Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

RFD Requirements

TheChristian
Posts: 1,031
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 1:45:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
So, lately, I have noticed something. You now have to explain every little detail of every little reason of every little point on every debate. It used to be (when I started on the site) that you had to explain your reason for a point, but you could be general. Like, in a 3 round debate, the second round is forfeited, they refuse to rebut a single argument, and grammar was sloppy, you could say FF and be done. Now, you have to specify- Forfeited the second round, did not rebut a single argument and made numerous mistakes in grammar and spelling. And this discourages many users from voting. I myself waited months for voting privileges and now that I have finally received them (thanks to Airmax) I have had the only vote I cast removed because a moderator decided that a forfeit and lack of rebuttal on both sides did not constitute a point. Allow me to remind you- Multiple truly bad RFDs are allowed, but you state that one forfeit and no rebuttals do not let me decide to give out a point. If that is the case, change that point, not remove the entire vote over one point that I feel was very well explained. If you want to remove my vote because of one point, try looking at null votes that basically say- "Neither side's arguments were good and nobody rebutted so this vote is null". That being said, the standards for an RFD need to, at the very least, be changed so that voters are actually allowed to explain their votes and not have to write an entire paragraph for each individual point.
Thank you.
Preston
Posts: 1,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 1:49:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 1:45:18 PM, TheChristian wrote:
So, lately, I have noticed something. You now have to explain every little detail of every little reason of every little point on every debate. It used to be (when I started on the site) that you had to explain your reason for a point, but you could be general. Like, in a 3 round debate, the second round is forfeited, they refuse to rebut a single argument, and grammar was sloppy, you could say FF and be done. Now, you have to specify- Forfeited the second round, did not rebut a single argument and made numerous mistakes in grammar and spelling. And this discourages many users from voting. I myself waited months for voting privileges and now that I have finally received them (thanks to Airmax) I have had the only vote I cast removed because a moderator decided that a forfeit and lack of rebuttal on both sides did not constitute a point. Allow me to remind you- Multiple truly bad RFDs are allowed, but you state that one forfeit and no rebuttals do not let me decide to give out a point. If that is the case, change that point, not remove the entire vote over one point that I feel was very well explained. If you want to remove my vote because of one point, try looking at null votes that basically say- "Neither side's arguments were good and nobody rebutted so this vote is null". That being said, the standards for an RFD need to, at the very least, be changed so that voters are actually allowed to explain their votes and not have to write an entire paragraph for each individual point.
Thank you.

If the DDO president had any power to influence this then this is how i would end up voting, whoever can maintain standards that are fair and encourage voting should win. I MISS when you didn't have to write a small book about your one vote. Currently there is no incentive to vote and there are decentives for voting such as losing voting rights.
"Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience." - George Carlin
TheChristian
Posts: 1,031
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 1:53:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 1:49:25 PM, Preston wrote:
If the DDO president had any power to influence this then this is how i would end up voting, whoever can maintain standards that are fair and encourage voting should win. I MISS when you didn't have to write a small book about your one vote. Currently there is no incentive to vote and there are decentives for voting such as losing voting rights.
I agree. When I first joined I think RFDs were optional. now, they are not only mandatory, but you have to write a book about one vote. It is completely unnecessary.
Preston
Posts: 1,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 1:54:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 1:53:02 PM, TheChristian wrote:
At 6/19/2015 1:49:25 PM, Preston wrote:
If the DDO president had any power to influence this then this is how i would end up voting, whoever can maintain standards that are fair and encourage voting should win. I MISS when you didn't have to write a small book about your one vote. Currently there is no incentive to vote and there are decentives for voting such as losing voting rights.
I agree. When I first joined I think RFDs were optional. now, they are not only mandatory, but you have to write a book about one vote. It is completely unnecessary.

Well the reasoning is 'immagine all the time the debaters put in' but that's not a reason to discourage community growth. If people were looking for quality feedback they should limit voters to people like Bluesteel and Airmax, not allow public voting.
"Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience." - George Carlin
TheChristian
Posts: 1,031
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 1:58:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 1:54:51 PM, Preston wrote:
Well the reasoning is 'immagine all the time the debaters put in' but that's not a reason to discourage community growth. If people were looking for quality feedback they should limit voters to people like Bluesteel and Airmax, not allow public voting.

And yet they insist on providing the illusion that you can vote, while deleting your vote and saying they are going to take away your privileges if you make another "bad RFD'
Preston
Posts: 1,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 2:03:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 1:58:51 PM, TheChristian wrote:
At 6/19/2015 1:54:51 PM, Preston wrote:
Well the reasoning is 'immagine all the time the debaters put in' but that's not a reason to discourage community growth. If people were looking for quality feedback they should limit voters to people like Bluesteel and Airmax, not allow public voting.

And yet they insist on providing the illusion that you can vote, while deleting your vote and saying they are going to take away your privileges if you make another "bad RFD'

Wait they told you that? I didn't get a warning, i came back after several months and lost them immediately because i had no idea standards had changed.
"Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience." - George Carlin
TheChristian
Posts: 1,031
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 2:10:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 2:03:03 PM, Preston wrote:
At 6/19/2015 1:58:51 PM, TheChristian wrote:
At 6/19/2015 1:54:51 PM, Preston wrote:
Well the reasoning is 'immagine all the time the debaters put in' but that's not a reason to discourage community growth. If people were looking for quality feedback they should limit voters to people like Bluesteel and Airmax, not allow public voting.

And yet they insist on providing the illusion that you can vote, while deleting your vote and saying they are going to take away your privileges if you make another "bad RFD'

Wait they told you that? I didn't get a warning, i came back after several months and lost them immediately because i had no idea standards had changed.

Same with me, except I still have mine and got a warning.
Preston
Posts: 1,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 2:38:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 2:35:14 PM, YamaVonKarma wrote:
This is why I rarely vote.

