The Instigator
Kleptin
Pro (for)
Winning
28 Points
The Contender
elgeibo
Con (against)
Losing
17 Points

All debate.org members should ask The Cleaners to review their debates!

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/31/2008 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,500 times Debate No: 5853
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (8)

 

Kleptin

Pro

Any debaters, new or old, should request that The Cleaners review their debates.

We are a large group of intelligent, unbiased debaters who can give excellent advice, and who vote without any ulterior motives. We will also explain each vote in great detail, allowing you to improve as a debater.

If your voter turnout is low, or if you believe you are a victim of unfair voting, or if you just want some comments, you should send me a message, or post in our forum topics.

Just click "Forum" up at the top, under the category "debate.org", and find any topic with the words "The Cleaners" and post! We'll see it, and we'll respond!
elgeibo

Con

I thank my opponent for his topic of debate, and enjoy his avatar, it makes me laugh.

My position for this debate is that "The Cleaners" is not good at reviewing debates.

My position is that "The Cleaners" will indeed have a bias. As a group, they came together for a reason, a common goal or purpose (http://www.merriam-webster.com...). To have a purpose, they have a goal to complete (http://www.merriam-webster.com...). To have a goal is to have a preconceived notion of belief.

Quite simply, I believe "The Cleaners" to be nothing more than the internet arm of the liberal media. As such, they will bring ruin to all that is good and holy, establish and New World Order, bringing on Armageddon and destroying the world.

That last paragraph was all farce, I have a ton of characters to use and thought I'd put in some craziness.

Continuing on. I would appreciate if my opponent would expound a bit on phrases like "intelligent" and "excellent advice". Both statements need quantification before they are true.

Are we comparing "The Cleaners" to a chicken, if so I would hazard a guess that they are more intelligent and would give me excellent advice.

Conversely, are we comparing them to James Carville (http://en.wikipedia.org...)? If so, then I would like to compare their IQ and debate histories.

I would like to again thank my opponent for this topic.

If this was just a way to show that "The Cleaners" are there to help, I hope I entertained some people.
Debate Round No. 1
Kleptin

Pro

I thank my opponent for taking this debate, and thus, for the opportunity to field questions about "The Cleaners". I hope that this debate will help clear up many misconceptions about The Cleaners and let debate.org feel freer to have us review their debates.

I will start first by elaborating on terms.

I would say that most of our debaters are more intelligent than most chickens, and less intelligent than James Carville. However, when I say "Intelligent", I am referring to their ability to express themselves in an articulate manner. I admit this does not help in forming a clear distinction, so I will give characteristics of someone who I view not to be intelligent:

1. A person unable to string together logical arguments and provide/see a conclusion
2. A person who uses poor grammar and spelling in giving an argument.

When I say "excellent advice", I refer to advice that is detailed, productive, and the product of intelligent (see definition above) thinking.

As for the main point about bias, I am sure this is a big point with many. I am very happy to be able to be able to explain.

My opponent rightfully designates "The Cleaners" as a group with a purpose, and is right in concluding we have a preconceived belief. However, these beliefs form the code of conduct for The Cleaners and it just so happens that thse little rules are structured in a way as to eliminate bias to the best of our ability.

Whereas some groups have motives that involve bias in voting, such as "Conservative World Order", a fake group consisting of Josh the terrorist and a multitude of his equally biased conservative friends. They vote blindly on debates against liberals, disregarding the four categories set up by debate.org and not leaving any comments. In addition, if they are displeased with any person, they do the same to each and every debate that person has participated in, bringing their win ratio down 50% in mere days.

"The Cleaners" however, do not vote based on their beliefs. First of all, there is a fair mix between Liberals and conservatives, democrats and republicans. When The Cleaners clean debates, this mixture serves to prevent them from voting purely on their individual and personal beliefs.

Secondly, all Cleaners are required to post detailed explanations for each category. Thus, if they award points for "Spelling and Grammar", they must not only declare who they attributed the points to, but also why. This serves as another safeguard. Removing the anonymity prevents us from acting untruthfully.

