The Instigator
Nails
Pro (for)
Winning
30 Points
The Contender
Cherymenthol
Con (against)
Losing
28 Points

Cherymenthol should not be winning this debate.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/29/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,966 times Debate No: 10261
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (22)
Votes (10)

 

Nails

Pro

Resolved: If the 2 people who have voted so far had both voted fairly, the score of this debate would not be 7-7; it would be in my favor: http://www.debate.org...

I'll be contesting the neutrality of the voter who gave all 7 points to PRO in this debate.
Cherymenthol

Con

First off the resolution is flawed, there were three debaters in the debate under question, not the stated two.

Secondly, due to the fact that I do not know the other debater, the debate according to the resoltion seems like a waste of my time, so I will take the initiative to only argue why I voted for myself, and why I should be winning.

Now in order for an individual to "win" a debate round he must be superior to his opponent in the majority of the criteria Debate.org lists (Grammar, Spelling, Conduct, Arguments, Sources, etc...).

Also the judging of every round on this website is inherently arbitrary, what one individual thinks is good conduct might be considered poor to another, therefore to contest the neutrality of voters is a waste of time because humans are bias by nature. Actions such as "vote bombing" are proof of this. Therefor to vote for oneself is permisable, furthermore the reputable 'Puck' debater even agrees it is fine to vote for oneself. (http://www.debate.org...)

Now in the comments section of this debate my opponent recognizes two out of the four criteria are pointless, therefore there ought to be no argument against me awarding myself these points, because I feel I was more polite (Also my opponent insulted me in the final round), and I spent time correcting and fixing my grammar.

Not agree with myself who be irrational therefore I awarded myself that point.

Also if you are to read the debate you will see that my opponent violated the outline of the debate. He ran a policy structured case in a LD round, thus not complying with the outline that I desired and he said he would comply too. So I felt it would be wrong to allow a lie to win.

And also I proved in my rebuttal that his case is solved for in mine and that it was not even an Exit Exam, what we were arguing.

And if this is not evidence enough we can look to the vote of the other debater.
Debate Round No. 1
Nails

Pro

My argument is that Cherymenthol should not have voted for himself in all 4 categories. Winning that he was unjust in 1 of these 4 is sufficient grounds to vote PRO.

===============
Contention 1: Grammar
===============

Misused conjunction + incorrect conjugation of 'determine' + unnecessary comma + missing comma be for 'be it'
"And more specific...reviews, or portfolios."

Subpoint A has an opening quote without an ending quote.

Run-on sentences
"Due to the...my Value Criterion."
"Actually standardized tests...a child's schooling,"
"We are harming...fails to achieve."
"Standardized tests are...background do matter."

I don't even have enough space to document all of the errors he made in his first speech alone.

================
Contention 2: Arguments
================

He clearly agrees that unargued, or 'dropped', points can not be further contested and can be assumed to be true. He even states: "extensions: unargued/ agreed and not to be further argued points LD rules"

He dropped every single point in the last speech, and, as per his view of 'dropped' arguments, he loses every point in the debate.

===============
Contention 3: Conduct
===============

He forfeited his round without notice.

He makes the argument that refering to his avatar, 'FAIL', is poor conduct. It was no more than a reflection on his poor conduct: failure to give an excuse for forfeiting, failure to post an argument, failure to rebut any of my points at all.

===============
Contention 4: Sources
===============

I gave multiple reliable sources during the round.

Chery initially cites authors with no credentials at all, with no link to prove they actually said this. He then posts links verifying the authors' credibility, but he never once gives proof that they actually said what he claims they said. One link is simply to a list of source citations; the other is to a 110 page document.

--

All rebuttals will be covered next round. Good Luck!
Cherymenthol

Con

Winning that he was unjust in 1 of these 4 is sufficient grounds to vote PRO.

Correction: There are six criteria, so I must win in minimum of four.

===============
Contention 1: Grammar
===============

I'll drop grammar.

================
Contention 2: Arguments
================

His first point quotes me out of contact, I say extensions: points that are not to be argued later in the round, I was only talking about my extensions not a universal principle.

When we discuss dropped arguments, we must remember that he dropped the argument about how Portfolios are not exit exams, thus making his case fall because it is revolved around the premise that they are. This point supports a vote for the PRO after the round.

===============
Contention 3: Conduct
===============

nowhere in the guideline nor rules of these online debates does it say anything that can be taken in the context of meaning forfeiting is bad conduct. However assuming that an individual is FAIL, a term that has blatant negative connotations is an outright assault on my character. Also when my opponent says explains it all, we have to think that he means more than my actions (I did rebut his points in my previous rebuttal). As we can see my opponent was clearly the ruder participant in the debate in question.

===============
Contention 4: Sources
===============

The extent of my opponents sources are Google, and a packet that does not adequately support my opponents claims. However. I cite Louis Volante, I provide two links: one to explain who he is, and another to explain why we ought to respect him (i.e. his former work). And the third (yes there were more than two) link was to a study that refutes my opponents statement that Exit Exams don't detract form curricula.

And he actually cites, wikipedia and a list of debaters for a source...

Extend permissibility to vote for oneself, and other debater's vote argument.
Debate Round No. 2
Nails

Pro

"Correction: There are six criteria, so I must win in minimum of four."
No

0 pts - Before/After
1 pts - Spelling
1 pts - Conduct
3 pts - Arguments
2 pts - Sources

That is how the scoring system works. After tallying these up, if the score is in my favor, I win.

---

Contention 1

He drops this. That's 0-1.

---

Contention 2

"I say extensions: points that are not to be argued later in the round, I was only talking about my extensions not a universal principle."

