whiteflame

<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.