DDO Should also Use My Voting Standards Guide
BoP is Shared
Round 2 is for rebuttals and closing statements.
DDO Voting Standards Guide by emmarie
The reason that DDO has Voting Standards is so that debates are judged on specific unbiased criteria. Your vote is not only needed to determine a winner of a debate, but to help debaters understand their strengths and or weaknesses. Good RFDs (Reasons for Decisions) can help debaters improve by providing them with a constructive evaluation of their skill level.
The Instigator of a debate can choose two options for how a debate can be voted on. RFD’s are required for all votes that are cast, (when comments are enabled)!
Option 1 - Select Winner (Win, Lose, or Tie)
If the Instigator chooses this option voters will be given the options of Win, Lose, or Tie. An RFD still needs to be written, to explain why the vote was cast for the winner as well as why the loser lost, or if it was a tie, why that decision was chosen.
Option 2 - Seven Point System
If the Instigator chooses this option voters will be expected to vote using a 7 Point Voting Standard. Make sure you include in your RFD a specific explanation for each point you award.
Conduct Point - 1 point awarded against a contestant for forfeiting more than half of total rounds or for blatantly rude comments or insults directed at the opponent. (Include in RFD if you award this point and explain why you awarded it.)
Spelling and Grammar Point - 1 point - only award this point if one contestant clearly shows superiority over the opponent. (again, explain why you awarded this point in RFD)
*Argument Points* - 3 points are awarded based on the Equations for Awarding Arguments Points guide, listed below the sample ballot.
Sources Points - 2 points can be awarded to the contestant who supplied the best sources, or if one contestant failed to supply links or sources.
In the next section of the Voting Standards Guide, I will explain how the BoP correlates to who has the burden of proof of the resolution. Some members of DDO will tell you that the BoP is always equally shared while others will tell you that the BoP always falls on the Instigator, since he or she is initiating the debate. My formulas show how the BoP can only be shared if the resolution statement is a positive statement. I haven’t come up with formulas for the BoP when the resolution is in the form of a question, but I gather that would be an instance where the BoP is shared, since one can answer it in more than one way.
BoP/Burden of Proof Equations for Awarding *Argument Points*
When the Instigator Takes the Pro (for) Position of the Resolution in a Debate
When the Instigator Takes the Con (against) Position of the Resolution in a Debate
Positive and Negative Resolution Statements
A formula for deciding who has a greater BoP (burden of proof) is calculated by using specific criteria. Understanding BoP can help you contemplate how to argue in your own debates as well as help you to determine a winner in debates that you vote on. Some Claim that BoP is always shared but that is mathematically impossible given the positions of the Instigator/Con (sequential order); who is Pro/Con, and whether or not the resolution is a positive or a negative statement. This formula Can help you decide who satisfied affirming or negating the resolution thru claims, counterclaims and rebuttals.
The reason that I say a negative statement is not shared is because when the Instigator makes a negative statement it implies the contender (if Con) will have to disprove a negative statement which becomes a double negative - meaning that the Contender would have to support the opposite of the resolution. We are supposed to be arguing the resolution not the opposite of the resolution. Con's position when a resolution is negative should be to refute Pro, since making counter claims supports the opposite of the resolution and places the burden of the arguments on Con. The Instigator may have set up a debate in this matter, to attempt to get Con to support the opposite of the resolution and then argue against it rather than making his/her own arguments.
When the Instigator takes the Con position of a negative position - he is actually supporting the resolution, but may set up the debate in a way that attempts to place the BoP on the contender, who would be forced to make arguments that oppose the resolution, rather than refuting Pro.
Many of the ideas about debate on this website are founded on what high school students learned on their debate teams. The BoP should be on the instigator - but in positive statements, it could be shared. I say this because opposing a positive statement (Con) and proving it through rebutting the Instigator results in the negation of the resolution. Counterclaims are also warranted when the resolution is a positive statement more so than a negative statement because of the double negative factor that I discussed. When an instigator makes a positive resolution statement and takes the Con position, it differs from the instigator taking the Pro position of a negative statement. This is because the instigator is the one making the Claim and also has the choice of taking the con position, In doing so it forces the Contender to give supportive arguments to to the resolution and thus the BoP can be considered to be shared.
The reason that I am posting this as a debate topic, is because bluesteel’s Voting Guide is written in such a negative tone, that it is uninviting to readers and includes little information about what specific criteria to look for in a debate. Bsh1’s Guide for the 7 point system is a more in depth analysis of what to include in and RFD than my Voting Standards Guide is, but fails to address what criteria should be used when deciding who has the BoP to satisfy proving, rebutting or disproving a resolution.
I came up with the BoP Equations for Awarding Argument Points, to give a clear understanding of what the job is of the Instigator and the Contender in a debate, depending on whether or not the resolution is a positive or a negative statement, as well as who takes the Pro and Con positions.
I copied, edited and pasted an actual voting ballot from a DDO debate, to show how many points are awarded in each category.
I challenge my opponent to disprove my BoP Equations for Awarding Argument Points, and look forward to a meaningful debate.
Did the participant present a clear thesis?
Did the participant defend their claim in the first round?
Did the participant address his opponents arguments?
Did the participant correct his opponents fallacies?
Did the participant acknowledge when he was proven wrong?