Yea, im joining u there soon, There are going to be alot more ties...
"Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience." - George Carlin
Kozu
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 2:40:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 1:45:18 PM, TheChristian wrote:
So, lately, I have noticed something. You now have to explain every little detail of every little reason of every little point on every debate. It used to be (when I started on the site) that you had to explain your reason for a point, but you could be general. Like, in a 3 round debate, the second round is forfeited, they refuse to rebut a single argument, and grammar was sloppy, you could say FF and be done. Now, you have to specify- Forfeited the second round, did not rebut a single argument and made numerous mistakes in grammar and spelling. And this discourages many users from voting. I myself waited months for voting privileges and now that I have finally received them (thanks to Airmax) I have had the only vote I cast removed because a moderator decided that a forfeit and lack of rebuttal on both sides did not constitute a point. Allow me to remind you- Multiple truly bad RFDs are allowed, but you state that one forfeit and no rebuttals do not let me decide to give out a point. If that is the case, change that point, not remove the entire vote over one point that I feel was very well explained. If you want to remove my vote because of one point, try looking at null votes that basically say- "Neither side's arguments were good and nobody rebutted so this vote is null". That being said, the standards for an RFD need to, at the very least, be changed so that voters are actually allowed to explain their votes and not have to write an entire paragraph for each individual point.
Thank you.

Just use "select winner" voting instead.
Varrack
Posts: 2,410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 2:40:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 1:53:02 PM, TheChristian wrote:
At 6/19/2015 1:49:25 PM, Preston wrote:
If the DDO president had any power to influence this then this is how i would end up voting, whoever can maintain standards that are fair and encourage voting should win. I MISS when you didn't have to write a small book about your one vote. Currently there is no incentive to vote and there are decentives for voting such as losing voting rights.
I agree. When I first joined I think RFDs were optional. now, they are not only mandatory, but you have to write a book about one vote. It is completely unnecessary.

No you don't. All you have to do is sufficiently explain who won and why, and you need to use the arguments that were presented in the debate. Just saying "pro had better arguments" doesn't prove you read the debate and it doesn't help anyone get better.
Preston
Posts: 1,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 2:45:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 2:40:53 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 6/19/2015 1:53:02 PM, TheChristian wrote:
At 6/19/2015 1:49:25 PM, Preston wrote:
If the DDO president had any power to influence this then this is how i would end up voting, whoever can maintain standards that are fair and encourage voting should win. I MISS when you didn't have to write a small book about your one vote. Currently there is no incentive to vote and there are decentives for voting such as losing voting rights.
I agree. When I first joined I think RFDs were optional. now, they are not only mandatory, but you have to write a book about one vote. It is completely unnecessary.

No you don't. All you have to do is sufficiently explain who won and why, and you need to use the arguments that were presented in the debate. Just saying "pro had better arguments" doesn't prove you read the debate and it doesn't help anyone get better.

really, because this is how i was told it should be done

At 6/8/2015 9:19:41 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Debate: God is existent (http://www.debate.org...)

Preston's second vote was on this debate "God is existent" between Lannan13 (Pro) and AdithyaShark (Con). I'll give my RFD first and then explain what's wrong with the vote that was removed.

My RFD:

This debate had 4 main issues of contention. Lannan's 3 arguments for god (Ontological, KCA, and Teleological) and Adithya's 1 argument against god (Occam's razor). I'll go over it one by one.

== Ontological Argument ==

Lannan starts off with what he says is the version defended by Platinga which goes along the lines of "It is possible that a maximally great being exists... a maximally great being exists." He also uses the argument that "If possibly necessarily P, then necessarily P" and argues that the only way to negate is to show that there is no possible way for god to exist.

Adithya refutes by arguing about epistemic and metaphysical possibility which easily casts a lot of doubt on the syllogism. Adithya's argument was that the word "possible" that Lannan is using in P2 to P5 is actually metaphysical possibililty and that Lannan hasn't justified using that in P1. The way Lannan's P1 was worded seems to imply that it is the common definition of "possible" and not the highly specific definition that he uses later in the syllogism. And if this highly specific definition was what Lannan meant to use in P1, he needs to explain it more than making a bare assertion. Adithya further argues that if you flip the argument, the reverse premise "it is possible for God to not exist" leads to the reverse conclusion "god doesn't exist."

So that's two separate issues with the argument. Lannan's response is a bit perplexing. He doesn't explain either issue. He asserts that "god will have to exist no matter what" and claims that it also refutes the reverse premise. He then elaborates on another syllogism this time written by Godel. As expected Adithya takes issue with this and argues that this is a new argument that violates the rules agreed upon during the start of the round and I'm inclined to agree. In any case, Lannan completely drops his own R2 argument so this impact is pretty clearly negated.

== Kalam Cosmological argument ==

Lannan starts off with "Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause." and defends it with laws of physics. So far so good. Adithya points out the issue here is that this argument begs the question - since Lannan is assuming that everything except for god that began to exist has a cause and god is the only one that is granted an exception. He also refutes the scientific evidence with mass-energy equivalence i.e. mass can be created from energy. Lannan responds with a recursive analysis that there must be one uncaused cause (the very first one) which Adithya refutes with by saying that just because there is an uncaused cause is no reason to believe that this was the cause of the universe. Lannan sort of drops this and instead argues about a zero-energy universe. I'm inclined to call this point a wash because both debaters get sidetracked from the resolution quite a bit but Adithya does just enough to cast doubt on Lannan's original argument under this point.

== Teleological argument ==

Probably Lannan's weakest argument "If teleology exists, then an ordering intellect exists. Teleology exists. Therefore, an ordering intellect exists." Adithya's response was compelling as he points out that ordering intellect doesn't meet the definition of god and is off-topic. Lannan's drops this entirely in the next round due to lack of character space but concedes Adithya's point that Teleos is subjective. Then he argues the ontological argument in its place. A point that easily goes to Adithya.

