Conduct Should Be Considered When Voting On Debates On Debate.org
The question, "Who had better conduct?", should be considered when voting on debates on debate.org
Has the burden of proof and 30,000 characters to demonstrate that conduct should be considered when voting on debates on debate.org. Since there are only characters, there are no rounds, there is no need to forfiet rounds or worry about...well...conduct.
Has only 20,000 characters to rebuttal Pro and to provide counter claims.
May the most convincing argument win.
What a stupid debate. I could throw a bowl of alphabet soup against a wall and get a more interesting resolution. I guess I shouldn't expect much from someone who has "aint" in his name and doesn't believe in Magic Johnson, but come on! Oh well, time to flush hours of my life down the toilet of another pointless debate.
1. Debate Quality
The quality of a debate encompasses many factors, including how well the contents are written, how well it is structured, and how concise and composed the participants are. Poorly written arguments, bad formatting and structuring, excess wordiness, and poor conduct can all negatively affect the debate quality. One poor debater can negatively impact the quality of a debate, even if his opponent does everything well. For multiple examples of this sad fact, please see the debates of MagicAintReal.
Debate quality is important. Nobody wants to spend precious time carefully considering the philosophical musings of two shitt-diapered toddlers screaming at each other over a stolen cheerio. Voters are already taking time out of their days and schedules to read the crap that somebody else wrote in the hopes that it's somewhat entertaining and coherent. The higher the debate quality, the higher the likelihood of someone taking time to read it, and the higher the likelihood of getting more votes from a variety of judges.
WHO THE H-E-DOUBLEHOCKEYSTICK HAS THE TIME OR PATIENCE TO READ AN EYE-SORE OF A DEBATE THAT SOUNDS LIKE IT WAS WRITTEN BY BRAIN-DAMAGED CALL OF DUTY BRATS?!!!! WHO WANTS TO READ A DEBATE THAT'S HALF ARGUMENTS, HALF INSULTS, AND HALF CHALLENGES TO "COME TO MY HOUSE AND SAY THAT TO MY FACE, YOU FUKING TOOL, I'LL PWN YOUR A$$!!!!"? WHO WANTS TO READ AN ARGUMENT, NO MATTER HOW VALID THE LOGIC, IF THE LOGIC IS FRAMED IN PARAGRAPHS OF BRAGGADOCIO AND AD HOMINEM? IF YOUR ANSWER TO THESE QUESTIONS IS, "NOT ME", YOU SHOULDN'T READ ANY OF MY OPPONENT'S ARGUMENTS.
In order to maintain a higher number of quality debates on DDO, good conduct should be encouraged. What better way to encourage it than to award a point for it? Of course all this shiitake is common knowledge, but I have to waste my precious fooking time regurgitating it for this pizzashit debate because my opponent is one smart short of a smarta$$.
All of the members of DDO are human (except for Con, who is a species of autosexual worm), but a good voter will try to be as objective as possible when considering a debate's arguments. A good voter will try to be unbiased, weighing arguments for their validity and logic, rather than their emotional impact or appeal. Judging a debate is not about feeling. It's about thinking. Needless to say, Con wouldn't be good at it.
Objectivity can become more difficult, however, when the debate's participants are intentionally offensive, insulting, annoying, or the combination of all three that is my opponent. A typically good voter may have trouble keeping their emotions in check, and may feel tempted to slant their vote against the annoying or insulting debater, or may avoid voting at all because of the difficulty of remaining unbiased. Words are emotionally powerful, and verbal abuse can even damage the brain. Anyone who knows my opponent can attest that brain damage is crippling and tragic. Whether Con has suffered much verbal abuse is unknown to me, but I suspect that he has.
If a judge's brain is being attacked by abusive language, it may be harder to remain emotionally detached and objective. In order to make objectivity easier and improve the quality of votes, DDO should continue to encourage good conduct and sportsmanship through conduct points.
An old man needed a sperm count as part of his physical exam. The doctor gave him a jar and said, "Take this home and bring back a semen sample tomorrow." The next day, the old man brought back the jar, which was as clean and empty as on the previous day. The doctor asked what happened. "Well, doc, it's like this--first I tried with my right hand, but nothing. Then I tried with my left hand, but still nothing. Then I asked my wife for help. She tried with her right hand, then with her left, still nothing. She tried with her mouth, first with her teeth in, then with her teeth out, still nothing. We even called up Arleen, the lady next door, and she tried too, first with both hands, then her mouth, then an armpit. She even tried squeezing it between her knees, but still nothing." The doctor was bewildered "You asked your neighbor?" The old man replied, "Yep, none of us could get the jar open."
