The Instigator
diarrhea_of_a_wimpy_kid
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
Default2
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

DDO Users Should have the option to select "Casual" or "Competitive" Styles

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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...
diarrhea_of_a_wimpy_kid
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/29/2016 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 522 times Debate No: 85768
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)

 

diarrhea_of_a_wimpy_kid

Pro


All your votes suck. We've removed them because they are not up to our standards even though the debate itself was a train wreck.
Sincerely, The Moderators.


The voting gods want high standards. Many words were written to teach all the new users how to write in-depth reasons. It's all about the quality! Without our high standards, the forum will crumble!

Here is the problem:
95% of the site's users are trying things out. New users are appearing every day. Arguments lack structure. Half the time there are forfeits. Even people with the capacity for quality writing and coherent thoughts, may have never debated anywhere, formally.

I don't know your debate-club lingo. I haven't quite grasped the nuances of all your terms and strategies. I may pick it up over time, but I'm never joining a debate team.

Here's what I want, as a casual debator: make my case, match wits, tell a good story, hopefully entertain. I don't care if I win or lose, although one is generally more pleasant than the other. This is a time-waster and intellect-builder.

To go through a debate, and watch well-intended but incompletely documented votes get removed pisses me off. Especially since I'm just trying to get the hang of things around here.

I don't know who got the bright idea to moderate a casual debate with competitive standands in voting. Conversely, I perfectly understand the need to moderate competitive debates and remove casual voting.

But the key to successful moderation of votes is to make the styles align. When I want to start a debate, I should have the following choices:

Competition Level:
[__] Casual
[__] Competitive

Or at the beginning of the debate, the initiator can choose "Casual or Competitive" in Text.

Casual: It's informal. The style of debating is more conversational, less structured. It is geared towards new members or quicker discussions. It's like buddies bonding at the bar. Voting moderation is more liberal. Any vote counts without strict RFD standards. By entering into a casual debate, both participants are agreeing that they simply want to enjoy the process and are willing to show good-faith to the voters on their rationale. Voters can simply decide who is more convincing.

Competitive: This is formal. It's like the debate club or tounaments. Standards in documenting sources, formatting, supporting data, etc. are higher. It satisfies the needs of the experienced members. Likewise, voting moderation requires equally high standards in line with the current policy.

The voting policy is a huge detractor because the voting standards do not align with the debating styles. Experienced debators are not voting in the casual debates and hundreds are ending in zero-zero ties.

If the experts don't care enough to vote, why are you holding voters on amatuer debates to competitive standards?

A "casual" and "competitive" debate in arguments/vote moderation will satisfy both types of users. Align the expectations with the skill development.

Argue Con if you want votes tossed out.
Default2

Con

Of course you have to have structure to any debating forum. Without structure it will devolve into either a shouting match with much cursing and name-calling and everyone gets their feelings hurt. Much like some other forums with no rules. Without rules we are just a land of anarchists.

HOWEVER...too many rules stifle thought and spontaneity... make us too busy wondering if we are within the rules or not..are we being 'fair' to all. Person A must be like Person B who must be like Person C.

And as for voting, of course you should state you reason for voting and the reason MUST be coherent and with forethought. Otherwise we would get gangs just going around voting for their friends so they win and take over the leader-boards....or some will start sending out links to the argument to others preying for their votes. The would be no order and, again, anarchy would reign.
Debate Round No. 1
diarrhea_of_a_wimpy_kid

Pro

I don't expect voters to have free license to run amok. You've altered my proposal and argued against a point that I did not make.

"Any vote counts without strict RFD standards. "

The mods still have a job to do to ensure voting integrity and prevent vote bombing, harassment, and cheating. Standards are reduced, not eliminated. They still may respond to reported posts, but with more relaxed acceptance standards.

Good: "voting right because pro didn't cite sources and forfeited the last round."
Good: "it was close on arguments but con didn't convince me to change my mind. Pro had better spelling and formatting."

Really does anything more need to be said on a casual debate? Yet those votes gets removed now.

Bad: "Bring the pain!"

Mods should delete that everywhere.
Default2

Con

I guess the definition of 'strict RFD standards' should be explained. Are you saying that the standards should be lowered in the casual debates so that the possibility of dupe voting is allowed? Do you think the following reason is too strict?

'(1) The voter doesn't explain conduct, S&G or sources. (2) The voter needs to directly examine specific arguments made by both sides in the RFD for arguments.'

