The Instigator
Truth_seeker
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
blackkid
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Conduct on DDO debates should be based on respect

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 2 votes the winner is...
Truth_seeker
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/20/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 697 times Debate No: 62017
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (2)

 

Truth_seeker

Pro

I will debunk the absurd notion that conduct is only judged on forfeits. Conduct should be awarded not only on forfeits, but also on which side did not use personal attacks, insults, belittling, etc. Both sides will present DDO evidence according to the guidelines on how to properly award conduct points.

First round acceptance.
blackkid

Con

Sure, let's see if you can do this.
Debate Round No. 1
Truth_seeker

Pro

According to the DDO article "How to vote" by Nate Simmons (1), the article says this:

"Which debater, on balance, was more composed, and used fewer or no personal attacks against their opponent? Improper conduct includes personal insults, profanities, and bad sportsmanlike behavior."

This is clearly a statement demonstrating that personal attacks are prohibited in debates.

Any Ad Hominem attacks used in debates does nothing to add or benefit debaters, it's a waste of characters. Users should instead use that space to further attack their opponent's arguments and/or strengthen their cases.

In the article "how to Debate" Nate Simmons says this:

"Passion is a driving force in almost everything we do, but when emotion is tossed into that mix things can go downhill fast. When you are debating on Debate.org try to keep emotion out of your arguments. Debate.org is a place for fun and relaxation; not drama and stress. However tempting it may be, always refrain from using personal or general insults. It is not only rude, but against the terms of service as well." (2)

Clearly, using any form of personal attacks is against DDO policy.

DDO terms clearly state the following:

"Will follow the following rules while participating on the site. Any disregard for these rules or any of the other terms or guidelines may result in termination of a member's account.
No use of profanities or swear words.
No personal attacks against other members or a member's opinions.
No use of racial, sexual or religious slurs.
No threats or implications thereof." (3)

Conclusion:


It's clear that personal attacks of any kind is forbidden on DDO debates. Such disrespect of any kind should not be tolerated among users and does not contribute to debating. Any user who engages in such behavior should lose conduct points and the most respectful debater should be awarded them.

Sources:

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

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

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

Con

First things first there is a correction to be made. "Ad Hominem" is often not an insulte:

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting).

(http://www.nizkor.org...)

The fallacy rests instead on objective claims against your opponent as reasoning for why they shouldn't be considered valid. For instance "Pro cites Nate Simmons therefore Pro is a lacky of Nate Simmons and anything he has to say on the matter is false.", this ignores the reasoning you propose instead of dealing with the reasoning. It's actually a really common error (more common than BoP errors as far as I've seen) where people will discredit people based on things like previous bias, previous considerations, previous unrelated quotations or current conditions such as one's employment, one's major, one's current theological or philosophical stances, etc. Feel free to click the link granted to see the basic outlay of the error.

So with that out of the way it is actually not poor sportsmanship but poor argumentation for Ad Hominem. Moving into insults. Insults are not fallacies. They are uncouth, yes, but they are not fallacies, so relating to conduct it is incredibly difficult to propose that conduct be based on "respect"; looking at the first cited statement by Mr. Simmons it is clear that conduct was intended to run off of maintaining overt behavior however because of the above fallacy and it's conjunction with suggestive insults (which as I said is seeded in many debates) I would recommend instead of respect it should be based on "fluidity".

Fluidity ensures that Conduct is maintained in a more professional manner. "Respect" is frivolous as one of the most common things I come across personally when reading debates is a two-faced nature. "Thank you opponent for that round, it was jolly good!" followed by "By the way, you're a moron, here's an accusation, here's another accusation, and my summary is my opponent is a moron. Thank you for time opponent." It's sewn into the fabric and it's relatively hard to see to the untrained eye. A jab may go unnoticed if it's embedded in an argument like "My opponent thinks (<- That's the jab) such and such is so however ... [evidence]" when naturally the opponent never said anything of the sort, it's the opinion (or really the dishonesty) of the contender trying to soil his opponent through a basic statement of declaration (despite it being completely false) and this behavior continues throughout the debate with what I will call "stealth mudslinging".

Fluidity solves this. First I suggest that "Thanking" be eliminated. It's stupid. It makes no sense. It doesn't add a gentlemanly quality to the debate if you're going to covertly try to paint each other with wet dirt; I understand that politicians do it in their debates in front of the nation and I've seen it in some, but not many, official debates at colleges and whatnot however in scored debates it's points off; glib is not allowed. It wastes time and energy. The second point of fluidity is presentation; your presentations should be completely linear meaning that your arguments do not contain much, if any, of your personal opinion unless it's build off of it and should not contain tangents (another huge problem here) which lead off into either new claims or new BoP. The third and final point of fluidity is that it makes easier to read. It's far shorter, it has no glib, it has no false accusations, and it has only counter evidences, explanations, or statements that support reasoning in a manner that's relevant and meaningful.

"Respect" does not do this. When one looks at the second quotation you've given, regarding passion, and really pushing a person away from Argument of Emotion, isn't respect somewhat based on emotion? "I don't like him. I don't respect him because I don't like him.", well there's bias again. This is one of the major culling features behind voting that really decides whether someone wins or loses: Their popularity. That's not okay. You want to avoid insults, it's rude, it's against the rules, but as a basis for one's voting it's not wise; for one because people's respect falls with bias one may completely falsify their standing. For instance "I don't like this guy and the guy who isn't the guy I don't like said 'are you crazy?' and I totally agree!", this effects the conduct ruling, because if the guy you don't like says "Well you're a buttcheek!" despite the equivalent number of insults you've got bias again acting.