This point goes right along with the others, like peanut butter goes with jelly, or like my opponent goes with geriatric midget dungeon porn. Encouraging good conduct and sportsmanship helps to maintain an online environment where people feel safer, are more relaxed, and have more fun. Cyber bullying is detrimental to the growth and prosperity of an online community, and punishing poor conduct through votes helps keep bad attitudes in check while allowing the community to be "adults" and police themselves, rather than running to a moderator with every perceived infraction.
As a site that is built on debate, DDO needs a healthy, growing pool of intelligent debaters. The hostile environment that unchecked poor conduct and sportsmanship would create could prevent new members from joining, and even drive away existing members. Although it would be fine with everyone if it drove away members such as my opponent, there are intelligent members that are actually valuable to the site. Down-voting poor conduct gives those members a way to "officially disapprove", and fight back against the formation of a hostile environment.
Quality debates, objective votes, and a safe environment are necessary to the success of a debate site like DDO. I hope everyone can see by now how utterly hopeless my opponent's case is. He should back out now, while he still has the chance to save face. On the other hand, is a face like that really worth saving? It looks like it caught fire and someone tried to put it out with a fork.
It was stylistically very well done, but it wasn't convincing due to Pro's use of argument ad hominem, appeal to extremes, and the equivocation fallacy...and that's what voting on debates on debate.org should be about. Who was more convincing? We should never attack a debater's position based on their personal behavior rather than their actual position. This is called an ad hominem attack.
I have a dream...that one day debaters of all types and abilities during the voting period will not be judged by their debating behavior, but by the content of their positions...I have a dream...that one day debaters who have not met their burden of proof shall not win a debate for simply being nice or appropriate...I have a dream...that one day on every debate platform etiquette infractions will never outweigh solid logic.
So, Pro says "In order to maintain a higher number of quality debates on DDO, good conduct should be encouraged. What better way to encourage it than to award a point for it?"
Disqualification + loss for violating it before voting. Done. Quality of the debates would go up and there would be no need, WHEN VOTING, to consider conduct. With enough disqualifications, these violators would be removed from the site, and over time there would be fewer conduct violators. This would lead to more "quality" debates as posited by Pro, and we wouldn't need to commit an ad hominem fallacy when voting on debates...yay!
In the UFC, when an opponent intentionally eye gouges, they are disqualified and given a loss before the judges score the fight. If DDO really values conduct to lead to quality debates, then they should employ a disqualification for conduct prior to voting. We have report buttons, let's use them.
So I maintain that WHEN VOTING, we should not consider conduct, because poor conduct should be a disqualification before voting. This disqualification may sound extreme, but according to Pro "If a judge's brain is being attacked by abusive language, it may be harder to remain emotionally detached and objective. In order to make objectivity easier and improve the quality of votes, DDO should continue to encourage good conduct and sportsmanship"
Therefore, we should disqualify bad conduct and bad sportsmanship before voting to save judges' brains so they remain objective when they have to vote.
Pro continues "The hostile environment that unchecked poor conduct and sportsmanship would create could prevent new members from joining, and even drive away existing members."
Right so we should disqualify the violators before the voting period and remove the poor conduct filled debate. This doesn't speak to whether or not we need to consider conduct when voting.
Yes, once conduct is removed from the voting picture because disqualifications for poor conduct could be done prior to voting, the quality of the votes and debates will increase, and debaters can focus on making a solid argument instead of worrying about saying please and thank you, encouraging better arguments and fewer logical fallacies.
Currently without pre-voting disqualifications for conduct violators on DDO, when voters on debate.org select a debater for "Who had better conduct?" and don't select who had the more convincing arguments/better grammar/relevant citations, they have to commit a logical fallacy and choose the better argument based on their reactions directed against a person's conduct. Voters must decide who had poorer conduct to decide who had better conduct, and this requires fallacy.
Furthermore, to give a reluctant testimony, my opponent should not lose in the conduct category for his round 1 arguments, because he used said conduct to help make his argument more convincing, and meet his burden of proof, and I applaud my opponent once again for that. If this were a real case though, Pro should be disqualified, and we could all move on. Again, I was not offended at all by Pro's remarks, they were entertaining and relevant. Nice pic at the end too.