Finally, the main goal of the Cleaners is to perpetuate good voting behavior among everyone. Too many debates have been decided with but a couple voters. This is most unfair to those who have worked hard on their debates. The Cleaners are a guaranteed pool of voters representing the wide spectrum of debaters on debate.org

The most important point about The Cleaners, is that we do not vote as a group. We vote as individuals according to one format: The rubric provided by debate.org itself.
elgeibo

Con

I, again, would like to thank my opponent for his opinions, he is articulate and obviously at least four times more intelligent than any fowl I have every had the pleasure of knowing (and I have known a lot of fowl). I hope that "The Cleaners" will "clean" this debate as a representation of how they would "clean" others.

My opponent claims that his group has safeguards built in against bias. That by their rules of explanation for any and all votes, they are held to a standard for how they voted. Yet, he negates these points by ending with the "creme de la creme" for his argument of that "The Cleaners" do not vote as a group, but as individuals. By voting as individuals, they are no longer held to the standard of the group, the only tenuous leash for their voting frenzy is that they do not want to be expelled from "The Cleaners".

This kind of action reminds one much more of a gang, where the members are kept in line by the fear of rejection. What will these members do as soon as the leader of "The Cleaners" decides that a debater that they traditionally side with can be given slack. Or if one of "The Cleaners" own number switch allegiances on an issue and throw the group out of whack?

"The Cleaners" represent a group that may seem like a good idea, but they are in fact a sleeping volcano ready to erupt. When that eruption occurs, would it be prudent to have "The Cleaners" as your measuring tool of how well you've done? I submit that no, it would not.

So, once again, it is with a heavy heart that I must disagree and say that "The Cleaners" should not be asked by all debate.org members to review their debates.
Debate Round No. 2
Kleptin

Pro

I am very pleased that my opponent continues to offer me opportunities to eliminate misconceptions about The Cleaners.

The only point my opponent made in his entire response above, is dissent.

I do not blame my opponent for making severely faulty points, as I myself have not presented the information necessary for him to make a valid conclusion.

The first flaw in my opponent's response is his incorrect belief that The Cleaners is led by a single person. In reality, The Cleaners is not led by anyone at all. My position is merely that of a person who brings people together, not a leader of any sort.

I do, however, have responsibility over accepting new members. I'm sure my opponent would like to argue this point, but since I would like for more productive and novel responses, I will offer a preliminary counterargument later on.

Since I have established that there is no leader, I will move on to the next point: Expulsion. The simple answer is that we have no such thing. There is simply no act that a Cleaner can do to result in his expulsion, and no reason for him to be expelled. If a Cleaner decides to go through all my debates and votebomb me, and offers explanations for each and every vote, he will still not be expelled from the Cleaners. There is simply nothing that can result in expulsion.

To add onto that point, Cleaners are free to leave and not be associated with us at any time. To be a Cleaner is dangerous, for all the Cleaners are currently targeted by Josh the terrorist to be votebombed. However, the Cleaners who are here endure that risk because they place debate, voting, commenting, and increasing the productivity of debate.org well above their own win ratios.

The final point of my opponent, that dissent will lead to problems that spill over to the debates we are reviewing: This is impossible. Dissent is not an issue because each Cleaner is his own judge and jury. Dissent is simply impossible because Cleaners have absolutely nothing to argue about.

I will now offer a preliminary counterpoint: If I am in charge of membership, am I not in a position of power? The answer is "no". Not only do I consult with the Cleaners about a new applicant, I have also structured the Cleaners in a way such that the requirements for joining are near 0. Being a good Cleaner is the same as being a good participant on debate.org in general. Thus, if you are a good member of debate.org, there really should be no other requirements for being part of The Cleaners. In that case, why would it be a position of power if the bar is set so low? I'm more like a doorman instead of a bouncer. I'll not only open the door wide open for you, but I'll do it with a smile.

However, I do have an underhanded tactic I use as a sort of "audition". Before new members can be "official", I tell them to Clean 5 debates that have recently ended and are in need of attention (only have a few voters). I essentially use them as "non Cleaner Cleaners" :)

Please, I look forward to my opponent's response.
elgeibo

Con

My opponent continues to both astound and admonish. Anytime a debater can make a reader have an emotion that begins with "a", you know they are a good debater. I know that I, personally, have learned a great deal about "The Cleaners", debate.org, and the dark underbelly of this website.

I have saved this final point to be the crux of my reasoning of why not all debate.org members should ask"The Cleaners" to review their debates. This point is one of my favorites to use, mainly because it contradicts itself in actuality, yet remains true non-the-less.

