whiteflame

We'll take a look at it.

I think it's fair to argue that we aren't giving third parties a fair shake to represent the people. I don't know if a direct vote improves their representation - I think there's a better argument for ranked choice voting potentially managing that - but I do think if you're going to use a candidate to represent the problems with the existing system, Wallace wasn't your best bet.

Regarding frameworks, it doesn't necessarily have to be super formal in how you engage with them, but when Savant's saying that you have to defeat specific points in order to win and he's doing a good deal of work to explain why, I need some competing view of how I should view the debate. Even something simple like "Democracy, Representation, and Knowledge" as you put it would give me something along those lines, and that just came up a little too late.

I agree on gish gallop, that is an issue and it's something I've become sensitive to as a voter. If someone is just throwing out a bunch of arguments with barely any justification and then saying that a dropped point is conceded, then they're not winning much with me. A point with more ink on it that gets full justification and matters to the debate, even if it's mitigated, is going to matter a lot more than a blipped out impact with barely any link story. I know some voters will buy into the whole "conceded points are more powerful" perspective, but if their only power is the concession, they're not going anywhere with me.

And yeah, I think having a clear view of what Savant was advocating for would have helped. I've had instances where I've misunderstood my opponent's case and it cost me a few debates, so I get it.

I’ll try to get to this.

I disagree, but I’m not creating a debate just to prove that the Con position is entirely arguable.

I appreciate the thoughts on the debate! I purposely kept the opening round mainly to setup the debate with the goal being to expand on it in future rounds. Didn't happen here, but it is what it is. I have a lot of thoughts on the DNA argument, and yeah, I can think of a number of ways to counter my points.

Why not? I thought it was a pretty great start to the tournament.

Part of the plan was to expand into that discussion, so my answers to those questions is “yes.”

Sure, I'll work on this.

Great job both of you! I've read through the debate, so I'll be working on an RFD today. Hopefully have it posted sometime tomorrow.

I've already messaged SomeDebatePerson about reducing this to a 2-round debate, just waiting for a response at this point.

I disagree that that was your duty in this debate. Israel can be "essential" and still be dangerous and antidemocratic. Characterizing antizionism as antisemitism, while it is a point that I largely agree with, is not really relevant to the debate, either. I could agree that all the points against Israel are antisemitic and that wouldn't affect the outcome of this debate. You could have placed all this into the context of a Krikik and argued that even having this debate was inherently problematic and that we should dismiss it out of hand as a result, but if that was your aim, you're missing several steps.

I do, however, agree that your opponent wasn't doing much work to support their side of the resolution. I just think your attention should have been focused more on points relevant to the resolution.

I don't recall saying anything about that single instance of police abuse being enough to win Pro the debate, nor was I expecting you to directly address it.

<p>>Reported Vote: Senechal // 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: fails-to-analyze</p>
<p>>Reason for Mod Action:</p>
<p>Voters are required to analyze specific arguments presented by both sides as part of their reason for voting. While the voter does generally state what they think is problematic about Pro's points, these are too vague to meet the standard for voting on the site and the voter does not analyze any of Con's arguments.</p>

<p>---Senechal's former vote---</p>
<p>Voted for: con</p>
<p>Too many faulty claims and failure to defend them from pro
Ad hominem fallacies</p>

Ooh, simple topic but with a lot of intriguing ways this could go. Looking forward to it.

Fun, will be keeping up with this one.

I'll get my opening round up tomorrow morning, honestly just haven't sat down and really focused on it for long enough.

Would that I could. Guess we’ll both be playing devil’s advocate.

Decidedly not my usual position on the topic, but I'm here for it. Let's do this thing.

Looking forward to this one, will be keeping up with the debate.

I’m not sure what you are referring to.

<p>>Reported Vote: Ultracrepidarian // 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: too-vague</p>
<p>>Reason for Mod Action:</p>
<p>While the voter is clear pointing out who he believes had the more topical argument, he does not point to any specific arguments made by either side and just awards the debate to Pro based on unstated topical points.</p>

<p>---Ultracrepidarian's former vote---</p>
<p>Voted for: pro</p>
<p>Both sides had good arguments, but I believe pro more directly fulfilled the resolution, that pantheism is 'unique,' whereas many of con's arguments, though valid, are against the correctness of pantheism, not the uniqueness of it.

Perhaps if the resolution was a bit different the victory would have went to con, but pro is the victor of this debate.

Feedback wise, I would recommend sticking to clear contentions or similar for sake of organization. Otherwise, a good effort on both sides! </p>

I see arguments from Con about who bears the chief burden in the debate. Those seem pretty clear. I wouldn't call that rephrasing, since he's not altering the resolution to get there. It's up to you whether you buy that argument, but if you're going to vote on burdens, you have to at least engage with it in your RFD and explain why it is insufficient to establish burdens. Simply stating this is rephrasing isn't a clear reason to dismiss what is the only attempt to establish burdens in the debate.

…and if it isn’t clarified there, then BoP should be arguable within the rounds of the debate. I’d agree with that extended statement. It doesn’t seem like you would.

You should, unless it’s clearly spelled out in the description, be allowing some debate over what BoP is. If you think the topic invites a very different version of what the BoP is than the one they discuss, then it’s valid to discuss that as part of your vote, but assuming that it must necessarily be confined to a given space, whether that’s the description or the first round, is a perspective that requires people to effectively check off specific boxes at specific times to even have a chance at getting your vote.

Your standard is unjustified because it effectively nixes any debate of BoP and definitions as meaningful to the outcome, something that happens with regularity on this site and elsewhere. It’s fine if you don’t like it, it’s not fine to impose a new standard for debates based on your perspective on how these debates should be structured.

So you're just fine with ignoring my questions. Got it.

I understand that you have very strong opinions on BoP, definitions and the rules of a debate. However, I think the way you're imposing them on debates does not meet with basic voting standards. You're essentially requiring that all of these be clarified in the description, and anything that is provided in the description, no matter how little it resembles any of them, automatically becomes the BoP/definitions/rules of a debate. That's not a standard we can impose on the debaters, so it's not one that you can use for establishing BoP.

If BoP is clarified in the description, it's normally done clearly and stated as such. Same with definitions. Same with rules.

If it isn't defined there, then the BoP and definitions are debatable, since they become part of the arguments of the debate.

That's the standard for how these work. You can disagree with that, but you can't just impose a different standard.

I'll need to give it a closer look. I'm still at work and discussing this when I get short stretches of time.

I'm not "weighing." It's a subjective assessment. Considering that its being a troll debate dramatically lowers the voting standards, circumstances where it is applied have to be relatively clear and widely accepted.

This is the way Mal debates, often with these kinds of topics. He nonetheless pursues his arguments (usually) seriously, as his opponent clearly did here.

I'm not arguing whom you should award points to nor why.

That's already a lot better since you're actively including points brought up by the contender in this debate and weighing them against points made by Pro.

Yes, I am sure that you can't just award a tie on the basis that the topic is a tautology. That doesn't automatically make it a troll debate. Pointing out that the instigator doubles down on fallacies and misnomers doesn't make it a troll debate. If you don't think it's serious because everything surrounding the topic just seems so absurd, that's fine, but setup alone doesn't make a debate a troll debate so long as the debaters are taking seriously, even if you personally can't.