I maintain that the quality of debates on debate.org would actually increase if fewer logical fallacies were used to judge debater's arguments. Furthermore, disqualification of egregious violators of conduct prior to voting negates the need for conduct points when voting, and would rapidly increase the quality of debates given Pro's conditions for quality debate.
Con has not contested that quality debates, objective voters, and a safe environment, as presented in my arguments, are all desirable elements of DDO. What Con contests is that these elements should be maintained through voting. Con's argument, in summary, is that poor conduct should be punished by disqualification.
1. Conduct Votes = Ad Hominem?
Con claims that casting a point in favor of the debater who had better conduct is committing an ad hominem fallacy. This would be true if arguments points were awarded for better conduct, but it is false in the case of DDO's seven-point system. Arguments and Conduct are separate votes with separate values. A voter may award a point to one debater for better conduct, while still awarding 3 points to the other debater for better arguments. Arguments are not judged by conduct. Conduct is judged by conduct. There is no ad hominem fallacy here.
One may not like that conduct, spelling and grammar, and sources are part of the total score, but that does not change the fact that arguments are in their own category, requiring their own thorough RFD, eliminating the chance that someone will award arguments on the basis of conduct and get away with it.
2. Disqualification = Ad Hominem
Con argues that poor conduct should be punished with disqualification prior to the voting period. He states, "Yes, once conduct is removed from the voting picture because disqualifications for poor conduct could be done prior to voting...debaters can focus on making a solid argument instead of worrying about saying please and thank you, encouraging better arguments and fewer logical fallacies."
First, I'm curious how disqualification will help a debater stop worrying about "saying please and thank you." While under the current system a debater may lose a few points to poor conduct but still win the debate if her arguments are superior to her opponent's, under Con's proposed system the debater would suffer a complete loss. It is more likely that such a consequence would increase debater's wariness about the details of their conduct.
Second, Con spends much of his round decrying conduct votes as ad hominem, all the while supporting a system that would integrate ad hominem into the very matrix of DDO.
Con says, "I have a dream...that one day debaters of all types and abilities...will not be judged by their debating behavior, but by the content of their positions...that one day debaters who have not met their burden of proof shall not win a debate for simply being nice or appropriate...that one day on every debate platform etiquette infractions will never outweigh solid logic."
Then, Con turns around and says, "If DDO really values conduct...they should employ a disqualification for conduct prior to voting," and, "...poor conduct should be a disqualification before voting," and, "Therefore, we should disqualify bad conduct and bad sportsmanship before voting..." and, "...we should disqualify the violators before the voting period and remove the poor conduct filled debate."
So, Con claims that he wishes for debaters to be judged for their arguments and not for their conduct, then proposes and promotes a system of disqualification that would not only judge a debater's conduct, but would do so without consideration for the value of the debater's arguments.
Whereas the current seven-point system allows for conduct and arguments to be judged separately, removing the possibility of conduct-driven ad hominem in votes, Con's system of disqualification for conduct without regard for arguments is the epitome of the type of ad hominem he claims to oppose.
So far, Con's only argument against conduct votes has been that they create the potential for ad hominem and a disregard for arguments. Not only is he mistaken, due to the separate voting categories and RFD's for Conduct and Arguments, but his alternative of disqualification would judge conduct over arguments by its very nature. The current system remains superior, encouraging good conduct and maintaining quality while still allowing a well-crafted argument to shine through.
Ahhh, the adverbial clause. Though many forget about it, it still tells us when things occur and therefore can drastically change the meaning of a statement.
When I was young, I wet the bed.
WHEN I WAS YOUNG, would be the adverbial clause, because it shows when I wet the bed...
Suppose you were to quote me here, and remove the adverbial clause.
You could quote me as actually saying "I wet the bed."
This is of course now in the indicative tense, and it would seem from this adverbial clause-less quote that I regularly wet the bed...or I more recently just wet the bed.
Now suppose you were an honest person, and actually quoted me for exactly what I said, including the adverbial clause.
WHEN I WAS YOUNG, I wet the bed. Now my position is accurate.
It's kind of like when Pro tried to demonstrate a contradiction on my part by misquoting me in the 2nd round (2nd 10,000 characters).
*Pro misquoted me as saying "I have a dream...that one day debaters of all types and abilities...will not be judged by their debating behavior."
