whiteflame

At this point, you're conflating "rules" and "BoP," and the two are not the same.

But setting that aside for the moment, this isn't responsive to most of what I just said. If there is not a specific BoP laid out in the description, do you consider that debate an automatic tie? And is there no room at all under your view for any debate of the definitions or BoP in such a debate?

Both sides argued in good faith from where I'm sitting. You may think the topic itself is inherently trolling, but both sides approached the topic seriously, without joking or making light of the issue. If you believe otherwise, point to specific arguments made that establish trolling behavior.

There isn't a specific set of standards, but when multiple other voters are treating this as a serious debate, it's not up to any single voter to decide this is suddenly a troll debate. And if you don't think you're up to the task of voting on it, the answer is simple: don't vote.

Sure, I can copy-paste.

#1: "Votes solely based on relative strength of arguments made in the debate, and analysis of these arguments by the debaters, including relevant responses and weighing analysis."

Result: Failed.

Reason: The voter has to spell out how you are weighing each side's case, and explain why one side, in this particular case Con, had greater weight to their arguments.

#2-#5:

Result: Succeeded.

...you know, I think I understand something about your perspective now, but I don't comprehend why you believe it.

The instigator writes what is present in the description. That is solely what they present as part of the debate. If it doesn't contain any mention of BoP, as this doesn't, is it your view that BoP effectively doesn't exist in the debate? Because that would mean that every debate that doesn't explicitly spell out BoP is, effectively, an automatic tie. No one can win. In this case, there is no BoP in the description. It does not say anywhere what either side needs to do to win this debate beyond just be educational with their arguments. So, in your opinion, was this debate automatically tied the moment it was made? Because I don't know what other metric you would use to establish BoP, and you keep telling me that the description is the sole means by which it can be established.

What I see Con doing here is explicitly spelling out the definitions and BoP in his R1. Pro didn't do that, either in the description or in his R1. Your response to that, apparently, is to tell him that he was violating established rules of the debate by rephrasing or reinterpreting the debate, so you give him no means to win. Since Pro failed to define and establish BoP in the description, Con was wrong to try to clarify.

What's more, I see you arguing that anything that Pro says in R1 is, effectively, unarguable for Con. Any position he establishes for himself, any definition he provides in that first round, is automatically gospel and cannot be challenged. So Con is not allowed to argue any definitions and he's not allowed to present any differing views on BoP, even if none of that is spelled out in the description. Do I have that correct?

Yes, because I really love just going back to edit previous posts to make you look bad. Wow, if you think I'm that petty, then I don't know why you're bothering talking to me. I said "head-to-head," which means something pretty different, if that helps.

As for the rest of this, you're just asserting that you did things. You're not addressing the specific points I've brought up to you anymore, you're just looking at the voting rubric and saying you did it all. I would disagree that you've even established what the relative strength of Con's arguments are in this debate presented in this debate were, which makes it hard to compare them to Pro's. That's been the reason for removal from the start. It's fine if you disagree with what I've said. Doesn't change the fact that you wouldn't, by my evaluation and that of other moderators, meet a "4" on the voting rubric.

<p>>Reported Vote: melcharaz // Mod action: Removed</p>
<p>>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy</p>
<p>>Voted for: tie</p>
<p>>Reason for Decision: too-vague</p>
<p>>Reason for Mod Action:</p>
<p>As with other votes of yours that we've already covered, the issue here is a lack of clarity on the central reason why a tie was awarded: namely, burden of proof. Assuming that neither side mentioned BoP (ctrl+f says otherwise), it's not like this debate completely lacks any burdens and the voter saying he, "as a neutral audience, [was] not swayed either way by this debate" doesn't provide any clarity on how he viewed burdens or why. If you're going to ignore Con's framing of the BoP (again, I can see it), then explain why you think the BoP should be different, especially if you're going to choose to award a tie on the basis that neither side met their BoP.

And the same holds true for definitions. If you don't like the definitions provided by Con, then point to the definitions that function in this debate. What did Pro present that Con is rephrasing or redefining? Were there definitions to redefine?</p>

<p>---melcharaz's former vote---</p>
<p>Voted for: tie</p>
<p>Due to conduct, repetition of a metaphor that seems to be misunderstood by pro as a proper analogy of agnosticism vs atheism. And that the sources provided focused more on atheism.
The description says plainly to not rephrase or reinterpret, con did both of those in his arguements concerning pro's reasoning and definitions. Con must learn to agree with the description proposed by op, wether flawed or not. Otherwise dont assume position of opposition in the debate.
That being said, lets look at the points about if agnosticism was more rational than atheism.
Round 1. Pro: Definitions of atheism and agnosticism are clear, but there is no definition for rational. This makes me to believe that there was a level of seriousness, but oversight on pro's part.
Con however argued in bad faith and attempted to both rephrase and redefine the opening statement of pro, which, again, is against the description. Con further gives metaphorical example of elephant in a pocket, which pro later disagrees with, and refuses to reclarify via another metaphor or a different metaphor.

