The Instigator
Dorb
Pro (for)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
Yvette
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Cast wrong vote on debate "Truth is relative"

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
Yvette
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/20/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,348 times Debate No: 12375
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (6)

 

Dorb

Pro

In the debate between myself, Dorb, and another debater, whatledge, Yvette voted that we had tied in all categories except the "Made more convincing arguments," in which she voted that whatledge had done better.

I argue that Yvette's vote was misinformed, and that she voted against the reality of the situation.

How she voted for the categories, "Agreed with before the debate," "Agreed with after the debate," and "Who had better conduct," are irrelevant to this debate, as I am not challenging them. I do challenge the other three. To win this debate, however, I propose that I will only have to show that one of the three votes was chosen against the reality of the situation. In doing so, I will have proved that Yvette cast the wrong vote.

Because I am Pro, I accept the burden of proof for this debate. Yvette's only task will be to defend.

Because Yvette's other debates show her dislike of semantics, I will appease her by making semantics not part of this debate.

And finally, the way this debate will proceed: in Round 1, Yvette will accept the debate, and if she feels the need (although I do not see any here), she can proffer some definitions. In Rounds 2 and 3, we will present arguments.

If Yvette accepts this debate, thank you and good luck.
Yvette

Con

I accept, and will provide a few definitions. We are arguing about how I voted for "spelling and grammar", "best argument", and "most reliable sources".

Misinformed: to be provided with incorrect information.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

Reality: quality or state of being true
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

Wrong: not in conformity with fact or truth, incorrect or erroneous.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Dorb

Pro

I accept Yvette's definitions. Defining "misinformed" is unimportant. If I demonstrate that Yvette cast the "wrong" vote, then it will be assumed that she was "misinformed" by whatledge's false supporting information.

There are three points that I am contesting here: "Who had better spelling and grammar," "Who made more convincing arguments," and "Who used the most reliable sources."

Who had better spelling and grammar?

Yvette voted that this category was a tie in the debate. A careful analysis of the debate as a whole, however, demonstrates that whatledge made more spelling and grammatical errors than Dorb. Because this is the case, I claim that Yvette should have voted that this was won by Pro, and not that it was a tie.

To prove this is the case, I will show all the cases in which whatledge made errors of this kind.

For the most part, I have limited myself to the cases where whatledge was clearly operating under the rubric of English grammar – paragraphs and sentences. I've also avoided the question of whether fragments are grammatically correct or not by not listing them. If Yvette prefers to counter with fragments, however, I will gladly indulge her desires. If Yvette is to defend her case, she will have to demonstrate that Dorb made as many errors as whatledge.

First case: "As my opponent is instigator claiming that the truth is relative, the burden of proof lies with him to prove that Gravity"

This statement has no period, and furthermore, is incomplete. As such, it is a grammatical error.

Second case: "The above quote explains it rather well."

In context, this statement's pronoun, "it," refers to no antecedent. As such, it can be considered grammatically inaccurate.

Third case: "therefore, a square is not a circle."

The "t" in "therefore" should be capitalized.

Fourth case: "The future is nonexistent, what has not yet happened does not qualify as truth or fact."

A comma splice, which is considered unacceptable by the standards of English grammar.

Fifth and Sixth case: "Am I a alive?"

In this case, the problem is "a alive." Firstly, it should be "an alive." Secondly, it is either a wrong construction or incomplete; either way, it is wrong. I count this, then, as two cases.

Because Dorb made less grammatical errors than whatledge, Yvette should have voted Pro in this category. As such, Yvette cast the wrong vote.

Who used the most reliable sources?

Besides a reference to dictionary.com to define "truth," the only sources that whatledge used were from Wikipedia. Wikipedia is notoriously unreliable because it is open to anonymous editing.

Dorb's first listed sources are "Feynman Lectures on Physics, vol. 1," and "Spivak's Calculus." Every following source was, like whatledge, from Wikipedia. I claim, then, that because Dorb used two sources that were far more reliable than whatledge's sources, Dorb should have won this category.

The "Feynman Lectures on Physics, vol. 1" is the choice textbook on physics in some of the top universities in the world. At MIT, both the introductory physics classes and the classes on "Quantum Physics" use this textbook. At the University of Chicago, the same thing.

