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.
Ooh, this will be fun. Looking forward to a good foreign policy debate.
I'll get on voting on this guys.
It's the one I have the most experience with, so yeah.
I tried using it, which helped a bit.
Savant has been clear on his reasoning. He’s pointed to the definitions as the basis for his reasoning. He’s also detailed his reasons here in the comments for why he didn’t think your tactics worked to modify those definitions. You don’t think that’s enough to meet the standards laid out in the voting rubric. I disagree. If you think that’s unreasonable, fine, but it’s my decision on the matter and I’ve given my reasoning for why.
As for the accusation of bias, it’s not the first time nor will it be the last. Think what you will.
You and I would clearly rate his vote differently, then. Even looking at the specific points you bring up, Savant was very clear about how he saw the scope of the debate and specifically pointed to the definitions and the rules. Just because he didn't agree with your interpretations doesn't mean he failed to contend with them entirely. As for the point about weighing the arguments fairly, I think he's clarified that pretty extensively in his responses to you in the comments. Again, you may not view that as fair because the weighing he did effectively nullified your argument by focusing on the definitions as written in the description, but your view of what's fair isn't the deciding factor here.
I think you're oversimplifying what's required for a voter to agree with you, but even if you're right, again, you're asking for mod intervention. The vote may not meet your standards (like addressing every single point you feel warranted attention and considering it in the specific way you wished him to), but that is not part of the voting standards for the site.
I get how you think you won this debate. It is not up to the moderation team to require voters to recognize and accept how you did it as valid.
I've had a look over this vote from Savant and the addendum in the comments.
The long and short of it is that voters can make decisions on elements of a debate that are, by standard debate convention, treated a certain way. For example, if a voter decides not to accept new arguments presented by the debaters in the final round, they don't need a site rule to apply that view. Similarly, if they say that the definitions in the description are sacrosanct and accepted upon accepting the debate, that is sufficient by itself as a reason to accept those definitions as they are. Melcharaz tried an interesting tactic with this debate and Savant in the comments does engage with why that doesn't work for him. That is sufficient, so the vote stands.
I... might be out of my depth here. If you can absolutely get no one else, I'll see what I can do, but I guarantee my RFD's just going to be a mess.
<p>>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Removed</p>
<p>>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy</p>
<p>>Voted for: pro</p>
<p>>Reason for Decision: fails-to-analyze</p>
<p>>Reason for Mod Action:</p>
<p>The voter appears to have made their decision almost entirely on the basis that Con said they included the acceptance of Pro's definitions, though the line is only being partially quoted. Con said: "I also accept Pro's definition but find it's incomplete, it's part of belief, not the entire thing." Con later says he accepts a different definition and offers an alternative. If either of those function as a concession, the voter is unclear how so. Besides that, the voter only says this results in him failing "to achieve a strong rebuttal", which is unclear, and the voter doesn't analyze any arguments from Pro, which makes the need for rebuttal unclear. I get that this is chiefly a semantic debate, but the voter is still required to give some analysis of the points made by both sides. If there are concessions within the debate, particularly on the definitions, those need to be further clarified.</p>
<p>---fauxlaw's former vote---</p>
<p>Voted for: pro</p>
<p>This debate might have been scholastically entertaining had Pro simply used the Description field in his challenge to offer definitions rather than wait to do so in his 1st round. To delay the input of definitions of keywords in the Resolve [Title] allows the opponent to suggest alternate definitions in their 1st round, which leads exactly to what this debate became: a war of definitions. The challenge is the appropriate place to offer definitions so that when the challenge is accepted, the definitions are set in stone and cannot be revised as Con tried to do, but unsuccessfully by admission to acceptance of Pro's definitions.
That said, Pro's R1 offered an argument consistent with the definitions he argued earlier in R1 relative to belief: "...things cannot require evidence in order to exist, because existence itself is not dependent on evidence." Con rebutted this argument, but unsuccessfully, mostly because Con first said, "I also accept Pro's definition..." but offered a counter definition, which only confuses his position, which therefore failed to achieve a strong rebuttal. Con should not have first said he accepts Pro's definition.
Since R2 simply devolved into further definition war, the debate really ended in R1, which Pro managed to win due to good argument sustained by the definitions.</p>