Between both of them ive seen no statistics or links to give prove of what rational even means in application or any burden of proof. As a neutral audience, i am not swayed either way by this debate.

I recommend both pro and con make sure to define things very clearly, and if something is misunderstood or rejected, to either try another example or to post statistics. Especially if the claim can have empirical evidence (not that rational has any in this debate, as it wasnt defined, but i hope you both understand what i mean)

Summation: lack of defining, poor burden of proof, antagonistic setting, redefining, rephrasing and ignoring of descriptions sunk this debate. I believe it was serious (based on effort) but ultimately devolved and nothing Good came of this.</p>

<p>>Reported Vote: melcharaz // Mod action: Removed</p>
<p>>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy</p>
<p>>Voted for: tie</p>
<p>>Reason for Decision: fails-to-analyze</p>
<p>>Reason for Mod Action:</p>
<p>I understand viewing the topic as a tautology, but this was clearly not argued as a troll debate, so the voting standard remains the same for this as for others, and the voter is still required to analyze points given in the debate. Being incredulous and frustrated that the topic was not something different is not sufficient basis for awarding a tie. The voter must evaluate arguments as presented and not merely dismiss them entirely based on frustration with the topic.</p>

<p>---melcharaz's former vote---</p>
<p>Voted for: tie</p>
<p>Title is "Police brutality does not exist" this has been objectively disproven through data.

How anyone can vote anything but neither or tie is beyond me.

This is obviously a troll debate. Even one of the tests in voting policy is similar to this.

It should have been "what is the scope/influence of police brutality?" At least then the other votes of con are more reasonable.

This is alternate truth fallacy title.</p>

I feel like I'm going to be repeating myself a lot with these responses. Already have on other debates, but let's do this again.

I'll state it again: what is the BoP these two debaters bore in this debate? You're voting almost entirely on the basis that they failed to meet it, and I'm still not clear on what you think their BoP actually is. You've now said you "had to go off of what the bop is" and yet, still no statement on your part of what their BoP even was, let alone how they failed to meet it. If you are, as I suspect at this point, just copy-pasting the description and saying that that is their BoP, I still don't know what it would take to meet it. Does it require providing a detailed explanation of evolutionary theory is? Does it require extensive citing of scripture?

They are clearly citing scripture. They are also citing non-biblical sources, but there is scripture in there, am I wrong? And they are, at least to some degree, covering issues of what evolution is and addressing it directly with how well it holds up against those pieces of scripture, correct? I get that there was discussion of days and time, but that wasn't literally all there was to this debate, right?

I get that you're frustrated that the debate didn't stay focused on the topic, but there are clearly arguments on the topic that support the stated burdens in the description. They exist. Why aren't they sufficient to uphold those burdens? I'm not asking you to consider arguments that are off topic, I'm asking you why you didn't consider any arguments that were on topic. Pro clearly defined what was theistic evolution in his book. Con clearly addressed that definition. There are points here. Maybe these points were not sufficient to meet their BoP. Why not? Why focus on all the things you see as detracting from the debate and just declare it a wash on BoP?

I meant exactly what I said, no more, no less. It's exceedingly weird that the one thing you quote, "head to toe", isn't even a quote from anything I said in response to you in either the removal or the follow-up response. I sincerely have no idea how you managed to pull a three word phrase out of thin air, attribute it to me, and then want clarification of that phrase I did not use.

I was very clear and very explicit on what specifics I'm looking for in your vote. If it's unclear, point to something I actually said and ask for clarification on it. It's all the stranger because you do actually seem to get it:

"So you dont understand my method, you dont know how i weigh arguements"

...you just state that you don't think you should have to do that. I'm not saying that you should weigh arguments the same way I do. I'm not saying that you should spell out the weight of every single policy and make sure they align with my thinking, nor perform "a generic comprehension test". I said you have to spell out how you are weighing each side's case, and explain why one side, in this particular case Con, had greater weight to their arguments. It's simple.