== Occam's razor ==

There is a bit of a semantic argument on "simplest" versus "least assumptions" but the thrust of it remains the same and both parties seem to agree with it. Adithya argues that god is an additional assumption and therefore his version is simpler. Lannan argues that the universe having a maker is a lesser assumption but he doesn't elaborate on why that is the case. I default to Adithya because Lannan is making the positive claim and so is making an assumption. Adithya explains it well with his teapot analogy. Going to Lannan's last round, he talks about the principal of parsimony and the theory behind Occam's razor but nowhere does he give me a reason why his positive assumption better meets the criteria for less assumptions. This is a pretty clear cut win for Adithya.

Overall, Lannan started strongly but once his points were refuted, his lack of addressing them, changing the topic, and going on tangents didn't serve him well. Beyond Round 2, his entire side of the debate was a haphazard mix of points that he barely tied back to the resolution. Adithya stayed relevant to the resolution and made sure to extend his refutations each round. I'm left convinced that whatever flaws he pointed out in Lannan's arguments are undefendable and Lannan did nothing to fix that damage. Lannan also gave Adithya far too easy a time with Occam's razor and arguing on Adithya's playing field and saying that his assumption of god fits Occam's razor better. But he does nothing to show why making a positive assumption is simpler than assuming the negative unless proven otherwise.

A very clear win for Con.

Now I'll go over Preston's RFD in my next post.

So thats not a small book??
"Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience." - George Carlin
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 2:48:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
For clarification, I think a few things need to be highlighted.

At 6/19/2015 2:45:50 PM, Preston wrote:
At 6/19/2015 2:40:53 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 6/19/2015 1:53:02 PM, TheChristian wrote:
At 6/19/2015 1:49:25 PM, Preston wrote:
If the DDO president had any power to influence this then this is how i would end up voting, whoever can maintain standards that are fair and encourage voting should win. I MISS when you didn't have to write a small book about your one vote. Currently there is no incentive to vote and there are decentives for voting such as losing voting rights.
I agree. When I first joined I think RFDs were optional. now, they are not only mandatory, but you have to write a book about one vote. It is completely unnecessary.

No you don't. All you have to do is sufficiently explain who won and why, and you need to use the arguments that were presented in the debate. Just saying "pro had better arguments" doesn't prove you read the debate and it doesn't help anyone get better.

really, because this is how i was told it should be done

At 6/8/2015 9:19:41 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Debate: God is existent (http://www.debate.org...)

Preston's second vote was on this debate "God is existent" between Lannan13 (Pro) and AdithyaShark (Con). I'll give my RFD first and then explain what's wrong with the vote that was removed.

My RFD:

This debate had 4 main issues of contention. Lannan's 3 arguments for god (Ontological, KCA, and Teleological) and Adithya's 1 argument against god (Occam's razor). I'll go over it one by one.

== Ontological Argument ==

Lannan starts off with what he says is the version defended by Platinga which goes along the lines of "It is possible that a maximally great being exists... a maximally great being exists." He also uses the argument that "If possibly necessarily P, then necessarily P" and argues that the only way to negate is to show that there is no possible way for god to exist.

Adithya refutes by arguing about epistemic and metaphysical possibility which easily casts a lot of doubt on the syllogism. Adithya's argument was that the word "possible" that Lannan is using in P2 to P5 is actually metaphysical possibililty and that Lannan hasn't justified using that in P1. The way Lannan's P1 was worded seems to imply that it is the common definition of "possible" and not the highly specific definition that he uses later in the syllogism. And if this highly specific definition was what Lannan meant to use in P1, he needs to explain it more than making a bare assertion. Adithya further argues that if you flip the argument, the reverse premise "it is possible for God to not exist" leads to the reverse conclusion "god doesn't exist."

So that's two separate issues with the argument. Lannan's response is a bit perplexing. He doesn't explain either issue. He asserts that "god will have to exist no matter what" and claims that it also refutes the reverse premise. He then elaborates on another syllogism this time written by Godel. As expected Adithya takes issue with this and argues that this is a new argument that violates the rules agreed upon during the start of the round and I'm inclined to agree. In any case, Lannan completely drops his own R2 argument so this impact is pretty clearly negated.

== Kalam Cosmological argument ==

Lannan starts off with "Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause." and defends it with laws of physics. So far so good. Adithya points out the issue here is that this argument begs the question - since Lannan is assuming that everything except for god that began to exist has a cause and god is the only one that is granted an exception. He also refutes the scientific evidence with mass-energy equivalence i.e. mass can be created from energy. Lannan responds with a recursive analysis that there must be one uncaused cause (the very first one) which Adithya refutes with by saying that just because there is an uncaused cause is no reason to believe that this was the cause of the universe. Lannan sort of drops this and instead argues about a zero-energy universe. I'm inclined to call this point a wash because both debaters get sidetracked from the resolution quite a bit but Adithya does just enough to cast doubt on Lannan's original argument under this point.

== Teleological argument ==

Probably Lannan's weakest argument "If teleology exists, then an ordering intellect exists. Teleology exists. Therefore, an ordering intellect exists." Adithya's response was compelling as he points out that ordering intellect doesn't meet the definition of god and is off-topic. Lannan's drops this entirely in the next round due to lack of character space but concedes Adithya's point that Teleos is subjective. Then he argues the ontological argument in its place. A point that easily goes to Adithya.

== Occam's razor ==

There is a bit of a semantic argument on "simplest" versus "least assumptions" but the thrust of it remains the same and both parties seem to agree with it. Adithya argues that god is an additional assumption and therefore his version is simpler. Lannan argues that the universe having a maker is a lesser assumption but he doesn't elaborate on why that is the case. I default to Adithya because Lannan is making the positive claim and so is making an assumption. Adithya explains it well with his teapot analogy. Going to Lannan's last round, he talks about the principal of parsimony and the theory behind Occam's razor but nowhere does he give me a reason why his positive assumption better meets the criteria for less assumptions. This is a pretty clear cut win for Adithya.

