whiteflame

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>

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.