whiteflame

Oops, quite right.

I'm just impressed with the extent of your due diligence here. Really appreciate your taking the time!

Haven't had the time to dig back into this over the last few days. I'll be getting into it next week.

Damn that's a big vote. You clearly did a mess of work going through this debate. I appreciate your voting!

The time scale is the main question, not so much whether what’s mentioned as effects of climate change could happen. It’s hard to predict when it will happen, though, so I get your point.

I’ll keep it simple:

Global warming? Happening and a growing problem.
Cutting emissions? Necessary, but almost certainly insufficient at this point.
Geoengineering? Probably necessary, but has to be carefully managed, tested, and controlled. Full speed ahead causes way more problems than it solves.

At last, I'm assigned to vote on this debate. Going to have to read back through the whole thing, but I'll get a vote up on this one in the next couple of days.

I'll be voting here next, guys. Hopefully have something up tomorrow.

I'm voting on this debate next. Should have something up tomorrow.

Now that the game of Mafia's over, I've got the time. I'll be working on catching up on the Ultrarated debates over the next few days.

Only skimmed it so far, but I appreciate the vote! Probably won’t agree on all of it, but it’s clear you did the work going through it.

News to me. Something to consider for future changes.

It's a bit complicated.

Go to your account. You'll see a bar up top that, on the far right, says "Badges", click that. It'll bring you to a page with a button that says "Find a Debate to Judge". It will randomly assign you as a judge to one of the Ultrarated debates that still needs a vote. If it's not this one, just go back to this page and try again. You are not required to vote on every debate you are assigned to, there is no penalty for letting the 3 day period run out.

I'll work on it.

That wasn’t my impression when I read your opening. You clearly did your research here, but there’s always more to do.

I'll work on this in earnest after I've posted this next round.

>Reported Vote: Kohai // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: https://www.debatecraft.com/debates/vote-rubric
>Voted for: pro
>Reason for Decision: doesnt-vote-basis-arguments
>Reason for Mod Action:
Generally speaking, if your RFD requires delving into the comments, it's going to be a little problematic. Decisions have to be based on points made within the debate and not drawn from material posted outside of it. I also think you need to at least talk about arguments presented by both sides, even if it's just to point out how they're insufficient to affirm/negate.

---Kohai's former vote---
Voted for: pro
This is unfortuantely a trap debate with no way for con to actually win. The burden of proof is for con to prove to pro that cigarettes are not their best friend. In the comment section, they stated "thats okay, I read your argument. I am not convinced." Which means that pro automatically wins. Essentially no matter how good con's arguments are they would always lose because pro would simply say they were not convinced.

>Reported Vote: Isabella // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: https://www.debatecraft.com/debates/vote-rubric
>Voted for: con
>Reason for Decision: too-vague
>Reason for Mod Action:
Votes must include specific analysis of arguments presented by both sides. Saying that one side's points were "well written" or "explained" is not sufficient since it doesn't analyze the content of either side's arguments - even points that are better written or explained may not be the strongest in the debate.

---Isabella's former vote---
Voted for: con
The argument was well written and explained compared to the other one.

Going to have to get caught up on reading this one soon!

All good, I know they’ll be your arguments. Don’t have a problem with you drawing sources from AI, but I appreciate the disclosure.

Damn, that preview feature for these posts looks very different from the end result. Sorry about the spacing on this one.

I've got thoughts on how this resolution balances that I can discuss later, but suffice it to say that similar resolutions are common in LD debate, and I think in part that's because it has so much good ground for both sides.

Interesting, look forward to this one.

Nice, one of my topics. Yes, it's science and no, I'm not apologizing.

Ooh, definitely watching this one.

Honestly don't care about the elo here, so that's not an issue. I do appreciate you voting.

Thanks for voting!

Can't say I agree with that framing, but I don't really have anything else to add that wouldn't be getting further into the same arguments I made in the debate or just mentioning what Con didn't address, so I'll stop here. I appreciate the vote despite my disagreements.