If that's not the basis for removing your vote (note: it isn't), there's no point in having a debate over it, nor is that the standard for vote removals on the site. If you want to try and make it policy, argue your case in the forums.
I'm not debating the veracity of the arguments you made in your vote, nor is it relevant to the removal of your vote. I'm pointing out that their imposition on the debate violates site rules for voting (see the "Based on Outside Content" section: https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#based-on-outside-content). That is relevant. If you have an argument for why your vote doesn't violate the voting standards for this site, please, provide it.
Whatever your opinion of the voting system, you are still required to abide by it if you wish to cast a vote.
You aren't required to award points in order to give feedback to the debaters, but if you do wish to award points, then yes, you need to consider points the other side did not touch even if they are objectively false. You can call them out on it, but inserting your own arguments in places Con fell short is not a viable alternative. Pro never gets a chance to respond to you. If you want to award points here based on Pro not meeting his BOP, then that should appear in your RFD. I didn't even see you mention BOP.
I didn't penalize you for knowing more than the debaters. I removed your vote because you are effectively putting your finger on the scale for Con's side of the debate, granting him answers to Pro's arguments, in order to award him the win. If you want to inform the debaters and explain where you feel their arguments are lacking, you are entirely welcome to do so. You can post in the comments or add to your RFD with notes on what the debaters did wrong in your estimation. You are, however, not allowed effectively include arguments you wish someone had made in the debate as a means of awarding it to the side you think should have won.
The rules for voting are relatively consistent between the two sites, yes. If you think it's a joke that you're required to assess the arguments as given in the debate and not impose your own, that's a different story.
<p>>Reported Vote: MasterDestroyer // Mod action: Removed</p>
<p>>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy</p>
<p>>Voted for: con</p>
<p>>Reason for Decision: bias-influences-decision</p>
<p>>Reason for Mod Action:</p>
<p>The voter appears to be inserting quite a few of their own arguments on behalf of Con rather than evaluating the arguments that Con presented directly. For example, the voter points to verses that counter the ones Pro presented, but Con didn't have any biblical verses in his arguments. Similarly, pointing out that Pro's arguments fell short of the voter's expectations, e.g. Pro did not demonstrate "that female deconesses had that role ever in the NT era," is the voter applying a set of criteria to Pro's arguments that is never explicitly laid out by Con. The voter must evaluate the debate as presented by the debaters, and it's both unclear that he evaluates either side's arguments and pretty clear he's predisposed against certain points.</p>
<p>---MasterDestroyer's former vote---</p>
<p>Voted for: con</p>
<p>When it comes to women being pastors/presbyters/bishops (all interchangeable from a biblical POV) there was no contest. Pro relied on appeals to emotion/misogyny and out of context verses. For every verse pro uses in support of female clergy there is a verse which implies the opposite to counter it, and none that explicitly demonstrate female clergy beyond the office of deaconess.
Where con shoots himself in the foot is by including the word "preachers" in the proposition. This could go either way depending on how you define preaching.
In modern churches Deacons often preach sermons, pro has not demonstrated that female deaconesses had that role ever in the NT era. However it depends heavily if you confine the definition of "preaching" to a formal sermon in a church setting or if this includes general evangelism. If it does include evangelism, then it is clearly stated in the bible that women participated in this.
Pro could have won if he honed in on the pastor/preacher distinction and defined preaching as something beyond formal sermons in a church. The arguments used by pro instead seemed like a combination of poor exegesis and feminist ideology. </p>
I disagree with a good deal of that, but it doesn't seem like you really want to discuss this and I've lost interest, so I'll leave it at that.
A definition is not a framework.
Sorry about the delay. I'm working my way through this, should have a vote up this week.
I've made a point of explaining what, specifically, you failed to address in his argument. Your response was that I didn't mention things you did say. I pointed out that, yes, I did mention those points and explained why they weren't sufficient.
And, no, this statement is inaccurate:
"He just dislikes that I wanted equality and use my Round 1 for constructive just like you did, leaving rebuttals for Round 2 just like you did."
If you're going to challenge the definitions in a debate, then yes, that has to come up in your first round. That's part of a constructive, to explain how you're framing the debate and why. Just saying you didn't want to rebut your opponent in the first round isn't enough for me to accept that you decided to tackle definitions, especially those that were pertinent to your own argument, late. It's also not the "sole justification for" my vote. That's just an absurd reading of my RFD.
