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 debate.org 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).
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.
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.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.