DDO should have a setting for no votes.
Debate Rounds (3)
Let Airmax decide.
First round is for acceptance only
I thank you again for the debate nonprophet.
I want to thank my opponent for accepting this debate.
The short time I have been on DDO, I have been harassed, mocked and criticised for almost anything I do here, including what font I choose to use.
So far I have 10 losses, and I'd say the majority of them undeserved.
It's been my experience that voters here on DDO reward cheaters (people who break rules set up and agreed to in the first round).
Also, many debates are not decided on by the content of the debates as much as other factors like campaigning friends to vote with bias.
I will now give my examples of what I mean.
Here is an example of a debate I should win, because my opponent broke the rules I set up in round 1.
Even though I now have a loophole that lets me set the debates to block all voters, I still think DDO should consider this a standard option for all, because:
1. I have shown that there are debaters that like the idea and find it less stressful and more fun.
2. It's not the same as the discussions in the forums, since you still can have one on one debates with rounds.
3. It eliminates cheating and unfair voting 100% of the time.
4. Constructive criticism and further discussion can take place in the comment section.
I truly don't see any drawbacks in having no-vote debates and I do see many advantages, most of all for the new users of DDO who get harassed and shown no respect.
I'm not saying to get rid of voting completely, since many users enjoy it. I'm just asking for the option to have it. Without the loophole, I had to try to block as many voters as possible which still left 2 voters, out of thousands, that could vote on my debates. Now I have to ask, if DDO allows settings for 2 voters out of thousands, why can't we have settings for debates with none?
1) People vote for their friends or with some sort of bias.
2) People go against your rules within the debate.
I will address each point, and then address the other things you stated at the end of your argument.
1) People vote for their friends or with some sort of bias.
First I'd like to point out that there is a report button next to every vote. For example, when there is a vote you think didn't give a good enough reason for its' decision, report it. The admin(s) will come and check it out, and see if it is a legitimate claim.
Secondly, there will always be some sort of bias when someone votes. It is extremely hard to not be bias. Therefore, DDO implemented a judging system which you are using for this debate to decide on who wins. This way, you can get people from each bias to vote. For example, you can get people who are your friends, and who aren't your friends. Another example is you can get two people who are Christians, and two who are Atheists. It makes things fair.
2) People go against your rules within the debate.
With this point, you should look at what the seven point voting system does. There is a part for "conduct". What is conduct exactly? Conduct can mean a few different things. To simplify, it basically means the way someone acts (1). With that, if someone goes against the rules established at the beginning of the debate, then they would lose a conduct point in the seven point voting system.
Now I'd like to address your claim of unfair voting. If we look at the votes from each debate you posted, they seem quite fair indeed. I will go through each debate, and show you what I mean.
For example, if we go to the first debate that you posted, many people agreed with you on your opponent breaking the rules. I counted three people giving you a conduct point for what I stated above (2).
As for the second debate, I counted two people giving you the conduct point. However, many people voted against you because of you forfeiting (3). What is forfeiting? Basically, forfeiting is when you give up (4). The reason you would lose, I can explain if you don't understand. I go to a martial arts tournament. I don't like how my opponent practices Muay Thai, so I don't want to fight against them. Does that mean I lose? Yes, of course I lose. My opponent progresses forward and I lose in the tournament. The same is with DDO.
As for the last debate you posted, all he did was lose a conduct point. My advice to you would be to act mature, and you will gain the conduct point while he loses it. It will just make it easier for you to win the debate. However, you've currently decided to forfeit, which basically allows him to win (5).
You have posted your reasons as to why a non-voting addition to DDO would be positive. I will now post why I disagree with your opinions.
The main reason I disagree with this is because it makes the ranking less accurate. My point is, people right now can choose who they want to debate against so they get a strong opponent so to speak. What if the opposite started to happen? If someone was only challenge by a strong debater, they can make it a non-voting debate. However, when it is a weaker opponent, that they think they can defeat, they just make it a voting debate so they can rank up. That is my main problem with non-voting debates in the first place.
Moreover, say that DDO fixes that. You can't set the settings so nobody can choose their opponent. Then what is the point of the debate? A debate is supposed to have a winner most of the time, "Though logical consistency, factual accuracy and some degree of emotional appeal to the audience are important elements of the art of persuasion, in debating, one side often prevails over the other side by presenting a superior "context" and/or framework of the issue, which is far more subtle and strategic. The outcome of a debate depends upon consensus or some formal way of reaching a resolution, rather than the objective facts as such. In a formal debating contest, there are rules for participants to discuss and decide on differences, within a framework defining how they will interact." (6). Wouldn't it then just become a discussion instead of a debate? (7).
You do make a good case. There is good reasoning behind your decisions. However, debates are meant to be voted on to see who did the best from my understanding.
I appreciate you debating with me nonprophet. It is an interesting debate and you make very good points. I await your response in round 3.
Once again I want to thank my opponent for this debate and for being serious about this matter.
I'd also like to thank airmax for being the unbiased judge. I do hope he considers this with an open mind.
Now back to the debate:
My opponent says
"First I'd like to point out that there is a report button next to every vote."
