>Reported Vote: Savant // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: https://www.debatecraft.com/debates/vote-rubric
>Voted for: tie
>Reason for Decision: other
>Reason for Mod Action:
---Savant's former vote---
Voted for: tie
Forfeit
>Reported Vote: SergeantLynch // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: https://www.debatecraft.com/debates/vote-rubric
>Voted for: tie
>Reason for Decision: other
>Reason for Mod Action:
Request
---SergeantLynch's former vote---
Voted for: tie
Well, in my opinion the proposition was an open contradiction and therefore self defeating, and all Con needed was to highlight this flaw, which they did briefly, though it's always a pity when rounds and opportunities are forfeited...I also thought that Pro's argument was unclear and often supported the Con position...So in this instance Con edges it, but only just.
All votes are appreciated!
Well if the Meowist holds the belief "I should vote based on foundational beliefs of the debaters even if they don't match my own beliefs," then it doesn't matter what other foundational beliefs they are. And even if they don't, the mods might still remove their vote for just voting on the basis of their own foundational beliefs. (Although in this case they might be able to argue that I invited that, though it wasn't really my intent.)
I think voters are usually bound to vote as if stuff both debaters agree on is true. Of course, if their foundational belief is that rules don't matter, they might not care.
Well I think I said shared foundational beliefs means I have to share it too. I kind of treated it as both of us implicitly sharing it or it being in the debate description.
Please vote if you get the chance!
Can you add something to the description saying it's not a troll debate and votes are subject to moderation?
Tbh I don't like relying on the countervote system. Maybe I would have voted for Con but it counts the same either way. And relying on the judgment of whoever decides to countervote isn't ideal.
Thanks for voting!
Thanks for voting WF, and I agree that Greatful did a very good job here.
Sounds good, thank you!
22 hours left to vote! Well, after that voting will still be open until we get a third vote, but anyone could jump in as the third and then voting would end.
Probably. I'm down much of the time, depends on my schedule though. Greatful and SatanLucy might be down.
They're doable. You're challenging me?
Yeah, that does happen a bit.
Even if these stand (which is fine), I think there should probably be a line somewhere. Like if someone's vote is "this is revenge for a vote on another debate" or multi accounting.
Okay, I reported it. Although if you do remove it, remove SL's countervote as well.
If I do another one of these, I will probably just add something to the description explicitly saying votes are open to moderation.
It's my understanding that rap battles like these don't typically moderate votes, but does that mean there's no bar or the bar is just lower? The description states "voters should make it clear that they referenced the annotations," but how enforceable is that?
>Reported Vote: SomeDebatePerson // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: https://www.debatecraft.com/debates/vote-rubric
>Voted for: con
>Reason for Decision: fails-to-analyze
>Reason for Mod Action:
This vote only refers to bad arguments in the abstract, rather than referring to specific arguments and explaining how the other side refuted them.
---SomeDebatePerson's former vote---
Voted for: con
Pro seemed to use a lot of fallacies and bad analogies. Pro used bad evidence and drew the wrong conclusions. Con was able to find these flaws in Pro’s argumenr. Overall, the debate was not based on facts or data and just opinions. Pro just kept bringing up unrelated points and just thinks whatever is less painful is better.
Thank you for voting. Out of curiosity, can you elaborate a bit on what you liked/didn't like (i.e. what made my rap come across as a freestyle poem?) Votes on these aren't moderated, so up to you if you want to elaborate. Just curious.
Okay, I changed it for you. For future reference, you should be able to edit it yourself.
Based on the way this is phrased and who you are challenging, I assume you intended to be on Side B/the Con side?
All right, no worries.
Ok fine, I guess I overreacted. I just saw it that way because the things you were discussing were similar to what SatanLucy indicated was going to influence his vote.
Come on dude, you're clearly trying to sway a voter at this point outside of the arguments proper.