Pro then referenced me saying "poor conduct should be a disqualification before voting."
This looks like I'm using a contradiction: "judging conduct is bad, we should disqualify conduct."
*In Pro's misquote, for the second ellipsis, Pro intentionally left out the adverbial clause "during the voting period" that I had actually written in the 2nd round (2nd 10,000 characters). See for yourself.
*The direct quote should be*
I have a dream that debaters of all types and abilities DURING THE VOTING PERIOD will not be judged by their debating behavior.
So it is not a contradiction to say "Judging conduct DURING VOTING is bad, so poor conduct should be disqualified BEFORE VOTING." During and before are mutually exclusive terms.
Why the dishonesty Pro?
This can be verified by going back and reading the debate.
So just like in the resolution, where it says WHEN VOTING, the adverbial clause matters.
Let's be clear.
WHEN VOTING, judging conduct requires committing a logical fallacy, ad hominem, because you're choosing the better total argument with a consideration for your reactions to someone's personal behavior rather than the value of their position.
Conduct is obviously paramount to quality debates, but judging conduct, when voting, plays an illogical role in selecting a better argument. The better argument is decided during the votes, not before the votes.
Which is why pre-vote disqualifications for bad conduct make more sense than voting points for good conduct.
I must use the UFC as an example, not because I believe that debating is like fighting...I believe that debating on DDO is a competition like fighting is a competition in the UFC. Say what you will about the UFC, they have the highest quality competitions in their sport. How do they deal with conduct in a formal organized competition where conduct can run a muck?
In the UFC, judges only score fights, much like on DDO, judges only score debates. For disqualifications, it's the referee who motions to the match official for a disqualification of a fighter...and do you know who the referees are on DDO?
Yep, like Pro says he wants "the community to be "adults" and police themselves"
Give us, the referees of our own "adult" debates, the power to motion to an official for a disqualification for conduct, using the report buttons, so that if the motion warrants disqualification, the violator can be disqualified, and the debate can be removed.
If the motion to the official doesn't warrant disqualification, then the perceived poor conduct did not negatively affect the quality of the debate, thus, WHEN VOTING, said conduct needs not be considered, because the quality of the debate based on conduct would have already been considered without choosing a better argument and committing an ad hominem logical fallacy.
Pro also said "So, Con claims that he wishes for debaters to be judged for their arguments and not for their conduct, then proposes and promotes a system of disqualification that would not only judge a debater's conduct, but would do so without consideration for the value of the debater's arguments."
By disqualifying a debater, DDO takes no position on who had the better argument. There is no selecting a better debater with a disqualification; there is just a winner by disqualification. Disqualifications don't need to consider an argument's validity to regulate misconducts that negatively affect debate quality.
Thus the consideration of the debater's conduct for a disqualification, pre voting, is not being used to say one argument is worse than another based on a fallacy. It's also not contradictory to my position.
Issuing a disqualification, DDO simply says that this debater did not qualify for voting. There is no fallacy, and there exists quite a discouragement to write garbage in debates.
Conversely, non violators need not worry about the irrelevant reactions to their personal behavior from voters, because the quality of the debate based on conduct has already been considered by us, the referees.
This responds to Pro saying "I'm curious how disqualification will help a debater stop worrying about 'saying please and thank you.'"
With enough disqualifications, members can lose access to DDO. This would discourage debaters from flying off the handle, making personal attacks, or becoming overly vulgar in fear of losing privileges...like debating in quality debates.
Once all of the referees, we, are filtered from the egregious conduct violators, fewer and fewer motions for disqualifications will occur, and DDO will only have high quality competitors; high quality competitors make for high quality debates.
There are also cases where both participants' conduct is so bad that both get disqualified. Either way, the debate is trashed, and needs not waste voters', as Pro says, "precious time carefully considering the philosophical musings of two shitt-diapered toddlers screaming at each other over a stolen cheerio."
When voting, conduct should not be considered, because, by doing so, voters' ad hominems play a role in selecting a better argument.
When deciding whether or not someone should be disqualified, you need not choose a better argument, therefore the ad hominem does not apply. Being disqualified does not mean you have a poorer argument.
Regarding my claim that casting a point in favor of the debater who had better conduct is committing an ad hominem fallacy, Pro says "[the ad hominem fallacy] would be true if arguments points were awarded for better conduct... arguments and conduct are separate votes with separate values."
