I think i understand now, you want a side by side comparison.
Ok, i can do that.
Instigator lists in his OS or #1 the objectiveness and the reliability of the Si system to U.s. imperial/custom system, he shows the ease that the Si system has.
None of which i find fault in.
However he lists out the amount of financial drain and loss of life due to inaccurate conversions.
Contender then explains the history of the u.s. imperial/customary system, he explains that "there has been no great push for decades." And how instigator has not weighed the costs of conversion, a good example being in road signs.
He concludes "but the will of the people is insufficient to undertake such a burdensome task."
R2 Instigator mentions the DOSAR"Part Number: 611 #5 i ii and iii but does not show the power of the exceptions of i ii and iii respectively which as the "adventageous" ness, is clearly applied.
He then cites examples of HOW u.s. can change policy. Concerning these examples i do not weigh in favor as they speak to ability to change, not WHY to change.
Contender points out the application of changes from an SI system where it was originally measured as "The gram was originally tied to the mass of water until 2019" he also correctly points out the sources do not necessarly add money appropriately to gdp and goes over mistakes of SI usage in links.
The conclusion is the air drops and australian stuff isnt weighed as it was about U.S. system conversion.
I do believe instigator mentioned Contenders points, but only vaguely and in passing.
All in all i weighed contenders arguements to be more substantial, logical and accessible to U.S.
Is that better?
You almost got it. Yes, i hold descriptions as bop and the rules of a debate.
So if a person says "dont mention cookies" in a description and either side does, i consider that a failure.
In a similar way, contender reinterpreted what instigator says.
If it were backwards, id still vote a tie.
I do recommend mal to have a different description though!
How do you weigh that this isnt a troll debate?
Set forth the standards for how you weigh it clearly.
I cannot weigh points logically based on a fallacy.
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
Tell.me plainly and clearly which ones i failed and how.
For my sanity sake i recommend you do it like this.
#1: succeeded/failed and why
Etc. I will assume numbers based on order of 4 on voting rubric.
Yet again, i have to explain i determine bop in descriptions. Do you see anywhere in descriptions of what either is trying to prove when they say agnosticism is more rational than atheism? No.
Con failed description and attempted to rewrite it. Description says do not reinterpret, he reinterpreted.
"An agnostic is not an atheist, an atheist is not a theist." Instigator said in OS (opening statement) or #1.
Contender says in his OS or #2 "So when we talk about dis-believing in something we aren't saying that the thing doesn't exist; Atheism partially embodies agnosticism that way."
To partially embody sounds like they are SIMILAR.
You need to tell me im wrong in saying the bop is in description. Otherwise i cant be more clear.
Just because someone defined some terms, doesnt tell me what the bop is.
I saw you use phrase "head to toe" either you edited it out to gas light me or i had a seizure,cause literally no one else used that phrase either. I expect a moderator to have better conduct than this.
Now. Based on 4 of voting rubric.
"Votes solely based on relative strength of arguments made in the debate, and analysis of these arguments by the debaters, including relevant responses and weighing analysis."
Which i did, i told how i weighed them, i compared the links to tell what i weighed.
"Explains why the arguments analyzed are enough to determine the outcome, not ignoring key arguments that could change the outcome."
Which i did, i weighed the cost/benefit and even shown the LACK of information about positive monetary gain.
"Displays neutrality, making clear that any personal opinions mentioned do not affect how arguments are weighed."
No one has said i didnt do this. I make extra sure to explain that it was the content of the debate.
"Votes based on the scope set by the debate resolution and rules."
Did that, used description as bop to be defended or proved wrong.
"If disagreeing with the debate's framing, the voter clearly establishes why their interpretation is more faithful and how it influences their vote."
I didnt disagree with framing, i had to define policy though....
So which one of these whiteflame do you say i didnt meet? #1 or #2, because there is no evidence i fell short of #3, #4 or #5.