As for "Spivak's Calculus," it is a major mathematical textbook in some of the most difficult math classes at top universities.

I can post links to the syllabi from the U Chicago physics and math courses if the Wikipedia pages below are not enough to demonstrate the reliability of these two texts.

Because institutions of higher education, and particularly those mentioned – MIT, Harvard, U Chicago, Princeton – prefer these textbooks, I argue that they are the "most reliable" sources. And if not the "most reliable," they are by far more reliable than Wikipedia.

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...(book)

Who made more convincing arguments?

I claim that the arguments whatledge made were not "more convincing" than the arguments made by Dorb. To win this particular category, I do not need to prove that Dorb's arguments were "more convincing," although I do believe that to be the case.

Dorb's argument rested on three fundamental points, each of which he argued convincingly. whatledge, on the other hand, failed to address either of these points, and instead, chose to ignorantly (as I will show) say the same thing over and over again, without providing support or weighing the evidence of the arguments made by Dorb.

I will begin with Round 3, as I believe that is the place where Dorb presents his three fundamental points, each of which were argued convincingly, and each of which were misrepresented by whatledge. And worse, whatledge never addresses these powerful arguments that Dorb made.

First argument:

Dorb made a twofold argument vis-�-vis space, time, gravity, and the physical world: (1) that "for every statement x, there is a space s such that in space s x is not true"; and (2) that "for every statement x, there is a time t such that in time t x is not true." This argument was supported by three Wikipedia articles, the one on Gravitation, the one on General Relativity, and the one on Quantum Mechanics, as well as the Feynman Lectures on Physics.

Instead of addressing this argument, whatledge continued to repeat claims (without support) that were irrelevant precisely because they were such a statement x, and therefore, were relative to both space and time.

whatledge claimed that "If I drop an apple from a roof, it WILL fall down. This isn't relative. It is not a matter of opinion that gravity pulled the apple down to the ground." This is clearly not true, given the statements above.

Furthermore, I insisted that because of General Relativity, the apple would, from certain reference frames, not fall down. whatledge refused to believe Einstein's theory of General Relativity, and in the final argument, provided a video of himself dropping an apple.

whatledge refused to realize that I had conceded that an apple could fall down, and that his video therefore did not prove that an apple would ALWAYS fall down.

This video was the last word on the debate, but it was not convincing in the least. I provided scientific and theoretical proof that an apple falling down when dropped was a relative truth. whatledge provided a video that (1) could have edited, and (2) was not scientific.

Which type of evidence is "more convincing?" I argue that theoretical and scientific evidence is more convincing than empty claims and a video that depicts someone dropping apples to the ground. I leave this, however, to the readers of this debate to decide.

Second argument:

Dorb argued that mathematical truths were "objective" and "relative." In support of this claim, Dorb used Spivak's infamous (because of how difficult it is) textbook on Calculus to demonstrate that mathematical truths are indeed relative. Because whatledge agreed that they were objective, Dorb did not have to prove this.

Dorb provided multiple arguments that mathematical truths were relative. First, Dorb argued that the operators of addition and multiplication can change depending on the field chosen by the mathematician. This information is in the appendix of Spivak's Calculus, in the section on "Fields." (Again, Dorb used a more reliable source for his information). By "field," Dorb was referring to a specific mathematical concept from the book.

In the final round, Dorb also provided a quote from a famous mathematician, Charles Proteus Steinmetz: "All mathematical truths are relative," which, given Steinmetz's position as an authority on the matter, should have been enough evidence for both whatledge and Yvette to realize that mathematical truths, although objective, are indeed relative. As such, Dorb's second argument was more convincing.

I have run out of room, so I will continue my argum
Yvette

Con

INTRODUCTION
First, my opponent asserts that I: voted wrongly, was misinformed, and voted "against the reality of the situation". Because of this, my opponent cannot possibly win this challenge. To show I voted wrongly and incorrectly (misinformed), he requires objective and factual proof. However a simple look at the questions asked of voters shows that what he is attacking is pure opinion: "better", "more convincing", and "most reliable". He cannot prove my OPINIONS were WRONG. He can, and has attempted to, attempt to convince myself and voters that a vote in his favor would have been subjectively better. But this is not proof I am wrong. Furthermore, to vote "against the reality of the situation" means both "voted wrong" and "was misinformed". My opponent's only avenue to discredit my vote, then, is to prove I was misinformed. However, in case voters are not convinced I will defend each vote.