Never make a definitive statement. Or, as my English/Debate teacher once told me, "Never, ever, under any circumstance, ever make a definitive statement!" I laughed and asked if that was not possibly the most definitive statement, and she asked me if I cared to debate that. I did not. So, to this day, I don't know whether it is or not.

That story aside, the saying stays true. I am willing to bet that "Josh the terrorist" should not ask "The Cleaners" to review his debates, as they would be none to kind and biased towards him. I would also guess that members of "The Cleaners" should not review their own debates, as a self-bias would be in place.

I humbly suggest that though it would be a good idea for some, possibly even most, debate.org members to ask "The Cleaners" to review their debates, but the statement that "All" should is just taking it over the line.

I thank my opponent for his interesting topic and I hope he had as much fun as I did turning a "billboard" of such into a debate. I know I did and look forward to his own group of "The Cleaners" to go through this debate and tear me apart on my rambling and magniloquence. This has been fun.
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by antisemantic 8 years ago
antisemantic
I am currently the whipping boy of the CWO. joshandr30 has been deleted so I have replaced him. And so, sadolite has NO connection to me what so ever.
Posted by Dnick94 8 years ago
Dnick94
Good job, Kleptin. Antisemantic is Josh even if he denies it.
Posted by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
I can't believe I actually managed to trap you into admitting that you're Josh. I thought you were slicker than that.
Posted by antisemantic 8 years ago
antisemantic
I know you will not believe me but Sadolite and I have NO connection what so ever. While I was recruiting for the CWO I did contact him. He was positively AGAINST ANY group. I asked him to just go and look at a debate and vote ANY WAY HE WANTED and he would not even vote period to avoid ANY connection to a group PERIOD. We had about a half dozen pm between us talking about that issue, after that I have had NO communication with him except what was in the 600 comment section. I have not said this until this point because I know it will be futile to do so, but because Kleptin has to drive this in to the ground (all he has) I decided to testify on Sadolite's behalf.

REPEAT:

Sadolite has NO CONNECTION TO THE CWO IN ANYWAY> Give it a rest Klep.
Posted by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
Haha, I find that hard to believe since you went from "having the lowest win ratio" to keeping almost 100%. It's obvious you're backed by Josh. You're not a bad debater, but there are many of your debates that are obviously vote-bombed in your favor.
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
You still think I have a connection to him, I never heard of him until that 600 comment long joke he played. Sour grapes I think.
Posted by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
Eh, it's a small price to pay. Instead of selling out my integrity to Josh like you did to get fake votes, I'd rather keep the 0% win rate.
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
98 debates and 97 losses wlcome to the club that I used to belong to. I will soon be there with you As my win rate is plumiting as we speak. Funny though, almost no "Cleaner" format voters. I smell a rotten egg!!
Posted by elgeibo 8 years ago
elgeibo
I just debated this for a couple reasons, to be funny and to get a little better at debating. This is only my second debate.org debate :)
Posted by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
As a side note to all reading this debate,

***but not to be considered in terms of voting on this debate***

I will clarify that *every* member of debate.org, including Josh and other Cleaners, are valid candidates for Cleaning.

First, there is nothing to stop us from reviewing each other's debates, nor whatever debates josh (or rather, josh's multitude of accounts) decides to participate in. Thus, asking is not an issue.

First, Josh's debates will be reviewed based on content, not on the person. If he deserves to win, he will win.

Second, The Cleaners are being constantly vote bombed by Josh. In that case, self cleaning will not help in terms of votes, but the comments will be a tremendous help, to exchange advice. It is safe to say that The Cleaners are not out for high win rates because otherwise, they would not join and allow themselves to become subject to Josh's terrorism.

If Josh ever stops vote bombing, self cleaning would still be unbiased, because we are kept in check by the mandated "explain your vote" clause.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
KleptinelgeiboTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
KleptinelgeiboTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by DiablosChaosBroker 8 years ago
DiablosChaosBroker
KleptinelgeiboTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
KleptinelgeiboTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Metz 8 years ago
Metz
KleptinelgeiboTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Labrat228 8 years ago
Labrat228
KleptinelgeiboTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
KleptinelgeiboTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Vote Placed by PoeJoe 8 years ago
PoeJoe
KleptinelgeiboTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00