The better argument in total is awarded in part due to conduct. I don't care if conduct is separate from a voting parameter that has the word argument in it. The voting consideration is still an ad hominem fallacy, because the better total argument is being partially determined by a reaction to a debater's behavior rather than the debater's position.
You want to talk about separate?
How about conduct doesn't play into judging a better argument at all?
Acceptable conduct is rather a qualification to enter the voting round.
Pro also states "One may not like that conduct, spelling and grammar, and sources are part of the total score, but that does not change the fact that arguments are in their own category."
Judging a debater's sources for relevance is relevant to the position of the debater that cites sources for their position.
Errors in grammar, though seemingly trivial, can change the intended meaning of a debater's position which is relevant to the position of the debater. Please see my adverbial clause example above.
Conduct can make an opponent or voter mad, happy, or offended. What does this have to do with the position of the debater?
Ad hominem just means irrelevant. Determining the meaner/less appropriate debater is irrelevant to determining the worse argument.
Pro knowingly omitted an adverbial clause to make my arguments appear contradictory. Judging conduct when voting is my actual qualm with the current system.
Pro misunderstands that disqualifying a debater is not selecting a better argument. Judging conduct for DQ does not a fallacy make because there is no choosing a better argument in a disqualification.
Pro thinks "the current system remains superior, encouraging good conduct."
Pro believes debaters would be more encouraged to have good conduct, because the current system awards 1 point to them.
I think that debaters would be more encouraged to have good conduct, because a disqualification for poor conduct would mean a loss, and potential removal from the site.
Pro claims that conduct is a separate consideration from who had the better argument. The total vote chooses the better argument, and conduct is currently a part of this total vote.
Conduct is being used in part to select a better argument in total, and this fallacious consideration should incite change in the way DDO votes on debates.
Ad hominem fallacies don't make for quality votes, which serve to choose exemplars of quality debaters on DDO.
"Who had better conduct?" should not be considered when voting on debates on DDO, rather conduct should be considered before voting, so that we, as self referees, may motion to disqualify true violators, by way of the report button, to filter egregious poor conduct, and maintain fallacy free, high quality voting.
I maintain that this system would lead to higher quality debates with higher quality debaters and votes.
RFD: Reason For Decision
3. Adverbial Clause
Con is grasping at straws with his “adverbial clause” argument. As you’ll notice, some variation of “before voting” was included each time I quoted Con’s statements about his proposed disqualification system, making it clear that Con prefers something be done about conduct before voting. It was not necessary to include “during the voting period” in Con’s quote about conduct votes, both because it is obvious that a conduct vote would take place during the voting period, and because his quotes about disqualification make it obvious that he wants it to take place before voting. The resolution itself includes the phrase “when voting”. It’s clear what’s being debated without having to include it in a quote.
Whether the disqualification happens before or during the voting period is beside the point, anyway. Con’s argument that judging conduct over arguments is ad hominem should have nothing to do with what time the judgment occurs. Ad hominem is ad hominem, before, during, or after the voting period. Which brings us again to the question:
4. Conduct Votes = Ad Hominem?
Con continues to argue that conduct votes are ad hominem. He states, "The voting consideration is still an ad hominem fallacy, because the better total argument is being partially determined by a reaction to a debater's behavior rather than the debater's position.”
This statement is incorrect. While it is possible that the winner of the debate could be decided by conduct votes, the “better total argument” is not. Debater 1 could receive 10 conduct points and 0 argument points, while Debater 2 receives 0 conduct points and 9 argument points. Who had the better argument? According to the judges, Debater 2 had the better argument, even though he lost the debate. On the other hand, Debater 1 could receive 10 conduct points and 0 argument points, while Debater 2 receives 0 conduct points and 30 argument points. In this case, Debater 2 has won the debate as well as having the better argument, in spite of every judge giving conduct to his opponent. It’s clear that winning the debate is not the same thing as having the “better total argument”.
Conduct votes and argument votes are separate, and each must be supported by its own, separate RFD. While poor conduct can potentially cost you the win, it is considered separately from your arguments, allowing a good argument to still shine through and potentially win the debate.
