A debate without votes is better than a debate with faulty votes
|Voting Style:||Open with Elo Restrictions||Point System:||Select Winner|
|Updated:||2 years ago||Status:||Post Voting Period|
|Viewed:||643 times||Debate No:||53759|
First round is for acceptance ONLY
I accept your challenge. Thanks for the invite.
When you have a debate without having to worry about votes, you can enjoy the whole experience more.
You don't have to play semantic tricks or other nonsense just to win. Instead you can concentrate on facts and real arguments.
Also, You could choose to debate topics you may not be well versed in, which gives you an opportunity to learn things without worrying about "losing" or being humiliated.
If the only reason you debate is to "win" votes. you become an expert at BS. All that happens is you start to sharpen skills about technicalities, semantics, and logical fallacies and less on real facts.
Votes cause more damage than they are worth. You can always get good feedback from the comment section.
Thanks to my opponent for opening this debate for me. I hope I can at least try to convince my opponent in some way that votes are good even if the are faulty.
This opening sentence is essentially one of my main points for votes. My opponent assumes that some votes are faulty, but this means then that my opponent has already decided that their opinion is the correct one. As such anyone that votes against my opponent is wrong and their vote is classified as faulty. This is not in the line with what my opponent claims when they say “You could choose to debate topics you may not be well versed in, which gives you an opportunity to learn things without worrying about "losing" or being humiliated.” I highlighted the most important part of this sentence. If you want to learn, it is essential that you are open to criticism and are prepared to change your mind. However, if you believe a vote is faulty it gives you pause to consider why a person voted in that way. This additionally can be used as a point to engage the voter in an intellectual debate.
If I may add another analogy for faulty votes. Following the line of reasoning above, in a presidential election we are then able to say that anyone that votes for the opposing candidate you voted for has cast a faulty vote. I am sure most people would scoff at this idea, but this is essentially what my opponent is claiming.
My opponent also claims that you cannot enjoy a debate when you have to worry about votes. That is a personal opinion, and is one that needs personal introspection. In contrast, I have lost debates I have deemed I should have won and enjoyed them thoroughly. The reason for this is that I value the experience to educate someone, or to be educated. But again, this is a personal opinion and not a rational justification to do away with a voting system.
Lastly, if you deem a vote is flawed you are able to report it to the moderators. However, this does not mean the vote will be nullified after all a vote is a personal opinion.
My opponent is correct in saying that feedback can be given in the comments section. However, how many people truly read debates when they do not have a motivation to read them? Voting acts as a motivator for people to read and give a judgment on a debate. Even if the voters misunderstand the debate, they are at least trying their best to understand and as stated before this is a starting point for further discussion.
In closing, when a debate is held on-line, no one is sure who is actually reading the debate. As such a vote is an affirmation that the debate has been read. While the judgment may not go in your favor, it does not mean it is a flawed vote. It means you have reached an audience and given them something to think about.
I hand the debate back to my opponent.
My opponent admits, "I have lost debates I have deemed I should have won and enjoyed them thoroughly."
I don't know many people who enjoy getting wrongfully judged. My opponent may be one, but that doesn't make it right.
I wonder if my opponent like to pay parking tickets he/she didn't deserve. How about losing a job over an unfair judgement? Or getting a bad grade for a bad judgement by a teacher? I don't think anybody ENJOYS being judged wrong.
Debate is an exchange of ideas, not a fight. You don't need to be judged and you don't need the stress of having to have a record of how many debates you "lost".
Civil discussion in the comments is all you really need to expand the debate by continuing to exchange ideas.
My opponent claims, "Voting acts as a motivator for people to read and give a judgment on a debate. Even if the voters misunderstand the debate, they are at least trying their best to understand"
Who's to say that a voter doesn't just "skim" a debate or just votes because they already agree with a certain side of the debate?
There's no reason to believe a voter reads a debate at all.
Debates can be held in private and debates can be held without votes. There's no law that say all debates need to be voted on. The DDO environment is the worst scenario for votes, since you can never tell who will randomly come along your debate and vote on it, with or without reading it. You can lose a debate just because somebody happened to decide to vote at all. That's not an accurate account of who won the debate. It's just random votes that cause frustration and anger.
Thanks to my opponent for the debate.
In this closing round I will try my best to pinpoint the flaws in my opponents argument. It seems to me a clear cut personal feelings argument, and I hope I can change my opponents mind regarding voted debates. This is especially true when votes are personal feelings as well, and as such the votes and my opponents opinions of votes are all rather personal.
The main issue my opponent has repeated in this debate concerns the issue of faulty votes. However, these are faulty votes in the sense that my opponent believes they are faulty. However, this means my opponent has already decided he is correct if he believes the vote is faulty. This begs the question, what is the point of trying to debate if you are not prepared to at least try learn something? This is equally ironic when on my opponents homepage he states his activities as “Spreading the truth.”
My opponent also said in the previous round that “I don't think anybody ENJOYS being judged wrong.” However, he did not bother addressing the point I made in the previous round about reporting faulty votes to the moderator. It seems more to me that my opponent realizes that the votes are not bad but is looking for an excuse for a loss.
This whole debate is bizarre in itself as it really contradicts my opponents point of view on the reason why they debate. If you are here to “debate the truth”, then why are you worried about some random votes. Why should this topic matter to you at all? The fact that you bring it up and want to debate is shows that this is an issue, and a personal one at that.
In closing I want to quote a line from the movie Frozen. It goeslike this, “Let it go, Let it go.”