Overall, Lannan started strongly but once his points were refuted, his lack of addressing them, changing the topic, and going on tangents didn't serve him well. Beyond Round 2, his entire side of the debate was a haphazard mix of points that he barely tied back to the resolution. Adithya stayed relevant to the resolution and made sure to extend his refutations each round. I'm left convinced that whatever flaws he pointed out in Lannan's arguments are undefendable and Lannan did nothing to fix that damage. Lannan also gave Adithya far too easy a time with Occam's razor and arguing on Adithya's playing field and saying that his assumption of god fits Occam's razor better. But he does nothing to show why making a positive assumption is simpler than assuming the negative unless proven otherwise.

A very clear win for Con.

Now I'll go over Preston's RFD in my next post.

So thats not a small book??

The bolded explains what's wrong with your analysis of the vote removal. F-16 gave his RFD of the debate, then went on to explain what was wrong with your vote (which, oddly enough, wasn't actually posted by you? Odd...). That's like quoting bladerunner's 10-part RFD's as the "new standard", when votes like these go above the standard.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
Preston
Posts: 1,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 2:51:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 2:48:41 PM, Zaradi wrote:
For clarification, I think a few things need to be highlighted.

At 6/19/2015 2:45:50 PM, Preston wrote:
At 6/19/2015 2:40:53 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 6/19/2015 1:53:02 PM, TheChristian wrote:
At 6/19/2015 1:49:25 PM, Preston wrote:
If the DDO president had any power to influence this then this is how i would end up voting, whoever can maintain standards that are fair and encourage voting should win. I MISS when you didn't have to write a small book about your one vote. Currently there is no incentive to vote and there are decentives for voting such as losing voting rights.
I agree. When I first joined I think RFDs were optional. now, they are not only mandatory, but you have to write a book about one vote. It is completely unnecessary.

No you don't. All you have to do is sufficiently explain who won and why, and you need to use the arguments that were presented in the debate. Just saying "pro had better arguments" doesn't prove you read the debate and it doesn't help anyone get better.

really, because this is how i was told it should be done

At 6/8/2015 9:19:41 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Debate: God is existent (http://www.debate.org...)

Preston's second vote was on this debate "God is existent" between Lannan13 (Pro) and AdithyaShark (Con). I'll give my RFD first and then explain what's wrong with the vote that was removed.

My RFD:

This debate had 4 main issues of contention. Lannan's 3 arguments for god (Ontological, KCA, and Teleological) and Adithya's 1 argument against god (Occam's razor). I'll go over it one by one.

== Ontological Argument ==

Lannan starts off with what he says is the version defended by Platinga which goes along the lines of "It is possible that a maximally great being exists... a maximally great being exists." He also uses the argument that "If possibly necessarily P, then necessarily P" and argues that the only way to negate is to show that there is no possible way for god to exist.

Adithya refutes by arguing about epistemic and metaphysical possibility which easily casts a lot of doubt on the syllogism. Adithya's argument was that the word "possible" that Lannan is using in P2 to P5 is actually metaphysical possibililty and that Lannan hasn't justified using that in P1. The way Lannan's P1 was worded seems to imply that it is the common definition of "possible" and not the highly specific definition that he uses later in the syllogism. And if this highly specific definition was what Lannan meant to use in P1, he needs to explain it more than making a bare assertion. Adithya further argues that if you flip the argument, the reverse premise "it is possible for God to not exist" leads to the reverse conclusion "god doesn't exist."

So that's two separate issues with the argument. Lannan's response is a bit perplexing. He doesn't explain either issue. He asserts that "god will have to exist no matter what" and claims that it also refutes the reverse premise. He then elaborates on another syllogism this time written by Godel. As expected Adithya takes issue with this and argues that this is a new argument that violates the rules agreed upon during the start of the round and I'm inclined to agree. In any case, Lannan completely drops his own R2 argument so this impact is pretty clearly negated.

== Kalam Cosmological argument ==

Lannan starts off with "Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause." and defends it with laws of physics. So far so good. Adithya points out the issue here is that this argument begs the question - since Lannan is assuming that everything except for god that began to exist has a cause and god is the only one that is granted an exception. He also refutes the scientific evidence with mass-energy equivalence i.e. mass can be created from energy. Lannan responds with a recursive analysis that there must be one uncaused cause (the very first one) which Adithya refutes with by saying that just because there is an uncaused cause is no reason to believe that this was the cause of the universe. Lannan sort of drops this and instead argues about a zero-energy universe. I'm inclined to call this point a wash because both debaters get sidetracked from the resolution quite a bit but Adithya does just enough to cast doubt on Lannan's original argument under this point.

== Teleological argument ==

Probably Lannan's weakest argument "If teleology exists, then an ordering intellect exists. Teleology exists. Therefore, an ordering intellect exists." Adithya's response was compelling as he points out that ordering intellect doesn't meet the definition of god and is off-topic. Lannan's drops this entirely in the next round due to lack of character space but concedes Adithya's point that Teleos is subjective. Then he argues the ontological argument in its place. A point that easily goes to Adithya.

== Occam's razor ==

There is a bit of a semantic argument on "simplest" versus "least assumptions" but the thrust of it remains the same and both parties seem to agree with it. Adithya argues that god is an additional assumption and therefore his version is simpler. Lannan argues that the universe having a maker is a lesser assumption but he doesn't elaborate on why that is the case. I default to Adithya because Lannan is making the positive claim and so is making an assumption. Adithya explains it well with his teapot analogy. Going to Lannan's last round, he talks about the principal of parsimony and the theory behind Occam's razor but nowhere does he give me a reason why his positive assumption better meets the criteria for less assumptions. This is a pretty clear cut win for Adithya.

