The Instigator
burningpuppies101
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
vorxxox
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

All members of debate.org ought to provide RFD's in the debates they vote in.

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: 1/23/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,763 times Debate No: 6622
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (5)

 

burningpuppies101

Pro

I want to begin by thanking my opponent-to-be, for taking this debate.

I want to thank the people voting in this debate, and I sincerely hope they will provide RFD's in their votes.

This first round will be devoted to setting some preliminary ground rules. These rules are to be accepted by my opponent, and any infringement upon those rules should result in a automatic loss by my opponent.

Here are the rules:

1. No semantics. No attacking my use of words, and I won't do the same to my opponent.
2. No definitions debate. I'm going to provide definitions to the topic. Take it or don't join the debate.
3. No posting any arguments during this round. This first round is for establishment of rules and guidlines.
4. Here are the definitions for this debate:
All members: everyone who is registered and has an account on debate.org
debate.org: the site set up by WebCorp for use of internet debates.
ought: has an obligation
RFD: a reason for decision. It encompasses why you voted they way you vote, where you voted, and provides justification for all the votes you made.

If there are any questions my opponent wants to ask, or any rules he/she wants to add, they may be asked in the comments section AFTER he/she has accepted my debate.
vorxxox

Con

Thank you for creating such a debate. As you have said, I'm not gonna post any arguments until next round. However, to make things clear, for me to accept these rules you give, you must accept them too along with the consequences for not following them. Otherwise, your rules are void and I can violate them as well.

To make things fair I only have one rule:

You cannot add definitions after this round.

It goes nicely with your second rule. Just to make things fair.
Debate Round No. 1
burningpuppies101

Pro

I want to thank my opponent for this debate. I hope this will become a wonderful and educational debate.

