The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

Compulsory voting on would create fairer results

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/17/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 500 times Debate No: 52739
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




I am disturbed by a trend that I have seen on this website. Individuals are winning and losing debates regardless of how reasonable and thorough their case was, because they are subject to the whims of the one member who took the time to vote!

I am not suggesting that subjectivity decreases in numbers, but the more users who are polled will provide a fairer outcome for future debates. So I propose that should make voting on 1-on-1 debates compulsory (not every member for every debate, but perhaps something resembling a courtroom jury- 12 random judges of our peers).


I accept the challenge.

I am of the belief that if people were randomly selected to vote it could cause many to just click on the different points randomly because they do not actually care about the debate.
Debate Round No. 1


You haven't negated my claim that my thesis provides "fairer" results. I obviously wouldn't claim that compulsory debating will provide infallible results (or even unbiased ones), but it's simple statistical fact that more participants selected from diverse groups are correlated with a more equal and representative decision. The probability of twelve voter's apathy is much less likely then that of a single voter, and even with said apathy those that were indifferent to the debate would not all vote for the same user. It's not a guarantee at fairness, but it's the next logical step we can take and as such you must vote pro today.
It has been a pleasure debating, con.


If there are people voting randomly or based on their past beliefs because they do not care or have the time it would obviously be unfair. It may be true that there will be a wider variety of biases but it is not statistically inevitable that it will produce fairer results. Say that there is a topic being debated where one side is nearly universally agreed upon-certainly not unheard of-if 12 or so people are selected at random they are most likely all or mostly going to be biased against this disagreed upon viewpoint, and they will be much less likely to put thought into voting than someone who entered the debate by free will. This would mean that any one taking a particularly controversial stance would have an automatically unfair advantage. More 50-50 debates also generally get more attention in the first place as they aren't seen by people as "well duh" so doing this seems to only water down the debates that already get attention. Your main argument against me is that 12 voters, since they vary more than 1, will be less apathetic, but the person that goes into a debate to vote by choice isn't apathetic. Sometimes there may be people who vote to troll or attack a certain opinion, but I fail to see how virtually a poll would be more fair than even that. It seems to me that as you have not shown that forced voters will actually put effort into it (or do it at all, I don't know how you would enforce this) that on an evenly agreed upon topic the one voter doing so by choice would sill make the difference, and that other debates would become a "popularity contest"- the epitome of unfairness. For these reasons I urge a con vote.

Thank you for the debate, I enjoyed it.
Debate Round No. 2
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by lannan13 2 years ago
Please change time to debate to 72 hours and ill accept.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by DreamSymphony00 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made good points, but Con made better points: Compulsory voting would likely not do DDO any good as people might begin to feel that voting on debates is more of a chore than a choice.