Overall, Lannan started strongly but once his points were refuted, his lack of addressing them, changing the topic, and going on tangents didn't serve him well. Beyond Round 2, his entire side of the debate was a haphazard mix of points that he barely tied back to the resolution. Adithya stayed relevant to the resolution and made sure to extend his refutations each round. I'm left convinced that whatever flaws he pointed out in Lannan's arguments are undefendable and Lannan did nothing to fix that damage. Lannan also gave Adithya far too easy a time with Occam's razor and arguing on Adithya's playing field and saying that his assumption of god fits Occam's razor better. But he does nothing to show why making a positive assumption is simpler than assuming the negative unless proven otherwise.

A very clear win for Con.

Now I'll go over Preston's RFD in my next post.

So thats not a small book??

The bolded explains what's wrong with your analysis of the vote removal. F-16 gave his RFD of the debate, then went on to explain what was wrong with your vote (which, oddly enough, wasn't actually posted by you? Odd...). That's like quoting bladerunner's 10-part RFD's as the "new standard", when votes like these go above the standard.

You obviously dont get why i posted this. This RFD meets the new standards, mine obviously didn't, no complaint there. Im stating that its too strict now, if I must write something like that to vote on anything.

If your not going to actually respond to the topic please don't quote me, i don't want to have to waste my time searching for a small point your trying to make.
"Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience." - George Carlin
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 2:52:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 2:51:37 PM, Preston wrote:
At 6/19/2015 2:48:41 PM, Zaradi wrote:
For clarification, I think a few things need to be highlighted.

At 6/19/2015 2:45:50 PM, Preston wrote:
At 6/19/2015 2:40:53 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 6/19/2015 1:53:02 PM, TheChristian wrote:
At 6/19/2015 1:49:25 PM, Preston wrote:
If the DDO president had any power to influence this then this is how i would end up voting, whoever can maintain standards that are fair and encourage voting should win. I MISS when you didn't have to write a small book about your one vote. Currently there is no incentive to vote and there are decentives for voting such as losing voting rights.
I agree. When I first joined I think RFDs were optional. now, they are not only mandatory, but you have to write a book about one vote. It is completely unnecessary.

No you don't. All you have to do is sufficiently explain who won and why, and you need to use the arguments that were presented in the debate. Just saying "pro had better arguments" doesn't prove you read the debate and it doesn't help anyone get better.

really, because this is how i was told it should be done

At 6/8/2015 9:19:41 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Debate: God is existent (http://www.debate.org...)

Preston's second vote was on this debate "God is existent" between Lannan13 (Pro) and AdithyaShark (Con). I'll give my RFD first and then explain what's wrong with the vote that was removed.

My RFD:

This debate had 4 main issues of contention. Lannan's 3 arguments for god (Ontological, KCA, and Teleological) and Adithya's 1 argument against god (Occam's razor). I'll go over it one by one.

== Ontological Argument ==

Lannan starts off with what he says is the version defended by Platinga which goes along the lines of "It is possible that a maximally great being exists... a maximally great being exists." He also uses the argument that "If possibly necessarily P, then necessarily P" and argues that the only way to negate is to show that there is no possible way for god to exist.

Adithya refutes by arguing about epistemic and metaphysical possibility which easily casts a lot of doubt on the syllogism. Adithya's argument was that the word "possible" that Lannan is using in P2 to P5 is actually metaphysical possibililty and that Lannan hasn't justified using that in P1. The way Lannan's P1 was worded seems to imply that it is the common definition of "possible" and not the highly specific definition that he uses later in the syllogism. And if this highly specific definition was what Lannan meant to use in P1, he needs to explain it more than making a bare assertion. Adithya further argues that if you flip the argument, the reverse premise "it is possible for God to not exist" leads to the reverse conclusion "god doesn't exist."

So that's two separate issues with the argument. Lannan's response is a bit perplexing. He doesn't explain either issue. He asserts that "god will have to exist no matter what" and claims that it also refutes the reverse premise. He then elaborates on another syllogism this time written by Godel. As expected Adithya takes issue with this and argues that this is a new argument that violates the rules agreed upon during the start of the round and I'm inclined to agree. In any case, Lannan completely drops his own R2 argument so this impact is pretty clearly negated.

== Kalam Cosmological argument ==

Lannan starts off with "Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause." and defends it with laws of physics. So far so good. Adithya points out the issue here is that this argument begs the question - since Lannan is assuming that everything except for god that began to exist has a cause and god is the only one that is granted an exception. He also refutes the scientific evidence with mass-energy equivalence i.e. mass can be created from energy. Lannan responds with a recursive analysis that there must be one uncaused cause (the very first one) which Adithya refutes with by saying that just because there is an uncaused cause is no reason to believe that this was the cause of the universe. Lannan sort of drops this and instead argues about a zero-energy universe. I'm inclined to call this point a wash because both debaters get sidetracked from the resolution quite a bit but Adithya does just enough to cast doubt on Lannan's original argument under this point.

== Teleological argument ==

Probably Lannan's weakest argument "If teleology exists, then an ordering intellect exists. Teleology exists. Therefore, an ordering intellect exists." Adithya's response was compelling as he points out that ordering intellect doesn't meet the definition of god and is off-topic. Lannan's drops this entirely in the next round due to lack of character space but concedes Adithya's point that Teleos is subjective. Then he argues the ontological argument in its place. A point that easily goes to Adithya.

== Occam's razor ==

There is a bit of a semantic argument on "simplest" versus "least assumptions" but the thrust of it remains the same and both parties seem to agree with it. Adithya argues that god is an additional assumption and therefore his version is simpler. Lannan argues that the universe having a maker is a lesser assumption but he doesn't elaborate on why that is the case. I default to Adithya because Lannan is making the positive claim and so is making an assumption. Adithya explains it well with his teapot analogy. Going to Lannan's last round, he talks about the principal of parsimony and the theory behind Occam's razor but nowhere does he give me a reason why his positive assumption better meets the criteria for less assumptions. This is a pretty clear cut win for Adithya.