Second, my opponent cannot win this debate without proving his earlier position that truth is relative, wrong. Either truth is relative and my opponent admits he can not prove any of his statements definitely, or truth is not relative and he was wrong in his previous debate (therefore my vote was in good taste) as he asserted there that no truths are true absolutely.

Third: "I argue that Yvette's vote was misinformed, and that she voted against the reality of the situation."

My opponent has no evidence for this statement, and as the only person who could know how informed I am, I assert that I read the entire argument and was as fully informed as realistically possible. I am also fully capable of being completely informed to my opponent's satisfaction and voting to his dissatisfaction due to either: lying, or objective opinion. Indeed, my opponent cannot prove his statement that I voted against the reality of anything as this would require a statement to be true.

Fourth, I will use valid argument from authority. My opponent is clearly biased, therefore his subjective claims that this or that argument was "better" are highly suspect. I am also biased, so my subjective claims are suspect. However I assert that there is only one unbiased authority on the matter, and he has voted in precisely the same manner as myself. RoyLatham clearly is the more authoritative opinion between my opponent and myself. At a 92% win ratio and a 99% percentile rank, he is clearly knowledgeable about debate and the way the site works (see below, where I contend that "tie" votes are neutral). This does not make me informed, but it does call into question whether my vote was objectively "wrong" when an experienced debater agreed with me fully. [1]

VOTING CHOICE
Finally, I will give my reasons for my vote. I am of the opinion that absolute vs. relative truth cannot be proven and that there have been no conclusive arguments presented from advocates of either view. Neither Dorb nor whatledge convinced me, and I felt neither of their arguments settled the matter. However, Dorb's argument that referring to the same thing by different names makes something untrue struck me as especially bad, and tipped the scales for me to vote that one had made better arguments than the other.

1. Spelling and grammar: tie
As someone who studies anthropology, I will be rejecting the notion that spelling and grammar can be "better". "Better" is a fully subjective term and anthropologists reject the idea that languages, dialects, grammar rules, etc, can be better than one another. I quote prominent linguist Donna Jo Napoli, who has argued that even grammatical rules are not true rules:

"Some of us hold onto archaisms longer than others...but if you say ‘It's I' self-consciously because you've been taught that that's correct, what does ‘correct' mean in this situation? If that's what most people used to say but it is not what most people say today, you're saying it's correct either because you revere the past (which many of us do) or because you believe that there's a rule of language that's being obeyed by ‘It's I' and being broken by ‘It's me'...more than one issue is at play here [grammatically]." [2] She is joined by most linguistic anthropologists who reject the notion that Ebonics, for example, is "worse" than "Standard English". [3] This shows I was not misinformed in this category, as linguistic experts reject the notion of "better" use language.

Furthermore, a "tie" vote is the default, the only possible neutral vote the site allows. It can be interpreted and meant to be a statement of no opinion one way or another. I, and probably many others, vote as tie when they either have no opinion, aren't sure, didn't check, or truly feel there was a tie. It is impossible to tell because the system allows no alternative, thus, it is impossible for my opponent to prove my vote was not simply a vote of non-opinion, which I assert it was. My opponent is arguing against my statement of non-opinion on the matter. Regardless of whose grammar and spelling is considered "better" by prescriptive linguists, I cannot be "wrong" when I state no opinion. This would be like stating that someone who has never made any statement about the existence of Santa Claus is wrong and misinformed about reality. The argument is invalid and would only be valid if I had voted one way or another.

2. References: tie
My above statement on the neutrality of my votes continues to apply. For all I know, every article cited by my opponent can look credible but be considered a poor source by those in the field who are more knowledgeable on the subject. Or I may have simply not cared to check. I did not make a vote either way, and so cannot be considered "wrong" for my non-opinion.

