The Instigator
PowerPikachu21
Con (against)
The Contender
triangle.128k
Pro (for)

Are forfeit glitches good?

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
PowerPikachu21 has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/4/2016 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 360 times Debate No: 94285
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

PowerPikachu21

Con

This isn't the first time debates froze when someone ran out of time. But the question is: Are they good?

Definitions:

Forfeit Glitch: When someone runs out of time for an argument, and the debate doesn't continue (see some of my debates).

I believe there's a few people that thinks the forfeit glitch is alright. So who wishes to debate me on this?
Debate Round No. 1
PowerPikachu21

Con

I thank Pro for accepting. Sorry I delayed my post. Anyways, here's my argument for why the forfeit glitches aren't good.

Argument:

Point 1; Delayed conclusion.

Suppose someone just forgot about a debate, and ran out of time. And that person wants to get back to the debate, but needs to wait a few months for the debate to continue. How will the debate turn out when the debate continues? Who will win? No one will know.

Point 2; Annoyance.

This 2nd point is simple. No one likes waiting. Not the Instigator, not the Contender, not the one who didn't time out, nor the one who did forfeit.

Conclusion:

With the forfeit glitch active, we can't see the outcome for months, and we have to wait. No one wants that.
triangle.128k

Pro

Noobsniping

Forfeit glitches are good for mainly the reason of a technique called "noobsniping."



When we look at the open debate challenges available, we can see quite a bit of newcomers with little experience with debating, otherwise known as "noobs" as a slur. Many newcomers are known to have purple circles, since looking at the leaderboards of the website, we can that everybody on the list has a profile picture.

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...;

Many times these inexperienced newcomers will make debate challenges but then leave the site after they haven't found it "interesting" enough or have forgotten about it. This has led to many people (myself included) exploiting such debate challenges, by accepting them, writing an argument, and waiting for their opponent to forfeit. This is what is known as a "noobsnipe." Noobsniping on debate.org is a very common way to boost ELO or improve one's win-lose ratio.

By having this forfeit glitch in place, noobsniping would be reduced since the debate would "glitch out" from forfeits.



Instant wins

Many people will overlook the actual debate, and automatically reward a conduct point to the opponent over a forfeit. It isn't uncommon that people on debate.org will accidentally not post their argument in time, and thus a forfeit occurs. As a result, this minor slip up leads to people getting more votes towards them instead of actually looking at the arguments made by both people. Essentially, it's an "unfair win" given that one could fail to provide good arguments against an opponent, but essentially win over one forfeit of the opponent.

Forfeit glitches however fix this issue.
Debate Round No. 2
PowerPikachu21

Con

I thank Pro for continuing the debate. Let's get into rebuttals.

Rebuttals:

Noobsniping:

There's no need for a giant screenshot. Not sure about the readers, but I've been on the site for over a year now, and am familiar with people abandoning debates.

I also already noticed the purple circles. Let's get on topic now.

"By having this forfeit glitch in place, noobsniping would be reduced since the debate would "glitch out" from forfeits."

Yes, abandoned debates will not continue, because the newbie left. I concede this is true, but other, actual debaters might time out.

Pro's 1st point, while true, must take into account other debates that aren't abandoned by a newbie.

Here's a few debates as my evidence:

http://www.debate.org... times out. (Reason is unknown, though)

http://www.debate.org... times out. Looking at his profile picture, it says he's online at this point in time, so he didn't leave the site.

http://www.debate.org... times out. He times out 1 week ago, he was last online 19 hours ago.

So debates aren't always forfeited because the Instigator lost interest in the site. It can also be a concession (See many of my debates), or the person just couldn't post an argument in time.

This should be enough. On to Pro's 2nd point.

Instant wins:

"It isn't uncommon that people on debate.org will accidentally not post their argument in time, and thus a forfeit occurs." Pro concedes on my previous point.

"As a result, this minor slip up leads to people getting more votes towards them instead of actually looking at the arguments made by both people. Essentially, it's an "unfair win" given that one could fail to provide good arguments against an opponent, but essentially win over one forfeit of the opponent."

Are the votes valid, however? I'd imagine just a conduct point because the person times out, would be insufficient. I would like to see an example of a debate where one side times out, and the other person wins just because the guy forfeited once. And I won't accept anything from over 1 year ago, since vote moderation is better nowadays from back before I joined.

Conclusion:

I definitely see where my opponent's coming from. But I think we'll need to step up our games for a good outcome. So, Pro, what do you make of my arguments? (I say "we" because my arguments can be better.)
triangle.128k

Pro

"So debates aren't always forfeited because the Instigator lost interest in the site. It can also be a concession (See many of my debates), or the person just couldn't post an argument in time."

Con has done nothing to argue against my points, but has only explained why there are other reasons as to why people forfeit debates. None the less, I have stated that forfeits are an automatic win many times, and can be an "unfair" win in quite some cases.

"Are the votes valid, however? I'd imagine just a conduct point because the person times out, would be insufficient. I would like to see an example of a debate where one side times out, and the other person wins just because the guy forfeited once. And I won't accept anything from over 1 year ago, since vote moderation is better nowadays from back before I joined."

http://www.debate.org...

My opponent makes a false statement especially given that there are debates on this website with wins awarded as conduct points purely based off forfeits.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by PowerPikachu21 6 months ago
PowerPikachu21
Done. (I usually have the debate time set to 48 hours so that if someone left the debate, it would go by quicker.)
Posted by triangle.128k 6 months ago
triangle.128k
also increase the voting period to one month
Posted by triangle.128k 6 months ago
triangle.128k
Increase the argument time to 72 hours and I will accept.
Posted by ConserativeDemocrat 6 months ago
ConserativeDemocrat
This glitch is so annoying.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.