So when you say:

"I weighed the reasoning based on the following.
1:public opinion as introduced by both links.
2: consideration of monetary/fiscal advantages or lack thereof
3: amount of effort that would sustain the concept.
4: definitions of what is introduced in the subject, due to lack of definitions in desceiption.
5: cohesiveness of logic in the flow of the arguements."

I don't understand where the disjunct is in our line of thinking because, again, that's not a comparison of the relative weight of both sides' arguments. These are individual issues that you consider important. They don't evaluate the impacts of each side in aggregate and state which you believe are stronger and why. They may be part of that explanation, but they alone are not sufficient.

1. There's this thing called a PM. You can send it directly to one of us instead of clogging up debate comments with discussion of a given vote.

2. Debates have associated burdens of proof. The description is not, and has never been, the end-all-be-all for what those burdens are, particularly when they're written like this one. Unless the description explicitly states what the burdens are, which would require the contender to accept them, those burdens are necessarily up for debate, just like if the definitions aren't provided, there is room to debate them. If you find that flawed, I don't know what to tell you because that's just the nature of debate.

As for providing a clear standard for determining BoP, that's not something moderators are here to do. Debaters can establish that, and voters can determine how well they did at that task. We're not here to tell you there is only ever one way to interpret BoP and then fill in the blank for you. And if you, as a voter, are considering BoP in your determination of who wins a given debate, then yes, that's something you have to lay out so that people can understand how you view it and why. That's probably the most important standard for voting on the site: voters should be clear about their reasoning. If it's vague, it's not clear.

Regarding this debate, if you look at that description and tell me that you view it as an absolute requirement for what the BoP must entail... then we're clearly not reading the same set of words. It's reasonable for us to have different interpretations, but I don't see any statement in that description that holds either side solely to monetary impacts. You're welcome to poll other people on this, but a statement that starts with "Imagine" and ends with an ellipses is not what I would call an effort to impose a restriction on what this debate can cover. That just seems like you imposing meaning on those words.

First off, this is not how you report a vote. You don't need to tag me in a comment and call these things out publicly.

Second, this statement in the description does not a read as a statement of the burdens inherent to this debate:

"Imagine how much money you could save each year…"

You can interpret burdens differently than fauxlaw does, but being less adherent to the terms used in the description of the debate if they don't explicitly demand that both sides accept a given burden isn't a reason for removal, particularly if someone in the debate proper does a clearer job spelling them out. That description reads more as Pro setting up his argument rather than a statement of what both sides must argue on this topic.

If you'd still like us to take a look at fauxlaw's vote, go ahead and report it. I'm telling you now, though: this would not suffice as a reason for removal.

I didn't call for you to do algebra. I explained specifically what is missing from your analysis and what is required. That, I will note, doesn't include anything about a line-by-line analysis or making this a fully comprehensive vote. It does, however, require that you analyze arguments made by both sides in a debate or, lacking that, a clearly established burden of proof that you believe Pro has failed to meet.

"A sufficient vote is one which explains why the voter regarded one debater as excelling beyond the other within any metric they award."

That quote that you're using actually proves my point: you can't establish that one side excelled over another without establishing why they excelled. You spent your RFD pointing out why the other side did not excel, then you said that Con did better without explaining why or where. It's vague. And yes, that is sufficient reason to remove your vote.

You're right that I'm having difficulty ascertaining your explanations, but the problem here isn't my personal failing to grasp what you're saying, it's a lack of sufficient explanation on your part. Add a couple of sentences talking about what Con did that elevated his argument. Clarify where he successfully exceeded Pro on a net benefits criterion. I'm not asking you to go through his argument with a fine-toothed comb and analyze everything he said in minute detail, but you do have to provide some analysis.

Again, this was the sole line you provided to explain both what that burden was:

"That aside, i vote a tie as the burden of proof wasnt met, and it wasnt denied."

That's also the sole line you provided to explain why either side didn't meet their burden. It's not enough to assert that they didn't meet it. What, in your estimation, was required? How did they fall short? That's what I need to see. And I don't really understand this statement about how "Neither side used [the] BIBLE to prove or disprove evolution." They clearly cited the Bible. They clearly talked about evolution. It wasn't all "days and light." If you want to point out that they got distracted by other issues, fine, but there are on-topic arguments I see from both sides. So, again, I'll ask: where and how did they fall short of meeting their burdens on the topic?