I accept that rule.

~~~~~~~~~~~~


I affirm the resolution that states that all members of debate.org ought to provide RFD's in the debates they vote in.

My opponent has the burden of proving why all members ought not to provide RFD's.
I have the burden of proving why all members ought to provide RFD's.

1. Those debating deserve to know why they are winning or losing. When you debate, you always have a winner, and you always have a loser. The one who won or lost should be able to know why he/she won/lost, so next time he/she can improve, so that he/she has a better chance of winning. When you debate on debate.org, you gradually come to realize what works and what doesn't. BUT how do you find out all this important information? One option is self analysis. I contend that this is great. You self analyze your actions, and figure out how to improve. But you can only analyze so much. At some point along the line, you need someone else to tell you what you did wrong, so you can get better. If no one tells you what you did wrong, then you can't improve nearly as much as you normally would.

2. Its only fair. The voter influences the outcome of the debate, and its only fair to tell the debaters what they did to make you vote the way you did. Look at it this way. The debaters debate. You vote. The debaters bare their hearts to you, in their debate. You don't tell them a thing...

3. It will stop some vote bombing. If everyone had to provide an RFD whenever they voted, those who voted for bad reasons (vote bombing) will be stopped, since we can simply tell who was vote bombing, and those accounts can be removed. And vote bombers will be deterred since they will have to post an RFD that explains their vote, but their vote was illegitamate.

I await my opponent.
vorxxox

Con

Ok then. Now, for my arguments.

I negate the resolution that states that all members of debate.org ought to provide RFD's in the debates they vote in.

1. Due to the format of Debate.org votes, such a proposition would be ineffective and time consuming

As stated in the first round:

RFD: a reason for decision. It encompasses why you voted they way you vote, where you voted, and provides justification for all the votes you made.

Now, lets observe the format of a debate.org vote.

A vote is worth 6 points I believe. Each point is awarded based on the following criteria:

1. Who did you agree with before the debate?
2. Who did you agree with after the debate?
3. Who had better conduct?
4. Who had better spelling and grammar?
5. Who made more convincing arguments?
6. Who used the most reliable sources?

So, the affirmative's plan is to propose that every member of Debate.org evaluates why they awarded points to either side. To my understanding in fact, they must justify ALL their votes lest they be illegit. Yet, what if both sides had perfect spelling, grammar, sources, and conduct? Unable to award a point to either side, the voters would be forced to award ties to all of those points, and their vote would count for little to no points. Also, biased points will still be inevitably awarded due to the first criteria, so how would evaluating a biased decision help the debaters improve? What does all of this solve?

2. The resolution is unfair and cannot be enforced.

Such a proposition violates the privacy of voters since it will openly expose their votes and is therefore an insult to the idea of democracy. This can influence votes as well. Since all my friends voted for affirmative and I want to fit in with all my friends, I will probably vote affirmative, even though I wanted to vote negative. This can also encourage people not to vote at all.

Also, exactly how would this be enforced? And who has the control over all of this? Some moderator will take extra time to read ballots 1 by 1 and will delete ballots that are "for bad reasons?" Oh, your vote didn't make enough sense, so it doesn't count. Who are they to decide? I seriously doubt they will have to explain themselves. And as for so called "vote bombers", they are labeled by the ones with authority who have the power to remove their accounts without explaining. Whosoever is the moderater will have too much power. But it doesn't matter, if the real vote bombers are smart, they can just copy and paste RFD's from their buddies and they would have nothing to worry about.

Well, that's all I have for.

I challange my opponent to answer all of my questions.

Please vote CON

Unless you want to vote pro, which doing so you have to show everyone where you put your points and you must justify it, and I get to decide whether it is "good enough." Otherwise your vote is illegit and it doesn't count. And you risk losing your account.

:)

Seriously though, please vote CON
Debate Round No. 2
burningpuppies101

Pro

I'll start with my opponent's case, and then my case.

1. Ineffective and time consuming.
RESPONSE: SO my opponent is arguing that it would be too time consuming, and a vote would count for little to no points. First off, if anything this system would remove any illegit votes, since everyone would have to post a RFD, and people would know who voted where and why, and those voting illegiitimately will be obvious. My opponent states that what if both sides had good speelling and grammar, and sources, and conduct. He claims that this would make voting meaningless. WRONG. If anything, it would make it more meaningful, since the voter has voted honestly. If the Spelling, grammar, sources, and conduct are really the same, then it makes the debate that much better. Its no fun to have a debate where one person decides to forget about any sense of manners and swears every other word. So that part of my opponent's argument has been refuted. My opponent then goes on to say that biased votes will inevitably happen, due to the first 2 criteria my opponent brought up. However, those 2 criteria have no bearing on the debate. The only votes that actually give points are the last 4 criteria. So that argument has been refuted.

2. Unfair and can't be enforced
RESPONSE: Look. You can easily get around my opponents argument in the following way: Who says everyone see's the votes? Nowhere have I said that everyone will see everyone's votes. I say that the only people who need to see the people's votes are the debaters. So I propose the following system:
Debaters debate.
Voters vote.
Voters see RFDs, and only voters
The votes can be posted, but the RFDs can only be seen by the debaters.

That takes care of the first half of this argument.
For the second half.

So my opponent is arguing that it would be incredibly difficult to monitor all the votes in a debate, and that not all votes will be read.
RESPONSE: My opponent is trying to argue that it would be too difficult to monitor all votes, and therefore we should reject my system. The problem with this is that there are a bunch of responses. We could:
1. Get more moderators to handle it.
2. If Webcorp doesn't want to hire them, the current moderators can get a group of people willing to do this. These people would be relatively experienced, and the veterans of the site. They could help and monitor all the votes.
3. After a while, the moderators will be able to do the job quickly and easily, as they begin to learn voting habits of people.

CONCLUSION:
So my opponent hasn't provided any actual reason as to why people should not post RFDs when they vote. He has only said that it would be difficult to monitor, it would be ineffective, but he hasn't provided any actual reason as to why people should not be allowed to know why they are winning or losing. You can extend all my arguments.

BURDENS: The only burden my opponent has set before me is the one to answer all his questions. I have done so. One more reason for an affirmative ballot My opponent has not fulfilled the burden that I gave him, the one to prove why we should not be allowed to know why we won or lost, only that we won or lost. One more reason for an affirmative ballot.

I await my opponent and the voters, and I ask that everyone post an RFD. You should be proud of who you voted for and why, and you have more than enough reason to let me and my opponent know about it.
vorxxox

Con

vorxxox forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by burningpuppies101 8 years ago
burningpuppies101
SouthernDeadHead, no problem. A RFD is a Reason for Decision. Basically, its like where you explain your vote. For instance:

Conduct: Pro.. Why.... etc... therefore... etc
Spelling and grammar: Con...why...etc... therefore... etc/...
Sources: Pro... why.. etc... therefore....
Arguments: Pro... why..etc... therefore... etc...

Something like that.
Posted by SouthernDeadhead 8 years ago
SouthernDeadhead
I am showing my noob-ness now, but what is a RFD?
Posted by ournamestoolong 8 years ago
ournamestoolong
I hope this actually happens
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
burningpuppies101vorxxoxTied
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 Epicism 8 years ago
Epicism
burningpuppies101vorxxoxTied
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 theitalianstallion 8 years ago
theitalianstallion
burningpuppies101vorxxoxTied
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 
Vote Placed by vorxxox 8 years ago
vorxxox
burningpuppies101vorxxoxTied
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 s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
burningpuppies101vorxxoxTied
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