I did. Is it not showing that i did? Thats how come i mentioned to you in the forum how i think the quiz should have 15-25 questions once a month. You said once a month is over kill. And i basically affirmed that and said there should be more than 5 questions.
You asked, ill tell you.
"What, in your estimation, was required? How did they fall short? That's what I need to see."
I evaluated the SCRIPTURE evidence of the bible. There was ONLY biblical mention of the DAYS.
Evolution theory was NOT clearly explained for me to consider what form of evolution they were referring to. I had to work with what i was given, and NEITHER side defined it THROUGH BIBLE. Faux used charles darwin and you can say i have bad comprehension, but that Isnt bible. There is no phrase of "Natural law" in the bible that i found in the arguements. The Instigator never defined it biblically except as evidenced by Days, which in the context of debate is from genesis chapter 1-3 in consideration od "days" . The Contender used NON Biblical sources in an attempt to define it.
That being said, i had to go off of what the bop is, and i have to weigh if either side proved that days are theistic evolution.
The other mentionings on data basically just fall into the abyss, the focus of the debate and what is the main point ad Biblically indicated is the arguements over Days.
Just because i hold the bop to be the description, doesnt mean i have to consider the arguements that are off topic of the bop required, they are misnomers.
And as i mentioned in my vote, the definition of hebrew word for yo-wm was not discussed in the link contender provided. I was LITERALLY lost in the dark on how ro determine who may or may not have defined evolution biblically because neither side show me by arguement or links, what the heck they consider theistic evolution as the bible says. So i weighed the debate primarily around yo-mw or days, and neither side proved that yo-wm indicated ANY form of evolution, and that death may or may not have been involved in creation.
What do you want anaylsis over? And how do i meet YOUR expectation of analysis? Do i have to say contender had more comprehensive links describing the net negatives of si change?
Do i have to explain to you how the arguements weighed by instigator fall short in reconciling the positive advantages of si change by not introducing enough support through fiscial and public means?
Do i have to just flat out say more people in america dont want to change to an si system based on evidence given?
You tell me to analyze, you dont tell me what weighing you expect of me. You simply say my analysis is a "head to toe" whatever that means, and
"but that I'm still unclear how much weight the voter believes Pro's argument even has by the end of it. The voter only states the conclusion without stating how he got there."
So you dont understand my method, you dont know how i weigh arguements, i would argue that that is NORMAL, people will weigh arguements differently, unless you spell it out in the policy what weights i need to include, and set a generic comprehension test, you will.probably never understand how i weigh them.
But to sum it up. I will say this. I weighed the reasoning based on the following.
1:public opinion as introduced by both links.
2: consideration of monetary/fiscal advantages or lack thereof
3: amount of effort that would sustain the concept.
4: definitions of what is introduced in the subject, due to lack of definitions in desceiption.
5: cohesiveness of logic in the flow of the arguements.
Which, i again, say isnt necessary for mods to know in determining the removal of a vote. They need only know that i DID analyze it and that it is CLEARLY evident i took time to read and weigh the debate.
1: unfortunately, yes, this is the only way i can call out a vote as the report doesnt work for me. Unless you are mentioning going to forums and declaring it or sending a private message? To which ill point out, no other mod has told anyone else to not call out publically.
2: if anyone can determine the burden of proof aside from description, then the voting process is inheriently flawed, there must be a clear standard of determining burden of proof. And it is often done in the descriptions, and almost always has been done so. If you refuse to acknowledge that, then YOU need to tell us where and how the bop is defined, or tell airmax to make a policy concerning it. You have a job on enforcing and making rules clear.
Its very clear to me that the debate is about money, because i hold the description as the medium to determine the burden of proof. Or at least indicate that it is. This laize fare mindset about how to debate needs to stop, make a clear objective standard, and until then, expect to keep removing votes because of it.
I now have doubt as to the weights you as head mod and other moderators use in determining votes, i will not press this until a policy change is initiated.