3. Argument: whatledge
"As such, Dorb's second argument was more convincing..." my opponent states. But I disagree. I assert that the question of "who made more convincing arguments" is subject to the voter's opinion on whether or not they found themselves moved by either argument. It is not a question of which debater was more skilled, which my opponent clearly was. Unfortunately I felt this was more a matter of whatledge's debate skills being poor but neither point's arguments being convincing. Because I did not find myself convinced by either argument, but found my opponent's argument that the existence of multiple languages disproved objective reality to be a very poor argument and one which weakened any chances of me being convinced, I voted in whatledge's favor. I repeat: the question was of which argument was more convincing. Neither convinced me but one of my opponent's points turned me off from his position.

CONCLUSION
My opponent is attempting to say that my non-opinion is incorrect, and that I was objectively wrong and misinformed. He can prove none of this, no matter how convincing of a case he makes for his arguments, grammar, and references being subjectively better.

SOURCES
1. http://goo.gl...
2. http://goo.gl...
3. http://goo.gl...
Debate Round No. 2
Dorb

Pro

Yvette states that I cannot prove that her "OPINIONS were WRONG." This is not true. Just because someone believes something, or has an opinion about something, does not mean that that is the case. I can believe, and have the opinion, that this is not written in the English language, but that would be an opinion that is wrong. Yvette can have the opinion that she is correct, and she can be wrong. Opinions can be proven wrong.

As I stated in R1 of this debate, to win I will only have to prove that Yvette voted wrongly in one of the categories in question. That will be enough to say she "voted wrongly," as the vote is calculated as a total sum and not individually. Therefore, in R1 I focus on the two categories that offer most "objective and factual proof," namely, that of "spelling and grammar" and of the more "reliable sources." Yvette did not respond to my arguments that my sources were more reliable. Silence, I contend, is consent. Therefore, Yvette has already begun to imply that she voted wrongly.

Yvette's "second" is also wrong. This is a different debate, and therefore, I do not have to show that Dorb was correct in the other debate – "Truth is relative" – to prove my point in this debate. I only have to prove that Yvette voted wrongly in some category.

Yvette claims that I am "clearly biased," and that therefore my "subjective claims that this or that argument was ‘better' are highly suspect." She then uses RoyLatham as an authority that can be trusted. As I stated, the argument I am making here is not subjective. I am providing objective and factual proof, and I am using authoritative sources for each point. The authoritative sources I used in the previous debate are far more of an authority than RoyLatham – they include Einstein, Feynman, and Spivak. If you believe RoyLatham is a better authority than these three figures, please explain how that is the case. Furthermore, just because RoyLatham agreed with you does not mean you are correct. Throughout history, the minority has often been correct. In this case, I am the minority.

Yvette misread the argument that Dorb presented in "Truth is relative." Yvette states that Dorb argued that "referring to the same thing by different names makes something untrue," and that it was that argument that "tipped the scales for me to vote" against Dorb. The problem, however, is that Dorb never made such an argument. Dorb argued that language is "socially constructed, arbitrary, and relative." There is a distinct difference between saying something that refers to the same thing by different names makes something untrue, which Dorb never stated, and that language is relative because it is socially constructed and arbitrary. Dorb never had to prove things untrue. Dorb's only purpose was proving things relative. By relative, Dorb means that all things must be understood in relation to other things, including language and words. This is the reason that all words can only be defined by other words – they exist only in relation to other words and to things in the world. Again, Dorb argued that language was relative, not that "referring to the same thing by different names makes something untrue." Because Yvette voted against Dorb for an argument Dorb never made, Yvette voted wrongly in the category of "more convincing arguments." It should have been a "tie."

Yvette also argues that a "tie" vote can be a "non-opinion" vote, and that her "tie" votes were such votes. Yvette claims that she made a "non-opinion" vote. Yvette has made a grave error by admitting that her vote was a "non-opinion" vote because she has just proven me correct. Why? Because a "tie" vote is distinctly not a "non-opinion" vote. As such, she voted "incorrectly." Let me say that again: there is a distinct difference between a "tie" vote and a "non-opinion" vote. By admitting that her vote was not meant to be a "tie" vote, Yvette admits that she voted wrongly and incorrectly. She also admits that she was misinformed, because she admits that she was under the impression that a "non-opinion" vote was a "tie" vote.