Did the participant prove his opponents wrong at any given point. ~ 1-5 points
Did the participant ignore his opponent at any point? -1 - -5
Did the participant troll, contribute nonsense, spam false info or lie in the debate? -1 - -10 (one point per occurrence)
Did the Participant allow emotions and personal biases to cloud his judgement of the facts? -1 - -5
Did the participant allow his emotions to detour his arguments or debate? -1 - -5
Did the participant use reliable resources? 4 points
Through reading this, we know how to judge the debate before reading it. If the debate was over.
We know if we will learn anything and on what side of the debate.
Now. I shall read your debate.
(1 more: Did the opponent clearly not read the other's message... oh wait that is Trolling ** :P)
Thank you, GoOrDen, for accepting my debate challenge and providing the standards that you use to vote on a debate. The main reason that I posted this is to get a better understanding of the debating and voting process on DDO. While you list several great factors to consider when voting on a debate, I believe that mine is the only voting guide that includes an in depth discussion of determining who has the BoP when it has not been addressed by the Instigator.
The reason that my voting guide should also be used on DDO is because there are conflicting ideas about who has the BoP. Some argue that the BoP is always shared while others (rightfully so, in my opinion) ascertain that the BoP naturally falls on the Instigator since he or she writes the resolution and initiates the debate. My formulas for calculating BoP in the event that the resolution is a negative statement shows how the BoP automatically falls on the instigator when he takes the con position. I will need to revise my OP if DDO were to actually consider also using my voting guide.
The order that arguments are presented in affect the outcome of a debate, so the instigator has a greater BoP in my opinion given that he or she can establish claims first, and needs to defend those claims through all rounds of the debate. Having said that, I also understand the BoP can only ever be equal when the resolution is a positive statement or when the Instigator takes the pro position in a debate when the resolution is a negative statement.
My “Equations for Awarding Argument Points,” explains why the BoP cannot be shared when the resolution is a negative statement. I realize now that I have partially erred in my calculations, and have shown my corrections in the table below.
After assigning numbers to these factors: Resolution (positive + or negative - statement) times pro ½ the resolution + or con ½ the resolution - ,+ or - these factors = Equilibrium 0 or Not Equilibrium any number other than 0, I realized my error.
I apologize to the judges and to my opponent for not assigning actual numbers to my theory until now, but I ask that my self correction be taken into consideration when judging this debate and to vote with leniency for the effort that I put into this topic, as well as my willingness and ability to correct my own errors.
The only thing that con errs in is this statement:
“Did the participant defend their claim in the first round?”
The contestant would not need to defend their claim in the first round, they would need to [state] their claim in the first round. They wouldn’t need to [defend] their claim until their opponent has refuted any of their claims. Then they would need to [defend] their claim/s.
Although I don’t disagree with any of the other criteria that Con uses to evaluate a debate, I would like to point out that he went against his own criteria for judging debates during this debate! Lol :) He didn’t address my arguments and he failed to correct my fallacies (miscalculations). He may not have even read my debate, (ignored me) that I gather by his second to last statement, “Now. I shall read your debate, “ which caused him to fail to prove me wrong. So while I have erred in my calculations, con has erred in claiming that a contestant needs to defend their claim in the first round. He also failed to apply his own voting guidelines while participating in this debate.
In cons last statement, “(1 more: Did the opponent clearly not read the other's message... oh wait that is Trolling ** :P)” he even implies that HE is trolling. Given this seemingly friendly admittance to his probable guilt, as well as my self correction, I think I (pro) should be chosen as the winner.
I’d like to thank Con for making this debate more fun, and thank the judges in advance for taking the time to read and vote on this debate.
Alright. Now that I have asserted that my model was better, thus proving my point sufficiently that I stand to, 'not use Pro's' new standard for voting, Let me address the problems with their debate thesis.
Pro = I am pro for this case being true.
Con = I am PRO for this case being UNTRUE.
In a debate Both participants are PRO for their arguments. You are not CON, You are PRO for your own stance.
IN other words.
If I said, I am PRO that Gravity is false.
and You accept the debate as Con, then you are PRO Gravity is real.
Now If I assert that you have no evidence, and that all observed effects associated with gravity have an equally or more plausible cause; then by you presenting the commonly accepted information, you did not prove me wrong, nor did you prove the original theory correct.
You as CON, PRO that I am wrong, MUST PROVE me wrong, by evaluating my contributions and disproving them, Not by rejecting them, nor by discrediting them because they are uncommon, But by actually proving me wrong. You cannot assert that my lack of evidence means I am wrong.*** YOU CANNOT ASSERT MY LACK OF EVIDENCE PROVES ME WRONG***
You don't know what is next o me on the table, If I said, "It is a bottle." and you accepted CON, you don't win because I lack evidence. HENCE, I win this debate.
BoP is always on both participants, and asserting that it should not be, as is your entire debate, is asserting there should be a TROLL in every debate who wins by maintaining ignorance, insolence or impudence. And that By providing BoP he was being redundant, because all he had to do was suggest that PRO as incoherent - and a crowd of incoherent voters would thus vote CON the winner for being a moron.
That is ridiculous. You can't begin to defend that claim.
which whether you lie to admit it or not, was your entire debate case.