Literally one question about the substance of my RFD, a point that Savant basically made in his own RFD, but because mine is a vote against you, it’s unreasonable and I did a bad job voting on this debate. Got it.
You’re right that I didn’t mention that part of the debate directly. You tacitly accepting Pro’s framework since you never addressed it directly and that is where he set up came up in the first place. You did eventually get to this semantics argument in R2 and then revisited it in R3, but that is both too late for a topicality argument and it would leave me entirely without a framework, since you never presented one. I get that you were avoiding direct responses to Pro in R1, but when it comes to establishing what has to be done to win the debate, that has to appear in your first round.
So, you won't be taking me up on my offer to talk about what I actually said in my RFD? Instead you'll just say I lied by referencing things I drew attention to in my RFD as though they aren't there? Got it.
I talked about your view on the definition of intelligence a good deal and explained why it wasn't relevant to the outcome of this debate. You can say that's "lying" or you can address what I wrote about it. That's your choice.
As for the truism, again, if you read my RFD, you might notice that I didn't accept the argument you found so frustrating. I didn't even grant him that any sign of intelligence was sufficient to uphold his position, nor do I think the chief argument he gave that I found persuasive was a truism.
If you want to discuss my RFD, please do. I'm happy to go over any details. I'd just appreciate if you engaged with what I actually said.
I am planning to get to this one, still haven’t put my thoughts together for Lancelot v. Greatful, but this will be next.
Sorry I've been slow to get to this one. I finished reading it, I'll try to get up a vote in the near future.
To anyone who opts to vote on this: I am very much obliged for your efforts. This was a lot of work to write and debate, and I have no doubt it will be similarly involved to read and parse. The effort is very much appreciated.
I’ll start reading through this soon.
Actually, that’s not true. You get randomly assigned to an ultrarated debate in the voting period, but if there’s only one, that’s what you’re assigned to. You just have to submit that you want to vote.
Didn't have enough room to say it, but this was a blast to debate. Had a great time doing it and I look forward to seeing how it all pans out.
It's fair to argue that debaters shouldn't have this much leeway with the rules they set for a debate. That's something worth discussing, though it's not a decision we would make without community involvement.
Again: I am not taking a position on what is and is not "things outside bible." I don't know why you keep accusing me of being unable to comprehend something I haven't taken a position on. I required that the voter state how they perceive it. That's it.
Don’t appreciate the condescension. I said that SomeDebatePerson at least needs to explain why they aren’t factoring the rule laid out in the description into his vote. I didn’t say how he should do that, nor did I say that you violated that rule, so tell me: what am I struggling with?
You pointed to two points, said your perspective on them, and didn’t reference where those were in Con’s responses. From what I can see, you referenced Con’s responses once and vaguely.
<p>>Reported Vote: SomeDebatePerson // Mod action: Removed</p>
<p>>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy</p>
<p>>Voted for: con</p>
<p>>Reason for Decision: bias-influences-decision</p>
<p>>Reason for Mod Action:</p>
<p>The voter is required to focus on arguments presented within the debate, but at multiple times in this RFD, states their views as responses to Pro's arguments. When the voter considers Con's arguments, it needs to be clear what points he's taking from and why they were significant to his decision. The voter is also required to at least acknowledge the description and any rules contained therein, even if they don't agree with their imposition. </p>
<p>---SomeDebatePerson's former vote---</p>
<p>Voted for: con</p>
<p>Pro asks "Do Bible pages prove things outside Bible?" and answers "No, Bible pages are just proof for Bible pages, which isnt outside Bible."
I personally believe the pages prove that the Bible was written, so that means pages or tablets and some form of writing exist.
Pro also states "Bible verses are just proof for Bible verses, they dont prove anything outside Bible."
This statement might seem true, but John 20:30 and 21:25 say Jesus did things not written in the Bible. (Things outside the Bible.)
Pro then starts using logic and philosophy and gives Wikipedia as a source. (Wikipedia is outside the Bible.)
Con catches this and says that everything pro said and cited is outside the Bible.
This debate is outside the Bible, and it exists.
Solo scriptura is false. Con wins.</p>
Ooh, a great topic to cover, looking forward to this one.
Appreciate it, and I'll consider that link as a part of your argument.
Lot of individual parts to each point means you need a lot of support for those arguments.