Overall, Lannan started strongly but once his points were refuted, his lack of addressing them, changing the topic, and going on tangents didn't serve him well. Beyond Round 2, his entire side of the debate was a haphazard mix of points that he barely tied back to the resolution. Adithya stayed relevant to the resolution and made sure to extend his refutations each round. I'm left convinced that whatever flaws he pointed out in Lannan's arguments are undefendable and Lannan did nothing to fix that damage. Lannan also gave Adithya far too easy a time with Occam's razor and arguing on Adithya's playing field and saying that his assumption of god fits Occam's razor better. But he does nothing to show why making a positive assumption is simpler than assuming the negative unless proven otherwise.

A very clear win for Con.

Now I'll go over Preston's RFD in my next post.

So thats not a small book??

The bolded explains what's wrong with your analysis of the vote removal. F-16 gave his RFD of the debate, then went on to explain what was wrong with your vote (which, oddly enough, wasn't actually posted by you? Odd...). That's like quoting bladerunner's 10-part RFD's as the "new standard", when votes like these go above the standard.

You obviously dont get why i posted this. This RFD meets the new standards, mine obviously didn't, no complaint there. Im stating that its too strict now, if I must write something like that to vote on anything.

If your not going to actually respond to the topic please don't quote me, i don't want to have to waste my time searching for a small point your trying to make.

To restate myself then, F-16's votes go well above the stand
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 2:53:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 2:51:37 PM, Preston wrote:

You obviously dont get why i posted this. This RFD meets the new standards, mine obviously didn't, no complaint there. Im stating that its too strict now, if I must write something like that to vote on anything.

If your not going to actually respond to the topic please don't quote me, i don't want to have to waste my time searching for a small point your trying to make.

Sorry, my response cut out due to lack of characters.

To restate myself, F-16's votes go well above the standard of what's considered a "passable" vote. Just stating his RFD as the "standard" is ignorant of what the standard is.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
Preston
Posts: 1,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 2:57:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 2:52:44 PM, Zaradi wrote:
To restate myself then, F-16's votes go well above the stand

sry cutting down the post (obvious reasons) You have to be specific, my vote was removed for generalization, I dont see it possible to write a specific vote without using a small story, and I have also been informed we must give advice. This isn't an RFD, this is an advisory. We are 100% right in saying it is stricter, we feel it shouldn't have changed so drastically, also after leaving for almost a year, i would have appreciated this being msged to me or having it pinned on the forums, or something.
"Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience." - George Carlin
Preston
Posts: 1,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 2:57:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 2:53:56 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 6/19/2015 2:51:37 PM, Preston wrote:

You obviously dont get why i posted this. This RFD meets the new standards, mine obviously didn't, no complaint there. Im stating that its too strict now, if I must write something like that to vote on anything.

If your not going to actually respond to the topic please don't quote me, i don't want to have to waste my time searching for a small point your trying to make.

Sorry, my response cut out due to lack of characters.

To restate myself, F-16's votes go well above the standard of what's considered a "passable" vote. Just stating his RFD as the "standard" is ignorant of what the standard is.

hahaha no thats fine, i understand after his RFD
"Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience." - George Carlin
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 3:04:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 2:57:21 PM, Preston wrote:
At 6/19/2015 2:52:44 PM, Zaradi wrote:
To restate myself then, F-16's votes go well above the stand

sry cutting down the post (obvious reasons) You have to be specific, my vote was removed for generalization,

Could you continue F-16's critique of your RFD? Or at least share the link where I could see it for myself?

I dont see it possible to write a specific vote without using a small story, and I have also been informed we must give advice. This isn't an RFD, this is an advisory. We are 100% right in saying it is stricter, we feel it shouldn't have changed so drastically, also after leaving for almost a year, i would have appreciated this being msged to me or having it pinned on the forums, or something.

I feel like this is where we're going to disagree majorly and this could be a discussion for a different thread or PMs if you'd rather discuss this privately (couldn't care less, publicly could be good to involve more people), but this is really a clash over more votes covering less against less votes covering more. I feel like as a site if we want to encourage more in-depth discussion and higher-quality debates, then debaters want good feedback on their performances to encourage them to continue performing these debates and give them ways to improve, thus improving the quality of debates. As such, I feel like encouraging higher-quality votes that go further in depth is where we as a site should be encouraging voters to do, rather than relaxing the standard. I can certainly sympathize with the effort that goes into making these kinds of votes, but, at least from my personal perspective, if two debaters are going to go all-out and put everything they have into making a stellar debate, it's my obligation as a judge to at least match that effort, if not surpass it to ensure that any and all questions and concerns are answered and I make the best vote that I can.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 3:11:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Just use "select winner" voting instead.

Agreed!
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Varrack
Posts: 2,410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 3:12:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 2:45:50 PM, Preston wrote:
At 6/19/2015 2:40:53 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 6/19/2015 1:53:02 PM, TheChristian wrote:
At 6/19/2015 1:49:25 PM, Preston wrote:
If the DDO president had any power to influence this then this is how i would end up voting, whoever can maintain standards that are fair and encourage voting should win. I MISS when you didn't have to write a small book about your one vote. Currently there is no incentive to vote and there are decentives for voting such as losing voting rights.
I agree. When I first joined I think RFDs were optional. now, they are not only mandatory, but you have to write a book about one vote. It is completely unnecessary.

No you don't. All you have to do is sufficiently explain who won and why, and you need to use the arguments that were presented in the debate. Just saying "pro had better arguments" doesn't prove you read the debate and it doesn't help anyone get better.

really, because this is how i was told it should be done

At 6/8/2015 9:19:41 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Debate: God is existent (http://www.debate.org...)

Preston's second vote was on this debate "God is existent" between Lannan13 (Pro) and AdithyaShark (Con). I'll give my RFD first and then explain what's wrong with the vote that was removed.