1. He didn't EVER specify that anywhere in the debate.
2. There's no reason my drops count against me and his don't.
3. Yes, it IS a universal principle in LD rounds.

"we must remember that he dropped the argument about how Portfolios are not exit exams"

This a complete lie. Reread the debate; I address every one of his rebuttals, including 3 separate rebuttals to this particular attack.

Ignore that argument if you want.
He doesn't contest that he drops every argument. I turned the AC criterion, so even if you dropped the entire NC you'd still be voting for me on the AC.

If you don't buy the turn, he still hasn't met his BoP as instigator and PRO after dropping every point.

That makes the score 0-4

---

Contention 3

"we have to think that he means more than my actions"

There's no reason to assume it's an attack on Chery. Read my other debates if you wish. I don't use ad hominem attacks in-round, but I do post such responses to people who have shown poor enough conduct to forfeit.

0-5

---

Contention 4

He never once posted a link to prove Volante said what he claims. His other source is a 110 pg document that he expects me to read.

The Google link was actually a list of other reliable sources and if he thinks the "packet does not adequately support Nails's claim" then he needs to say why, not make unwarranted assertions. The debate wiki is reliable in what I posted it to prove.

That's 0-7, not 7-0 as Chery voted, thus you vote PRO.
Cherymenthol

Con

I am intrigued to see the results of this debate, however I feel we have both strayed from the true debate, However with that said I will begin my rebuttal.

=========
Contention 1
=========

Dropped

0-1

=========
Contention 2
=========

Actually the funniest part about this argument is when we look at the debate in question/ argument in question ( 3rd post by PRO, under introductions sub B) He never once proved that Portfolio's test by question pupils. The definition he said he would conform too. And because I said they didn't, and he didn't disagree, we extend the fact that portfolio's are not SEEs.

so actually it would be 3-1

Therefore any following arguments fall because he could not turn my VC...

=========
Contention 3
=========

I am not assuming it was an attack on my character, as the other voter agrees it was clearly an attack on character. And you never attacked my refutations on how it is bad conduct to forfeit, so we can assume its not. (note there is another voter who voted me up 7-0)

4-1

=========
Contention 4
=========

If the voters are to read the debate they will clearly find that I posted the credentials of Louis Volante, and a study (Its long because its thorough) to support my case. And if anything the length of a document does nothing less than bolster its reliability.

6-1

=========
Contention 5
=========

(Side note as my opponent obviously agrees he can't attack this point)

Now probably the most important thing to keep in mind is the unattacked argument of the third voter. Who voted me up on every account, and because obviously there is another individual who agrees with my opinions we can have more faith in the credibility of my arguments and votes.

And thus we vote still vote CON on a 6-1 decision.
Debate Round No. 3
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by tombomb25 7 years ago
tombomb25
Nah, it's a one time thing or I'd be constantly changing sides, and I don't have that much free time.
Posted by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
Following that logic, you should now go vote for me on the other debate, since I now have the lower score.
Posted by tombomb25 7 years ago
tombomb25
I voted for Jacob because he had less points here. On the other hand, this is a double-edged sword because I voted for Bone on the other one due to his lower score. I wasn't enough to sway this debate, but was enough to sway the other one.
Posted by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
Why can't everyone post an RFD that beautiful? That was very in-depth.
Posted by XimenBao 7 years ago
XimenBao
Ok, here's an RFD.

For this debate, I thought conduct, spelling, and sources were even enough here for a tie vote. As pro and con switch identities between debates, I'm going to refer to you as Nails and Chery.

Other debate point count :0-0

On contention 4, Volante's credentials were posted and the link being hundreds of pages isn't enough by itself for me to consider it a bad source. If Nails had argued that it was not text-searchable combined with the no page # given argument, I might give him this contention, but he didn't. However, Nails' defense of his sources went unchallenged in R3, so the source issue is tied.

Other debate point count :0-0

On contention 3, the drop was bad form but so was the jab. Offsets.

Other debate point count :0-0

On contention 2, in R2 Chery talks about dropped arguments causing a case to fail. Nails points out in R3 that no reason is given to count drops against him but not Chery. This went undisputed, which meant the entire other debate failed when Chery forfeited round 3.

Other debate point count: 0-3

On contention 1, a concession:

Other debate point count: 0-4

Thus the argument points for this debate go to Nails.
Posted by Cherymenthol 7 years ago
Cherymenthol
All i know is that both debates are messed up. And i hate never ending voting periods their a pain.
Posted by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
Would any of these people who are vote bombing care to give an RFD?
I know I wasn't using poor grammar or bad conduct in this round.
Posted by Cherymenthol 7 years ago
Cherymenthol
Okay.
Posted by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
I can't really afford the travel/lodging expenses of traveling outside the Southeast. I go to most national scale tournaments nearby, though.
Posted by Cherymenthol 7 years ago
Cherymenthol
Yea i agree, we both did a poor drop at following the resolution. Also are a you a debater on the national circut?
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
NailsCherymentholTied
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 
Vote Placed by Piffler 7 years ago
Piffler
NailsCherymentholTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 
Vote Placed by tombomb25 7 years ago
tombomb25
NailsCherymentholTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by bigtree 7 years ago
bigtree
NailsCherymentholTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
NailsCherymentholTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by XimenBao 7 years ago
XimenBao
NailsCherymentholTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 
Vote Placed by Arcanist 7 years ago
Arcanist
NailsCherymentholTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Pote 7 years ago
Pote
NailsCherymentholTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
NailsCherymentholTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
NailsCherymentholTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07