Why is a "tie" vote not a "non-opinion" vote? According to Yvette, a "tie" vote is a "non-opinion" vote because the "system allows no alternative." Yvette, it seems, did not realize that the system does not require you to vote. In other words, a "tie" vote, on debate.org, is not a "non-opinion" vote because debate.org allows its users the alternative of not voting. Simply put, the alternative "neutral" position is not voting. If it were required that you vote on debate.org, then yes, a "tie" vote, because it is "the only possible neutral vote the site allows," would qualify as a "non-opinion" vote. But because the site distinctly allows its users not to vote, that effectively fulfills the function of a "non-opinion" vote.

When Yvette consented to vote, she in effect gave up the ability to cast a "non-opinion" vote. You can say she casted an "opinion" vote. She was given three options: "Pro," "Tie," or "Con." She chose "tie." In doing so, Yvette stated that in the category in question, "spelling and grammar" and "reliable sources," Yvette believed that Pro and Con had tied. In her "INTRODUCTION," Yvette admits that each of her votes were "opinions." Had Yvette wanted to have a "non-opinion" vote, she could have chosen NOT to vote. Thus, when Yvette cast her vote, she voted wrongly and incorrectly. According to her claim that she meant to cast a "non-opinion" vote, she should have not voted.

Spelling/grammar:

Yvette does not show that Dorb made more errors than whatledge because she cannot. Instead, she tries her best with a theoretical argument. Whatever the case, because I do not have to prove that Dorb's spelling and grammar were definitively better to win this debate (I can prove Yvette voted wrongly in other ways), I will leave judgments for this category up to the voters.

References:

Yvette states that she "did not make a vote either way." Yvette states this is so because her vote "cannot be considered ‘wrong' for my non-opinion." Yvette thus acknowledges that a "non-opinion" occurs when one does "not make a vote." The problem, however, is that Yvette did vote. She voted "tie," as is demonstrated by the "Truth is relative" debate page on which Yvette's votes can be seen. Therefore, I again contend that Yvette voted wrongly and incorrectly, and was misinformed on the relation of "non-opinion" and "tie" when voting.

Furthermore, Yvette has not answered my argument that the sources I provided – the Feynman Lectures on Physics and Spivak's Calculus – are more reliable than whatledge's use of Wikipedia. Silence is consent. Therefore, because Dorb's sources are objectively more reliable (proven in R2), Yvette voted wrongly in this category, too.

Argument:

Yvette states that "I felt this was more a matter of whatledge's debate skills being poor but neither point's arguments being convincing." I contend that if neither side provided convincing arguments, that neither side could have had a "more convincing" argument because no convincing arguments were presented, period. Yvette has claimed that neither side provided convincing arguments. Therefore, this category should have been a "tie." Therefore, Yvette voted wrongly.

Conclusion:

I have shown that Yvette clearly had "opinions," but that at the same time, that she believes she voted a "non-opinion." This is contradictory for obvious reasons. I contend, finally, that Yvette was misinformed because she assumed a "tie" vote was a "non-opinion" vote, and that she also voted wrongly as a result of this misinformation. I also contend that she voted wrongly in the category of "more convincing arguments" because, as she notes, "neither side provided convincing arguments." As such, neither side could have had a "more" convincing argument as neither side had a "convincing argument" in the first place.

Thank you for this debate and good luck.
Yvette

Con

SPELLING AND GRAMMAR
Below, I will remove any possibility of 2/3rds of my votes being proven wrong, and show that my third vote cannot be shown to be incorrect or misinformed.

"Because a "tie" vote is distinctly not a "non-opinion" vote...By admitting that her vote was not meant to be a "tie" vote, Yvette admits that she voted wrongly and incorrectly. She also admits that she was misinformed, because she admits that she was under the impression that a "non-opinion" vote was a "tie" vote...a "tie" vote, on debate.org, is not a "non-opinion" vote because debate.org allows its users the alternative of not voting. Simply put, the alternative "neutral" position is not voting. If it were required that you vote on debate.org, then yes, a "tie" vote, because it is "the only possible neutral vote the site allows," would qualify as a "non-opinion" vote."

Here is how the voting system works on this site: if you submit a vote for any one point, for example "better conduct", it records all other votes as "tie". There is no alternative neutral position--and so my opponent has just argued that I am right. The only possible neutral vote the site allows for each issue *when you choose to vote for another issue* is "tie". If you wish to vote on one point you are automatically recorded as having voted tied on every point, *despite never having cast a vote on anything but one point.