The terms of service I'm afraid are not functional as a point of contention particularly because you're not to use insults at all and people do and the first quotation does not align with the third (that conduct should be based on the person who used the least insults or profanities when in fact they are completely illegal) meaning that Simmon's has reasonably considered that we're not all going to be nice all the time (thus the warning against the appeal to emotion).

Summary:

So there you have it. I don't disagree that personal attacks are bad but I do disagree that respect is a valid basis for a voting system because it's not only highly variable but it is completely subject to bias. I offered an alternative I called fluidity which instead of attempting to "support" gentlemanly falsehoods cuts all of the fluff out of the arguments shortening them, making them more attainable to the reader, and also preventing the mudslinging. It makes it easier to call people on things when tangents are prevented which is also done through streamlining in a fluid fashion.
Debate Round No. 2
Truth_seeker

Pro

"..it is actually not poor sportsmanship but poor argumentation for Ad Hominem"

Ad Hominem still uses personal attacks in argumentation, so it's not only poor argumentation, but bad sportsmanship.

"Fluidity ensures that Conduct is maintained in a more professional manner. "Respect" is frivolous as one of the most common things I come across personally when reading debates is a two-faced nature. "Thank you opponent for that round, it was jolly good!" followed by "By the way, you're a moron, here's an accusation, here's another accusation, and my summary is my opponent is a moron. Thank you for time opponent." It's sewn into the fabric and it's relatively hard to see to the untrained eye. A jab may go unnoticed if it's embedded in an argument like "My opponent thinks (<- That's the jab) such and such is so however ... [evidence]" when naturally the opponent never said anything of the sort, it's the opinion (or really the dishonesty) of the contender trying to soil his opponent through a basic statement of declaration (despite it being completely false) and this behavior continues throughout the debate with what I will call "stealth mudslinging"."

Mudslinging is also disrespectful and is thus against DDO policy. A real counterargument would seek to understand arguments and refute them accordingly.

"Respect" does not do this. When one looks at the second quotation you've given, regarding passion, and really pushing a person away from Argument of Emotion, isn't respect somewhat based on emotion? "I don't like him. I don't respect him because I don't like him.", well there's bias again. This is one of the major culling features behind voting that really decides whether someone wins or loses: Their popularity. That's not okay."

Respect is based on civility and ethics. I agree that bias does happen when people vote in favor of a person simply because of dislike. However this has nothing to do with your decision to award conduct points. I don't like some people, so because of bias, i'm not going to vote on their debates. If i do like someone, i will add or subtract conduct points depending on whether or not he/she disrespected the other debater.

Debates should strictly focus on arguments and rebuttals, but not logical fallacies or cheap debating tactics such as personal attacks and such.
blackkid

Con

blackkid forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Truth_seeker

Pro

I rest my case
blackkid

Con

blackkid forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
well done pro, I was just commenting to con on that very subject. And con (blackkid) said and I quote
" Your mouth is far bigger than your brain", " none of this is accurate, as usual with you.", "That's like "believing" in your own freaking hand. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb! ", " Why should I be "kind" to those who have no idea what they are talking about". My response was " With out decorum and mutual respect any point trying to be made will be lost."
I think I made my point. Have a nice day
Posted by Jellon 2 years ago
Jellon
Not the first time that's happened to truth. Sagey also closed in a debate vs TS.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
He closed his account :P
Posted by Jellon 2 years ago
Jellon
In light of round 1 mentioning FF, it's kind of ironic that Con FF.
Posted by Truth_seeker 2 years ago
Truth_seeker
Very good point Ragnar. I think that the starting assumption should be that both parties should thank their opponents, but seeing that DDO only speaks out against disrespect, conduct points don't necessarily have to be awarded to those who thank their opponents.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
This could be an interesting one (not reading past R1 until it's finished). It may fall down to the definition(s) used for respect. ... The main danger I see (comes to mind from pro mentioning the waste of space to Ad Hominem attacks), is were people to begin awarding conduct for the person who is nicer, saying things like "I'd like to thank my opponent," which are also making voters read stuff unrelated to the argument.

Anyway as this isn't the debate, I will say best of luck to you both.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
Well, I'm not sure who'd be willing to argue this, but good luck to them.
Posted by Jellon 2 years ago
Jellon
TS recently got scolded for giving me conduct points on one of my debates. My opponent argued that personal attacks are common place and should not be counted against the debater. Given the time frame of this debate being posted, I'm pretty sure that's what inspired it.
Posted by Truth_seeker 2 years ago
Truth_seeker
@whiteflame, I've noticed that most users only award conduct based on forfeits and disregard ad hominem attacks.
Posted by Ozzyhead 2 years ago
Ozzyhead
they usually are
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by TrasguTravieso 2 years ago
TrasguTravieso
Truth_seekerblackkidTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Apart from the forfeiture, pro offered a more compelling case. Strongly worded arguments do not turn civility into hypocrisy nor is respect any less important than merely sending an argument in on time to a judgment of conduct.
Vote Placed by imabench 2 years ago
imabench
Truth_seekerblackkidTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF