that is good, cast your vote for pro, my side. As a side note, I extend the Kritik, we should not think of people as "defective" in any respect. Thank you...
Debate Round No. 4
90 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by hellywon 1 year ago
hellywon
I think Pro should take a chill pill...
Posted by Lee001 1 year ago
Lee001
Well then..
Posted by FourTrouble 1 year ago
FourTrouble
Tiny, you do realize my RFD explicitly addresses the K, right? I dunno where you get the idea that I don't address it at all... it's pretty clearly discussed.
Posted by lol101 1 year ago
lol101
He has a point.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
Of course not. You do at least have to cover some of the arguments made by both sides, and simply stating that they're "insufficient and irrelevant" would be so generalized that it could be posted as reasoning on any debate, invalidating it as a reasonable RFD.

You keep proclaiming that this is out of some kind of bias, as though I'm specifically searching for reasons to remove votes like yours while ignoring any and all faults with FourTrouble's. I haven't ignored those faults, nor have I treated your votes unfairly. If you produced a vote like this, and it got reported, I would have responded the same exact way. But I'm sure you won't take me at my word. You seem pretty decided that I'm out to get you.

You can discuss what happened with Wylted with Airmax. He was the one who handled that interaction. But that doesn't excuse your response to me. I didn't say you'd be banned, and I suspect all you'll get is a warning. That's probably all you deserve for a one time offense.

No, it's not 100% clear. The argument, from what I'm seeing, doesn't necessarily determine the outcome of the round, and is therefore not necessarily vital. Again, how YOU view the argument in hindsight isn't necessarily how other people view it.
Posted by TinyBudha 1 year ago
TinyBudha
So if I go on a debate and just say 'I perceive that all of the con arguments are insufficient and irrelevant', then they just are and its "sufficient"? If I were to cast the same vote as four it would have been taken down, and like last time, my voting rights would be taken away. Did anything even happen to wylted after he told me to kill myself and take sexual pleasure to elderly pornography? His account is still active. yet I call you a son of a btch and you say you're going to "respond" to "clear and repeated insults".

Is it not 100% clear that an argument which literally *must* determine the outcome of the round is without a shadow of a doubt *vital* to the outcome?
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
And who defines what is a vital piece? Who defines what matters most within the context of a debate, what must be covered and what can reasonably be ignored? You seem to be doing that quite a bit right now. My point was that your standard for what should be allowed becomes incredibly difficult to meet on complex debates. Whether this was one is irrelevant to what the standards are and why they are that way.

How people perceive a Kritik will vary based on the debater. How people will see this particular Kritik will vary as well. I'd say, from my reading of the debate, that you stopped making the K a big issue in the debate when you barely covered it in the final round. Whatever FourTrouble's reason for thinking it was no longer a big issue, though, he's not required to show his evaluation that particular argument to come to a decision.

But let's be clear on something. As a moderator, it is not my goal to ensure that only good votes are allowed. There's a difference between "good" and "sufficient". Whether this vote was good or not may be up for debate, but I don't think there's any reason to believe that it's insufficient. It met all the standards, laid out in those two posts, which I'm still offering to show you.

Again, if you want to discuss salam's vote, we can take it out of this comment section. If you don't wish to do so, I would appreciate if you stopped referencing it. My decision on that debate has no bearing on this one.
Posted by TinyBudha 1 year ago
TinyBudha
Hey, I never said that. I said you should cover the *vital* pieces. He At Least needs to say 'the k is conceded' if he doesn't then how am I supposed to know what happened to the K? Its a matter of at least *trying* to have good votes which cover most of the topic and don't skip out on something a priori like a K! It should be "do they even cover the biggest pieces in the round"...Is this *really* that complex of a debate? No. You're completely misinterpreting what I said. Its a vital part. not an insignificant side argument, its a priori. I'm all for not being to strict, but not even trying to keep them in line when they miss the one of the biggest pieces of the round?

Its true. He say he votes for the other team because I "conceded" a sentence? that doesn't even make sense. And yet you refuse to take his vote down, just like you are doing right now. I served you how he was wrong on a silver platter, but you 'just won't accept' it bc it was in a message? I don't understand you.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
...What rule, specifically, am I disregarding? Where, in any of the rules, does it say that a voter must cover every argument given in the debate? I know if I was reading through this debate, I would have considered your last round to have dropped the issue entirely. Could FourTrouble's RFD have been more complete? Absolutely. But one of my standards for moderating votes is not "how complete is this vote in evaluating all parts of the debate?" In that case, we could look to any number of debates on this site that have been extremely large and complex, and every time a vote came up, all a debater would have to do is claim that they dropped something in their RFDs. Chances are, they did, but that doesn't make their vote unreasonable. Nor is it reasonable to force every debater to have the pages long RFDs required to ensure that they address every single argument presented, especially if they feel it's dropped or just vanishingly unimportant.

As for salam's vote, if you want to discuss it again, we can do so by PMs. This is not the place to be discussing RFDs from other debates.
Posted by TinyBudha 1 year ago
TinyBudha
its not even exhaustive. Its literally a critical part of the case.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by FourTrouble 1 year ago
FourTrouble
ZaradiTinyBudhaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Comments.
Vote Placed by Death23 1 year ago
Death23
ZaradiTinyBudhaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: .