Let's contrast this with Con’s Disqualification Alternative. Debater 1 has poorly constructed, weak arguments, but has been courteous and composed during his rounds. Debater 2 has solid, strong arguments, but, while typing his final round, makes the mistake of laughing at the weakness of his opponent’s arguments and insulting Debater 1’s intelligence through a few unnecessary jabs. Under Con’s proposed system, Debater 1 could report Debater 2’s final round, leaving his opponent at the mercy of the Administration. The Administration, upon examining Debater 2’s final round, determine that he did indeed insult his opponent several times, and disqualify him, removing him from the debate and giving the win to Debater 1. All of Debater 2’s solid, well-constructed arguments, that took much time and effort to put together and type out, are thrown out due to a few poorly chosen words from a single round.
On the other hand, under the current system of Conduct Votes, judges could note Debater 2’s barbs in his final round, award his opponent conduct points, encouraging Debater 2 to think twice next time, and then still award well-deserved argument points to Debater 2 for all of his hard work on his superb arguments. It’s obvious which system is more fair and considerate to both debaters’ arguments. How can Con continue to claim that conduct votes are somehow ad hominem while disqualification is not? Conduct votes give more consideration to arguments than Con’s alternative, meaning that if anything can be accused of ad hominem, Con’s alternative certainly can.
5. Community Decision
Con states, "Conversely, non violators need not worry about the irrelevant reactions to their personal behavior from voters, because the quality of the debate based on conduct has already been considered by us, the referees.”
So, instead of the non-violator worrying about irrelevant reactions to their personal behavior from voters, they get to worry about irrelevant reactions to their personal behavior from a single member who decides to push the “report” button. How is this better? Whereas with conduct votes, one member can vote against a debater’s poor conduct while other members ignore conduct and award arguments, under Con’s Disqualification Alternative, as soon as one member reports the poor conduct to the Administration, the debater is disqualified with no chance for other community members to redeem him. Instead of the power being in the hands of the community in general, which can choose to ignore or disagree with any single voter’s disapproval of a debater’s conduct, the power is in the hands of that single voter, who can, on his own and without consensus, report the debater to the Administration for disqualification. The Administration, in the interest of fairness, must be impartial and disqualify the debater if his conduct violates any one of a set of clear, specific rules. The community will no longer police itself. Instead, it will be policed by a few conduct sticklers who have memorized the rule book, and go trigger-happy on the report button.
6. Checks and Balances
Going hand-in-hand with my last point, while placing power in the hands of a single conduct report will remove the power of the community in general to “check and balance” conduct votes, it will also remove another helpful check and balance.
A great thing about the current voting system is that every point awarded must be explained in a thorough RFD. If a voter awards a point for conduct without thoroughly and clearly explaining why, his vote can be reported and removed by the Administration. In the same way, if a voter states in his RFD that he has awarded argument points for conduct reasons (which would actually be ad hominem, unlike separate conduct and argument points), his vote can be reported and removed. This system provides a dual layer of protection for the debater: a check and balance. If a debater or other community member believes that a voter’s RFD is unfair or inaccurate, they can report it to the Administration for checking and balancing.
Con’s Disqualification Alternative removes this check and balance. If the Administration decides that a debater has broken a conduct rule, he has no appeal. There will be no RFD, and there is no one to check and balance the Administration’s opinion. Both the reporting of the round and the decision of the Administration all happen behind the scenes, and do not give the same level of fairness and balance that the current Conduct Vote system provides.
To summarize, here is a chart comparing and contrasting the advantages of the Conduct Vote system with the advantages of Con’s Disqualification Alternative:
Encourages Good Conduct---------------Yes--------------------Yes
Allows Redemption By Arguments------Yes--------------------No
Gives Community the Power-------------Yes--------------------No
Allows Checks & Balances----------------Yes--------------------No
Con has failed to uphold his challenge to the status quo. While he has shown that disqualification would encourage good conduct and possibly lead to quality debates, he has not shown that it is better than the established system of community-judged conduct votes. Conduct votes allow for arguments to be considered separately and possibly take the win in spite of poor conduct, while disqualification has no regard for arguments and throws them out along with the poor conduct. Conduct votes give the community as a whole the power to decide the fate of each debater, while disqualification gives the power to a single member and the Administration’s rule book. Conduct votes require thorough RFD’s and allow votes with incomplete or absent RFD’s to be checked and balanced by the Administration, while disqualification allows the Administration to directly remove the alleged offending debater with neither RFD nor check and balance.
In conclusion, Con’s dream "that one day on every debate platform etiquette infractions will never outweigh solid logic” will not be brought to life by his proposed system of disqualification. The current system of conduct votes is a far better system for insuring that arguments outweigh conduct.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|