I also need to see at least some interaction with the definitions provided in the debate. Just because they weren't provided in the description doesn't mean you get to set them aside entirely.

To be clear: I am the head moderator of this site. You can disagree with my views of your vote if you want. You can seek a second opinion from someone else on the moderation team, though we have discussed it before I came to this decision. You can call for changes to the voting policy. That's fine. But recognize that, at least for right now, you're working with me. This is my role on the site, unlike admins like Airmax whose roles are not focused on moderation. Don't expect you'll be able to call for his intervention on the regular.

<p>>Reported Vote: melcharaz // Mod action: Removed</p>
<p>>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy</p>
<p>>Voted for: tie</p>
<p>>Reason for Decision: too-vague</p>
<p>>Reason for Mod Action:</p>
<p>The voter provides a lot of analysis of individual points from both sides. However, when it comes down to making an actual decision, the voter says this:

"That aside, i vote a tie as the burden of proof wasnt met, and it wasnt denied."

I don't see any mention in this vote of what the burden of proof for either side was, so telling me that the reason you've chosen to award a tie was a mutual failure to meet their burdens is strange to say the least. It doesn't tell me how you've arrived at this decision, it just asserts that you have based on a perceived BoP that you don't make anyone else privy to.

And this is made worse by looking through the individual points the voter does mention. The point is made that the definitions aren't described in the description, but there's no engagement with the definitions provided in the text of the debate, merely calling it "textual filibustering". There are multiple points that appear to be outside the scope of the debate as well. If I had more clarity on what specifically contributed to the decision, it might be fine for the voter to comment on these issues so long as they aren't contributing factors, but it's unclear from reading this vote which (if any) of these factors contributed to the tie.</p>

<p>---melcharaz's former vote---</p>
<p>Voted for: tie</p>
<p>Alright. Description only determines who is arguing what. No definitions of compatible, no definitions of theistic evolution, so they have to agree on definitions in rounds of debating. I will use labels "instigator" for somedebateperson, and "Contender" for fauxlaw. So lets get this going.

1:Opening statement is "Can you try to prove that day (yom) doesn’t mean a literal day in the Genesis creation account?"

I assume from this he is using bible as main source, as instigator declares it to be sacred and Contender uses it as well and lays out the definitions in hebrew, other sources will be considered secondary or for clarification. In round 2 instigator says: "There were a lot of things that were said, and I would agree with a lot of it. I’ll only rebut what needs to be rebutted. Let’s take a look:"
And he rubutted none of the definitions, he contended the way of determining a "day" before there was light. And natural law. And he argues against contender saying God used death to make life. "Pro is using the light before the sun to disprove the literal days."

The bulk of contention in the debate appears to be focused on what a day is before the sun and moon, which is part of instigator's op.
to which contender says "The Hebrew word, י֔וֹם [yo-wm] is a masculine, singular noun, therefore, typically referring to a single day of roughly 24 hours."

Instigator replies "Hebrew words for “morning” and “evening” don’t talk about the sun. Plus, if they did, how would you interpret “day” as some random extended amount of time if there is no sun?"

Contender says "by the separate words used in Hebrew for "day" in Genisis 1, י֔וֹם [yo-wm], including a longer, undetermined period of time. Whereas, the words "evening-to-evening" in Leviticus 23, [[מֵעֶ֣רֶב mê-é-reb from evening], and [עֶ֔רֶב - é-reb to evening]], describes a 24-hour period. These are two separate periods of time in Hebrew."

However the biblehub meaning yo-wm as defined by sources says "From an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literal (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figurative"

Given the context, we must consider was there heat before the sun. No one answers or challenges that.

The part about embryotic evolution was just given as an example as contender admits. "my R2, §III.b argument, is not a claim; it is a supposition; a posit, a figure of speech implying that which may not be truth today, but could be a future possibility."

The stuff linked from charles darwin doesnt suggest theistic evolution.

"broad strokes were demonstrated by Charles Darwin in his "Origin of Species." Further, in his 2nd Edition of that volume, Darwin acknowledged a "Creator" in the last sentence of the last paragraph of the volume. "Natural selection" is the term Darwin applied, meaning that while God originated the creation of fishes, fowls, beasts, and man, which are all inter-related by a singular design structure, i.e., the DNA-based genome, that genome, within each species, is capable of natural modification/mutation generation to generation..."
In this however, theistic evolution isnt properly introduced to its application on the time(s) of genesis 1:2 and onward.

I did not see any proof of theistic evolution, the arguement is, "is it compatible" but it was not properly introduced to affirm or deny.