To put this in perspective, imagine that voters used a computer system to vote (that they had no say in designing) which only allowed them to vote Democrat, Republican, or "equally worthy", and the system automatically filled in every vote as "equally worthy" regardless of whether or not they had indicated any preference. Now someone goes in, and puts in a vote for one office, submits their vote, and leaves. No one in their right mind would consider them as having voted that every candidate is equally worthy. Nor would anyone in their right mind contend that they were actually think that every single candidate was perfectly equally worthy, 50/50. The voter had no choice but to let the very imperfect system record a vote on their behalf. Any reasonable person would interpret "tie" or "equally worthy" votes in a flawed system as "non-opinion" or "neutral", as they are the default, unless there is some reason to believe otherwise. As an aside, in both cases the total votes in favor of either party was zero and therefore should be treated as neutral votes. Let me make this clear: "if it were required that you vote on debate.org..." applies to this case. Debate.org's faulty system forces you to vote on issues which you have not voted on, as an automatic response to your voting to other points.

Therefore my opponent's statement that "because it is ‘the only possible neutral vote the site allows,' would qualify as a ‘non-opinion' vote" debunks two-thirds of his argument. He has unknowingly agreed that I made a non-opinion vote on "sources" and "grammar". Since a non-opinion cannot be wrong or misinformed, I was not wrong or misinformed on either of those two points.

MORE CONVINCING ARGUMENT
Now that I have shown that my opponent cannot possibly prove my "sources" and "grammar" non-opinion votes as "wrong", I will focus on aspects of my opponent's argument related to "better argument" only unless I need to do otherwise, due to running out of characters. My opponent must prove I voted OBJECTIVELY wrong, that factually and objectively he either formed the better argument or that his argument was perfectly equal to his opponent's.

"I can believe, and have the opinion, that this is not written in the English language, but that would be an opinion that is wrong." False. The above statement is not an opinion, it is an assertion of fact. A statement of fact can be tested, an opinion is 100% subjective. Either my opponent does not understand what an opinion is or is deliberately confusing the issue.

"Yvette did not respond to my arguments that my sources were more reliable. Silence, I contend, is consent. Therefore, Yvette has already begun to imply that she voted wrongly." This is a false conclusion. I did in fact respond because if I was silently agreeing, I would not have argued the point of "references". I did argue that point, therefore I was obviously not agreeing.

"Furthermore, just because RoyLatham agreed with you does not mean you are correct. Throughout history, the minority has often been correct. In this case, I am the minority." My argument does not rest on this point, however I will say that my opponent has misunderstood the point. His agreeing with me does not make me correct, it lends authority to my defense that I was not misinformed and that my opponent's arguments were not as good as he thinks they were, because someone unbiased with background and knowledge of debates, debate.org, and debate.org's voting systems made the same one vote and other non-opinion votes. Therefore it is suspect to think that Dorb's arguments were even tied because an authority on the matter does not agree. I repeat: the point is that RoyLatham is the only authority who has spoken on the matter and that he voted the same as myself. Not that one person agreed with me.

In response to my opponent's arguments about why I voted the way I did on this point: my opponent is wrong and grossly misrepresents my words. My opponent contradicts himself by arguing at one point that my reason for being turned off on his argument wasn't good enough, then arguing at another point that I never offered any reason for voting not a tie! My opponent cannot have it both ways. My reason for not voting tie was presented and my opponent chose to ignore it at one point and seize upon it at another point.

For the record, I specifically said "neither point's arguments being convincing" and "I did not find myself convinced by either argument". I then added that my reason for voting to one side was because my opponent had made a particularly poor argument: as I put it in my words under the ARGUMENT heading "that the existence of multiple languages disproved objective reality". Under a more general heading, as an introduction to my general arguments, I concede I poorly characterized his argument as saying that "referring to the same thing by different names makes something untrue". HOWEVER, I clearly was not misinformed as I accurately characterized his argument when discussing that point specifically. Clearly I was not misinformed, only lazy when speaking vaguely in reference to the argument at one point and not another.