The rules clearly state a vote can be denied for one of the following reasons:

Criteria #1: Failure to explain every point awarded
Criteria #2: Failure to explain why you awarded a point
Criteria #3: Failing to be specific enough

If you are required to follow these simple rules, then anyone can tell that the voter actually read the debate and has a clear understanding of the point made by both sides.

If you have casual debating in which anyone can vote willy-nilly you will run afoul of fair gamesmanship. Again, gangs will team up on unliked posters basically shunning them...dupes will be created to garner more votes and wins...posters will fall to the level of begging for votes by posting links for other posters. The daily tally board will become a laughing stock. If this is the consensus of the majority of the population on Debate.org, then perhaps the moderators can look into it, but it would, IMO, set a very bad precedent and lead to the board going too far downhill to recover.
Debate Round No. 2
diarrhea_of_a_wimpy_kid

Pro

---------------------------------------------------------
Do you think the following reason is too strict?


'(1) The voter doesn't explain conduct, S&G or sources. (2) The voter needs to directly examine specific arguments made by both sides in the RFD for arguments.'

The rules clearly state a vote can be denied for one of the following reasons:

Criteria #1: Failure to explain every point awarded
Criteria #2: Failure to explain why you awarded a point
Criteria #3: Failing to be specific enough
---------------------------------------------------------

You are right that we need evaluation criteria. And I absolutely think that the criteria is too strict for a casual debate. Every single point needs to be explained when some laid-off Shakespearean monkey jibbers incoherently into Siri, who speech-types the argument then google translates it from Chinese to Sanskrit and then to English?

New Criteria for Casual Debates (Competitive Debates stay the same as above):

On a casual TD, a vote can be denied for one of the followng reasons:
Criteria #1: Failure to explain why one debator was more convincing
Criteria #2: Failure to not be a doosh.

That's it. That's all that should be.


---------------------------------------------------------
The daily tally board will become a laughing stock. If this is the consensus of the majority of the population on Debate.org, then perhaps the moderators can look into it, but it would, IMO, set a very bad precedent and lead to the board going too far downhill to recover.
---------------------------------------------------------
Look at Kobe Bryant over the last two years. [1]
2014-15 a33; 36 LAL NBA SG 35 35 1207 266 713 .373 54 184 .293 212 529 .401 .411 196 241 .813 26 173 199 197 47 7 128 65 782
2015-16 37 LAL NBA SF 39 39 1132 214 619 .346 64 256 .250 150 363 .413 .397 120 153 .784 25 128 153 135 36


Jerry Rice had a super soaker mounted on his rascal and once played in the CFL for two years. Here are his stats:
Career303284164015492289514.8197965.175.68764510437.42.10.3235402072725016 yrsSFO238224117712811924715.0176965.480.98462510437.42.60.419872186232154 yrsOAK5451414243328613.518754.560.93200126.70.40.13306184321 yrSEA119492536214.53562.332.9362303

So California is better than Wisconsin. Since I'm an aspiring novelist and a member of the media I know.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0BlXy3Roj4
Default2

Con

OK, so you post a couple of statistics to meet requirements for an argument, but I notice that there was NO reference to Terrell Owens or John David Crow, so your statistics are meaningless.

But, to get back to the debate. If one wants to debate in a casual atmosphere, then they should just go to www.casualdebatesrus.org and leave the competitive stuff to the professionals.

There...case solved. No harm, no foul.

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss these fine options. May the Force be Forever you Your Favor
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Grandzam 1 year ago
Grandzam
That's actually a good point dsjpk. If con brought that up I would probably vote for him, but I think that Pro did the better job here.
Posted by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
You could always set the debate up to where rfds are not necessary when voting.
Posted by Grandzam 1 year ago
Grandzam
+1 Pro
Posted by Default2 1 year ago
Default2
True..I am
Posted by U.n 1 year ago
U.n
This Con guy is a real piece of work.
Posted by MikeTheGOd 1 year ago
MikeTheGOd
agree with this 100%
Posted by U.n 1 year ago
U.n
Things to look forward to. IMO all debates should end in a 0-0 tie. It's like soccer. And everyone loves soccer.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by condeelmaster 1 year ago
condeelmaster
diarrhea_of_a_wimpy_kidDefault2Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I feel the discussion diverted from the central topic and focused on the voting problems (which wasn't the debate's resolution). Anyway, if I just judge the arguments about "DDO Users Should have the option to select "Casual" or "Competitive" Styles", Pro had way better arguments. The only arguments from Con against the debate's resolution was 1) not having structure in a debate will cause the website to devolve into shouting -Pro proposed having the less structured style but also keeping the formal one- 2)Go to another site (obviously not a good argument).