Remove fauxlaw vote as he assumed the burden of proof based on opening instead of description.
Description clearly indicates bop must include money, and he cannot in good faith vote con or pro as neither told of monetary or fiscal value.
This isnt an algebra problem where i have to show my work. According to outdated voting policy, i have to weigh the arguements. The voting policy doesnt requirement to go over every link, point or rebuttal in order to make a comprehensive vote.
If i am making a weight, i can simply describe the errors, failing or lack of attention to 1 side. I need not have to address another side to say it is correct when i list the incorrect.
"A sufficient vote is one which explains why the voter regarded one debater as excelling beyond the other within any metric they award."
I explained the failings of instigator, which is a sufficient weight in comparison to contender.
I said very clearly at the end i weighed based on benefits. It can be assumed by my description of the failings of instigator that i regarded the contrast of the contender.
"Any vote must indicate two things about the voter:
That they personally read at least the main points, and
That they are the voting based on the content inside the debate"
"Weighing entails analyzing the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments and their impacts against another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole."
To which i have sufficiently done. Just cause you dont seem to understand why i reached my conclusion, doesnt mean you can remove my vote.
In my vote i very clearly compared the numerical values in all the links mentioned (in reference to U.S) and it is in the links themselves to consider cost/risk analysis of conversion to si/metric system.
I recommend you and another mod re weigh my vote in light of this context. I suspect you have personal difficulty in assertaining my weighing and explanations.
The burden of proof is in description. Neither side gave enough evidence to prove or disprove theistic evolution.
I weighed the points as mentioned below. Neither side used BIBLE to prove or disprove evolution. Neither of them proved evolution from scripture, they just argued about days and light.
The reason i say contender is just textual filibustering is because he used derogatory language and didnt use bible as source for alot of the debate.
I call for reinstatement of my vote before timer expires or i will ask for mod and admin to consider this.
Also.i do not hold to standard of debateart voting policy as airmax is creator of debatecraft. I will not submit to that voting policy until it is revised and made more usable for debatecraft
https://www.debatecraft.com/debates/d/2l/does-the-bible-teach-a-flat-earth
#8 y.a
Be mindful of disruptive banter fauxlaw has instigated in his debates with somedebateperson. I weighed the arguements fairly based on compatability with the bible.
The pointing out of the definiton of yomw did not contribute to my judgement as neither side mentioned it, i simply mentioned it as to point it out.
The sources by charles darwin i weighed as secondary compared to main source as bibl
If you check previous debate over flat earth, you will see evidence of disrubtive banter there as well. I will included edit to show which rounds they bleed through in this comment.
#8 and x.a will? In debate.
Your personal experience doesnt define which countries are "american" if you feel my vote was invalid, let @david or other mods know!
Anytime! If you feel my vote failed to meet standards just @david or other mods for review!
Im like faux when it comes to definitions and stuff.
I will follow these 3 rules in my arguements.
1: kjv bible only, no outside sources, no commentaries, no lexicons to define words, i may use bible hub for clarity in scripture, but it is assumed the definitions are debatable.
2: i will use multiple scriptures to affirm/defend concept of rapture AS IT IS IN CONTEXT OF KJV BIBLE, NEW AND OLD TESTAMENT.
3: The definitions you set forth in opening statement i will agree with, the perimeters of how to interpret scripture, or what lens you read the bible (is it inerrant, historical, metaphorical) i leave to you to determine in your opening statement, and i will abide by any rules you set forth in your opening statement as long as it doesnt violate 1 and 2.
Description said american. There is a north and south america. Not just united states.
Be mindful of description.
Just because it says phrase "right to bear arms" doesnt mean its united states.
..... canada has more bears than other countries in the americas.
Oneness theology at best,
Or it may devolve into unitarianism or modalism
Sure. I might be slow, but ill show how the rapture is supported in the bible using exegesis, hermaneutics and linguistically!