My RFD:

This debate had 4 main issues of contention. Lannan's 3 arguments for god (Ontological, KCA, and Teleological) and Adithya's 1 argument against god (Occam's razor). I'll go over it one by one.

== Ontological Argument ==

Lannan starts off with what he says is the version defended by Platinga which goes along the lines of "It is possible that a maximally great being exists... a maximally great being exists." He also uses the argument that "If possibly necessarily P, then necessarily P" and argues that the only way to negate is to show that there is no possible way for god to exist.

Adithya refutes by arguing about epistemic and metaphysical possibility which easily casts a lot of doubt on the syllogism. Adithya's argument was that the word "possible" that Lannan is using in P2 to P5 is actually metaphysical possibililty and that Lannan hasn't justified using that in P1. The way Lannan's P1 was worded seems to imply that it is the common definition of "possible" and not the highly specific definition that he uses later in the syllogism. And if this highly specific definition was what Lannan meant to use in P1, he needs to explain it more than making a bare assertion. Adithya further argues that if you flip the argument, the reverse premise "it is possible for God to not exist" leads to the reverse conclusion "god doesn't exist."

So that's two separate issues with the argument. Lannan's response is a bit perplexing. He doesn't explain either issue. He asserts that "god will have to exist no matter what" and claims that it also refutes the reverse premise. He then elaborates on another syllogism this time written by Godel. As expected Adithya takes issue with this and argues that this is a new argument that violates the rules agreed upon during the start of the round and I'm inclined to agree. In any case, Lannan completely drops his own R2 argument so this impact is pretty clearly negated.

== Kalam Cosmological argument ==

Lannan starts off with "Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause." and defends it with laws of physics. So far so good. Adithya points out the issue here is that this argument begs the question - since Lannan is assuming that everything except for god that began to exist has a cause and god is the only one that is granted an exception. He also refutes the scientific evidence with mass-energy equivalence i.e. mass can be created from energy. Lannan responds with a recursive analysis that there must be one uncaused cause (the very first one) which Adithya refutes with by saying that just because there is an uncaused cause is no reason to believe that this was the cause of the universe. Lannan sort of drops this and instead argues about a zero-energy universe. I'm inclined to call this point a wash because both debaters get sidetracked from the resolution quite a bit but Adithya does just enough to cast doubt on Lannan's original argument under this point.

== Teleological argument ==

Probably Lannan's weakest argument "If teleology exists, then an ordering intellect exists. Teleology exists. Therefore, an ordering intellect exists." Adithya's response was compelling as he points out that ordering intellect doesn't meet the definition of god and is off-topic. Lannan's drops this entirely in the next round due to lack of character space but concedes Adithya's point that Teleos is subjective. Then he argues the ontological argument in its place. A point that easily goes to Adithya.

== Occam's razor ==

There is a bit of a semantic argument on "simplest" versus "least assumptions" but the thrust of it remains the same and both parties seem to agree with it. Adithya argues that god is an additional assumption and therefore his version is simpler. Lannan argues that the universe having a maker is a lesser assumption but he doesn't elaborate on why that is the case. I default to Adithya because Lannan is making the positive claim and so is making an assumption. Adithya explains it well with his teapot analogy. Going to Lannan's last round, he talks about the principal of parsimony and the theory behind Occam's razor but nowhere does he give me a reason why his positive assumption better meets the criteria for less assumptions. This is a pretty clear cut win for Adithya.

Overall, Lannan started strongly but once his points were refuted, his lack of addressing them, changing the topic, and going on tangents didn't serve him well. Beyond Round 2, his entire side of the debate was a haphazard mix of points that he barely tied back to the resolution. Adithya stayed relevant to the resolution and made sure to extend his refutations each round. I'm left convinced that whatever flaws he pointed out in Lannan's arguments are undefendable and Lannan did nothing to fix that damage. Lannan also gave Adithya far too easy a time with Occam's razor and arguing on Adithya's playing field and saying that his assumption of god fits Occam's razor better. But he does nothing to show why making a positive assumption is simpler than assuming the negative unless proven otherwise.

A very clear win for Con.

Now I'll go over Preston's RFD in my next post.

So thats not a small book??

Your vote doesn't have to be like that. All you have to do is show why one person's arguments were superior to the other's arguments. If your RFD can by copy/pasted to any debate and make sense, then it's too general.
Preston
Posts: 1,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2015 1:39:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 3:12:51 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 6/19/2015 2:45:50 PM, Preston wrote:
At 6/19/2015 2:40:53 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 6/19/2015 1:53:02 PM, TheChristian wrote:
At 6/19/2015 1:49:25 PM, Preston wrote:
If the DDO president had any power to influence this then this is how i would end up voting, whoever can maintain standards that are fair and encourage voting should win. I MISS when you didn't have to write a small book about your one vote. Currently there is no incentive to vote and there are decentives for voting such as losing voting rights.
I agree. When I first joined I think RFDs were optional. now, they are not only mandatory, but you have to write a book about one vote. It is completely unnecessary.

No you don't. All you have to do is sufficiently explain who won and why, and you need to use the arguments that were presented in the debate. Just saying "pro had better arguments" doesn't prove you read the debate and it doesn't help anyone get better.

really, because this is how i was told it should be done

At 6/8/2015 9:19:41 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Debate: God is existent (http://www.debate.org...)

Preston's second vote was on this debate "God is existent" between Lannan13 (Pro) and AdithyaShark (Con). I'll give my RFD first and then explain what's wrong with the vote that was removed.

My RFD:

This debate had 4 main issues of contention. Lannan's 3 arguments for god (Ontological, KCA, and Teleological) and Adithya's 1 argument against god (Occam's razor). I'll go over it one by one.