Instigator needs to set boundaries, clarity and definitions in description and opening statement.

Contender needs to work on being brief with his words and stop textual filibustering with off topic and undefined and unclear assertions. Also you get no points for mocking the instigator, if i could dock points for conduct, you would lose.

That aside, i vote a tie as the burden of proof wasnt met, and it wasnt denied. </p>

<p>>Reported Vote: melcharaz // 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>"Contender presented clearer more u.s. based arguements for a u.s. policy which outweighted the net benefits and costs presented by instigator."

This line is the sole analysis the voter provides for any of Con's points. It's also the sole explanation the voter gives for how the two sides of this debate sized up against one another. While all the prior analysis about how much Pro's points should actually weigh in the debate and which points have impact towards this topic, none of that is a substitute for this kind of head-to-head analysis. It's not just that the vote isn't comprehensive enough (it doesn't cover Con's argument except in the vaguest terms), but that I'm still unclear how much weight the voter believes Pro's argument even has by the end of it. The voter only states the conclusion without stating how he got there.</p>

<p>---melcharaz's former vote---</p>
<p>Voted for: con</p>
<p>Description sets rules, it reads: "This is a policy debate on whether or not the US should formally switch to the metric system."

Since ai cant be used, i assume policy means 2
a
: a definite course or method of action selected from among alternatives and in light of given conditions to guide and determine present and future decisionshttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/policy

". I (kohai, instigator) will be arguing in the affirmative and my opponent (fruit_inspector, contender) will argue in the negative.
Round 1: Opening arguments
Round 2: Rebuttals
Round 3: Rebuttals / Close
No new arguments are allowed in the final round. The use of AI in this debate is strictly prohibited.

All links regarding costs of other nations will not be accepted as primary evidence, unless u.s. adopted similar policies to affect metric system and/or u.s. customary units/imperial units

Lets get started


Round 2 instigator gives linkto
DOSAR
Part Number: 611 #5 i ii and iii are exceptions and plausible reasons for it to be disregarded based on "advantageous" ness

Looking at the total amount of money described in the links of instigator verse total cost caused by misshaps or errors in conversion or understanding, the benefits of keeping the us customary/imperial system seem more fiscally advantageous. As we can assume conversion mistakes are to be done, based on history and links cited concerning u.s. medical and financial actions.

The data given shows mostly the losses of u.s. and other nations over usage or lack of usage of SI, the gains are not disclosed for reader to compare, for a policy to be considered, there must be monetary or fiscal gain to be evaluated.

The usage of u.s.government policy change by instigator is noticed but not weighed, being used as an example of the capability of U.S. policy change.

All links were addressed by both instigator and contender, even if just alluded to by instigator or recited by contender.

Contender presented clearer more u.s. based arguements for a u.s. policy which outweighted the net benefits and costs presented by instigator.

Note! If reason isnt comprehensive enough, let me know and ill redo, please alert me within 3 days.</p>

Done reading it. Going to sit with this for a bit and write up my RFD later.

Thanks. Working on it.

I’ll work on this. Someone remind me in the last couple of days.

<p>>Reported Vote: Hmuslim // 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>See comment #18.</p>

<p>---Hmuslim's former vote---</p>
<p>Voted for: con</p>
<p>Clear breakdown of his opponents argument, and failure for his opponent to prove not only that polytheism exists but that it even could exist</p>

>Reported Vote: Hmuslim // Mod action: Removed

>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy

>Voted for: Con

>Reason for Decision: Clear breakdown of his opponents argument, and failure for his opponent to prove not only that polytheism exists but that it even could exist

>Reason for Mod Action: While the voter does state some generalized reasons for their vote, they do not articulate which points earned Con their vote, nor do they explain why Pro's arguments were insufficient. If Con provided a "breakdown of his opponents arguments" then it should be clarified what about that breakdown worked for this voter. If Pro failed "to prove not only that polytheism exists but that it even could exist" then the voter should be able to point to arguments made by Pro and explain where and how they fell short.

If you honestly believe your opponent provided no evidence for their position, then you do not understand what evidence is or how it functions, and that's a deeper problem than I'm willing to tackle.

Sincerely, this is such a weird way to respond to evidence for evolution. If it's not good enough, you need to explain why not. Simply stating an example of what you, personally, are looking for doesn't demonstrate any flaws in your opponent's points.

I promise guys, I am working on this. Will have a vote up at the latest by Sunday.