I contend that regardless of what my opponent thinks, I was not convinced by either argument but was turned off by that specific argument. The vote was not "better argument" or "best formed argument" or "argument for the best side". I voted on whether or not I was convinced. And as I was only negatively convinced one way or another, I had no choice but to vote against the argument that managed to do the opposite of convince me: my opponent's.

To say it in different words, I was not misinformed and I correctly voted which was most convincing--the argument which had not negatively convinced me. My opinion was the only way to gauge how I should have voted, and I voted in line with my opinion. Therefore I did not vote incorrectly on the matter of "more convincing argument".

As an aside: stating that the voting system and my votes were a matter of opinion does not make my non-opinion votes non-opinion.

FINAL CONCLUSION
My opponent has inadvertently restricted himself from proving I voted wrongly on two points. He has again failed to prove objectively that I should have voted "tied" or in Dorb's favor for the previous argument. As mentioned earlier, wrong is a statement of fact but the vote was a matter of opinion. He cannot possibly prove a subjective opinion was wrong, and if you read my arguments carefully, you will see none of his points above prove the resolution. Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
Dorb, It doesn't say anywhere that it's not a matter of counting errors. There are no ddo rules for judging as far as I know, so it's whatever the individual thinks is reasonable. You are free to count errors and judge a debate on that basis. I argued that counting errors is not required, and that it is reasonable to evaluate S&G on a subjective interpretation of how much communication was impaired by the errors. Glaring mistakes, like a major spelling error in the debate resolution, are more distracting than a missing comma.

I agree that debates about the argumentation process can be worthwhile. For example, a debate about who ought to have the burden of proof, even whether S&G ought to be judged solely by counting errors. (I'll debate that if you like.) However, there have been a number of debates on ddo along the lines of "X should have won the debate with Y" and they never seem to yield much. But, it's a free country ...
Posted by Yvette 6 years ago
Yvette
Meh, alright @ the voting on your own debate.
Posted by Dorb 6 years ago
Dorb
RoyLatham, where does it state that "It's not a matter of counting errors"? As far as I'm concerned, an error by definition affects the degree to which something is communicated. An "S&G" error also hurts the speaker's ethos, and in doing so, it hurts his argument, irrespective of whether it impacted the points being communicated.

Any why don't debates about debates not accomplish anything? To rephrase that in a way that shows its falsehood, why don't arguments about arguments accomplish anything? This is clearly wrong, as people spend their lives making arguments about an argument Kant had with Hume, or something other of that kind.
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
It's up to the reader to decide which arguments have the greatest weight, which spelling and grammatical errors are the most significant, and which references carry the greatest import. It's fair to judge "S&G" a tie if neither side made an error that significantly detracted from communicating the points that the debater wanted to make, if the errors made had about equal impact for either side. It's not a matter of counting errors.

Debates about debates don't accomplish much. Better to take on the original topic again.
Posted by Dorb 6 years ago
Dorb
I assumed as much too, but it seems most people here vote as such anyway. I took that to mean that on this site, it's considered perfectly legit. Perhaps this could lead to another debate topic, though?
Posted by Yvette 6 years ago
Yvette
I think it's considered good taste to not vote one way or another in your own debates. :P
Posted by Dorb 6 years ago
Dorb
Thanks for reading ravenwaen. I honestly didn't think anyone would even take a look at a debate about such an inane topic.
Posted by ravenwaen 6 years ago
ravenwaen
As Yvette knows, I had a difficult time deciding how to vote on this one.
Posted by Yvette 6 years ago
Yvette
Thanks for the fun debate Dorb. :)
Posted by Dorb 6 years ago
Dorb
I sent it again. And don't worry, I was not planning on arguing that "truth is relative." That won't be necessary. I just had the idea that I would challenge whoever cast the first vote on my first debate, regardless of how they voted. Thought it would be an interesting debate with interesting consequences.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by DylanDraper1993 6 years ago
DylanDraper1993
DorbYvetteTied
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:42 
Vote Placed by Yvette 6 years ago
Yvette
DorbYvetteTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
DorbYvetteTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Bravo453 6 years ago
Bravo453
DorbYvetteTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Vote Placed by Dorb 6 years ago
Dorb
DorbYvetteTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by ravenwaen 6 years ago
ravenwaen
DorbYvetteTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03