Yes, that is true and I'd admit it is affective against blatant 7 point vote bombs, but otherwise it's just useless. It's very hard to tell the biased votes from the legitimate ones, when they have a reason for voting that sounds sort of like they read the debate. It is very easy to put down a vague reason for voting that still sounds legitimate. Examples include: "Pro used better sources", "Con had better conduct", and "Pro was more convincing".
My opponent also said:
"Secondly, there will always be some sort of bias when someone votes."
I think that point is really another good reason why an option for no-voting debates is legitimate. If someone wants to debate without risking losing by biased votes, why not allow them to do so?
My opponent goes on to say "Therefore, DDO implemented a judging system which you are using for this debate to decide on who wins. This way, you can get people from each bias to vote. For example, you can get people who are your friends, and who aren't your friends"
I'm sorry, but that made me laugh. People who debate for votes want to win. It's easier to win if you just recruit your own friends as judges. I doubt anyone would really be that honest as to use both friends and non-friends as judges without being forced to.
Concerning the second point 2) People go against your rules within the debate:
I would argue that a single conduct point out of 7 total, is a very slight deterrent from breaking debate rules. If anything, it encourages people to break the rules, because a sacrifice of one point to gain 6 is really worth breaking rules for. That's exactly what happens in my examples where a specific definition is what hinges on the entire debate. Just break the rule on the agreed upon definition, lose a point but win the debate by breaking the rule. The conduct point is not a deterrent to rule breaking.
As for my opponent's claim that a non-voting debate will make a person's ranking less accurate, I have to laugh again. A tie is like not having a debate at all when it comes to ranking. As far as I know, it doesn't affect a persons ELO or win/loss status. This is exactly why I think the option of a no-vote debate is a good one!
When you have a debate without having to worry about votes, you can enjoy the whole experience more.
You don't have to play semantic tricks or other nonsense just to win. Instead you can concentrate on facts and real arguments.The assertion my opponent makes that "A debate is supposed to have a winner most of the time" is just made up nonsense. A debate is really an exchange of ideas, not a fight. Debates very rarely get anyone to change their minds on a subject, in which case a person will vote the same way before and after a debate, no matter what the content of it is.
Once again, thank you for this opportunity to debate this topic seriously. No matter what the outcome, it was a pleasure.
With that logic there is no point in debating then. People are to be persuaded, and votes are to be cast to prove who won fairly. You can claim that people can do this without votes, but then what is the distinction between a discussion, conversation, etc. and a debate? Would that mean every time I disagree with my spouse that I am debating her, or is it just a normal conversation?
Then nobody has to accept the debate. For example, if I started a Creationism versus Atheism debate, and recruited only Christian judges, it is obviously unfair. Nobody has to accept it. It is just an alternative to the other methods of voting and judging a debate. Nothing will ever be perfect when it comes to voting.
It is indeed. First of all, it is not against the Terms of Service to break your rules you stated at the beginning of the debate (1). Secondly, you can argue that more points are required for conduct, but that is an entirely different debate. As it stands, I think it is fair. However, how much points should there really be for conduct, compared to spelling, grammar, etc.? It is a hard question to accurately answer.
The point was, with the current tactic you were using, you were gaining in percentile because of all of your ties. So yes, if non-voting debates were an option, unless they didn't effect your percentile, it would raise you in the percentile ranks.
My last argument I think my opponent did not understand what my main point was. My opponent states, "The assertion my opponent makes that "A debate is supposed to have a winner most of the time" is just made up nonsense. A debate is really an exchange of ideas, not a fight. Debates very rarely get anyone to change their minds on a subject, in which case a person will vote the same way before and after a debate, no matter what the content of it is." I would now like to remind my opponent of the definitions I posted previously.
Firstly, about what a debate is, "Though logical consistency, factual accuracy and some degree of emotional appeal to the audience are important elements of the art of persuasion, in debating, one side often prevails over the other side by presenting a superior "context" and/or framework of the issue, which is far more subtle and strategic."(2). Even though my opponent complained on the tactics people have used to beat him / win against him in debates, it is clearly fair. People are to persuade people, as well as it says, ""one side often prevails over the other side"" (2). Moreover, "Debating is commonly carried out in many assemblies of various types to discuss matters and to make resolutions about action to be taken, often by a vote."(2). It is quite clear when reading upon the debates that they are supposed to have votes in order to understand who won, etc.
However, lets compare this to a discussion, "an act or instance of discussing; consideration or examination by argument, comment, etc., especially to explore solutions; informal debate."(3). It would seem that this would imply that a discussion as a debate without votes, which isn't really as much of a debate at all. However, an informal debate is not, just to clarify, "Although informal debate is common the quality and depth of a debate improves with knowledge and skill of its participants as debaters. The outcome of a contest may be decided by audience vote, by judges, or by some combination of the two." (1). Just because that may be confusing, I put that in there. Basically, my main point is that debates are supposed to have votes. That is the entire point of a debate to a degree.
Lastly, as it has been told to my opponent previously in the comment section, if he wishes to argue with people about topics without voting, there is a forum for a reason. It is not the same as a formal debate.
I thank you again for this debate nonprophet. I made a few mistakes along the way, but we'll see who airmax thinks won.
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.