== Ontological Argument ==

Lannan starts off with what he says is the version defended by Platinga which goes along the lines of "It is possible that a maximally great being exists... a maximally great being exists." He also uses the argument that "If possibly necessarily P, then necessarily P" and argues that the only way to negate is to show that there is no possible way for god to exist.

Adithya refutes by arguing about epistemic and metaphysical possibility which easily casts a lot of doubt on the syllogism. Adithya's argument was that the word "possible" that Lannan is using in P2 to P5 is actually metaphysical possibililty and that Lannan hasn't justified using that in P1. The way Lannan's P1 was worded seems to imply that it is the common definition of "possible" and not the highly specific definition that he uses later in the syllogism. And if this highly specific definition was what Lannan meant to use in P1, he needs to explain it more than making a bare assertion. Adithya further argues that if you flip the argument, the reverse premise "it is possible for God to not exist" leads to the reverse conclusion "god doesn't exist."

So that's two separate issues with the argument. Lannan's response is a bit perplexing. He doesn't explain either issue. He asserts that "god will have to exist no matter what" and claims that it also refutes the reverse premise. He then elaborates on another syllogism this time written by Godel. As expected Adithya takes issue with this and argues that this is a new argument that violates the rules agreed upon during the start of the round and I'm inclined to agree. In any case, Lannan completely drops his own R2 argument so this impact is pretty clearly negated.

== Kalam Cosmological argument ==

Lannan starts off with "Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause." and defends it with laws of physics. So far so good. Adithya points out the issue here is that this argument begs the question - since Lannan is assuming that everything except for god that began to exist has a cause and god is the only one that is granted an exception. He also refutes the scientific evidence with mass-energy equivalence i.e. mass can be created from energy. Lannan responds with a recursive analysis that there must be one uncaused cause (the very first one) which Adithya refutes with by saying that just because there is an uncaused cause is no reason to believe that this was the cause of the universe. Lannan sort of drops this and instead argues about a zero-energy universe. I'm inclined to call this point a wash because both debaters get sidetracked from the resolution quite a bit but Adithya does just enough to cast doubt on Lannan's original argument under this point.

== Teleological argument ==

Probably Lannan's weakest argument "If teleology exists, then an ordering intellect exists. Teleology exists. Therefore, an ordering intellect exists." Adithya's response was compelling as he points out that ordering intellect doesn't meet the definition of god and is off-topic. Lannan's drops this entirely in the next round due to lack of character space but concedes Adithya's point that Teleos is subjective. Then he argues the ontological argument in its place. A point that easily goes to Adithya.

== Occam's razor ==

There is a bit of a semantic argument on "simplest" versus "least assumptions" but the thrust of it remains the same and both parties seem to agree with it. Adithya argues that god is an additional assumption and therefore his version is simpler. Lannan argues that the universe having a maker is a lesser assumption but he doesn't elaborate on why that is the case. I default to Adithya because Lannan is making the positive claim and so is making an assumption. Adithya explains it well with his teapot analogy. Going to Lannan's last round, he talks about the principal of parsimony and the theory behind Occam's razor but nowhere does he give me a reason why his positive assumption better meets the criteria for less assumptions. This is a pretty clear cut win for Adithya.

Overall, Lannan started strongly but once his points were refuted, his lack of addressing them, changing the topic, and going on tangents didn't serve him well. Beyond Round 2, his entire side of the debate was a haphazard mix of points that he barely tied back to the resolution. Adithya stayed relevant to the resolution and made sure to extend his refutations each round. I'm left convinced that whatever flaws he pointed out in Lannan's arguments are undefendable and Lannan did nothing to fix that damage. Lannan also gave Adithya far too easy a time with Occam's razor and arguing on Adithya's playing field and saying that his assumption of god fits Occam's razor better. But he does nothing to show why making a positive assumption is simpler than assuming the negative unless proven otherwise.

A very clear win for Con.

Now I'll go over Preston's RFD in my next post.

So thats not a small book??

Your vote doesn't have to be like that. All you have to do is show why one person's arguments were superior to the other's arguments. If your RFD can by copy/pasted to any debate and make sense, then it's too general.

Ultimately you are incorrect, they want comprehensive feedback to better the debators, that are not general in weighting argumentation, instead they must specify why everything out weighs in detail.
"Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience." - George Carlin
Varrack
Posts: 2,410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2015 1:43:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2015 1:39:13 PM, Preston wrote:

Ultimately you are incorrect, they want comprehensive feedback to better the debators, that are not general in weighting argumentation, instead they must specify why everything out weighs in detail.

They're not going to remove it if you don't talk about every point made in the debate.
Preston
Posts: 1,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2015 8:41:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2015 1:43:02 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 6/20/2015 1:39:13 PM, Preston wrote:

Ultimately you are incorrect, they want comprehensive feedback to better the debators, that are not general in weighting argumentation, instead they must specify why everything out weighs in detail.

They're not going to remove it if you don't talk about every point made in the debate.

The new standard requires you weigh their contentions if you vote on argumentation.
"Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience." - George Carlin
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2015 1:37:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
As someone who outright disagrees with the new standards for several reasons, I firmly believe they are infinitely better than the days of no RFDs required.
Unofficial DDO Guide: http://goo.gl...
(It's probably the best help resource here, other than talking to people...)

Voting Standards: https://goo.gl...

And please disable Smart-Quotes: https://goo.gl...
Preston
Posts: 1,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 8:57:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/21/2015 1:37:29 PM, Ragnar wrote:
As someone who outright disagrees with the new standards for several reasons, I firmly believe they are infinitely better than the days of no RFDs required.

No RFD req is to lax, these Req are too strict tho, when i started on they wanted RFDs but wouldnt punish you for doing it wrong.
"Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience." - George Carlin
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 11:52:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/21/2015 1:37:29 PM, Ragnar wrote:
As someone who outright disagrees with the new standards for several reasons, I firmly believe they are infinitely better than the days of no RFDs required.

Much better
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen