The Instigator
nonprophet
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
wxyz2000
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

DDO voting system is not fair

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 5/1/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 672 times Debate No: 53853
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

nonprophet

Pro

First round is for aceptance only
wxyz2000

Con

I accept. Thanks to Pro for initiating this argument.
Debate Round No. 1
nonprophet

Pro

I want to thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

OK, the debate is: DDO voting system is not fair

1. Not everybody can vote. DDO has a system where you have to give out a cell phone number in order to be able to vote.
Not everybody has a cell phone.
2. It's easy to get all your friends to vote for you. If you have a ton of friends, you can get then to vote for you and win every time.
3. Vote bombs can be disguised with a real looking "Reason for Vote".
4. You can set the elo so only certain people can vote. I don't see how that's fair, unless you set it so high that nobody can vote.
5. It's who votes, not what they vote. Sometimes you can lose a debate, just because a random person comes along and votes. So votes are random more than meaningful.

What they should do is have a pool of judges that are verified to be non-biased.
Every debate should get 5 judges to vote from the pool of judges, so every debate gets 5 voters that are non biased.

Instead, they have just random voters that can be biased. Not very fair.




wxyz2000

Con

The sole purpose of a debate is to convince the third person. One of the world"s greatest psychologists, Dale Carnegie, wrote that the way to get the best of an argument was to avoid it. Once the human psych is firmly set in an ideal, no amount of battering from an opponent will dislodge it. However, argumentation will convince the spectator, who is not in the heat of the debate and may take an objective stance. Since the purpose of a debate is to convince the sideliner, the idea to conduct a vote after a debate makes sense.
Now that we established that DDO should have a voting system, I will move to establish that the current voting system is fair (or as fair as it can be):
Transparency:
DDO voters must state the reason of their vote, and comment on the strengths of each debate. All these reasons are displayed to the public. If vote bombs are disguised as real looking "Reason for Vote", then then maybe the voted arguments has its own merit. After all, a real looking "Reason for Vote" is a reason for vote.
Integrity:
DDO voters must have completed three debates. This protects the integrity of the voting system. Actively participating members of debate.org has a low chance of skewing the results. Pro argues that the vote is not inclusive, as some people do not have a cell phone a high enough elo. But voting is almost always never completely inclusive. The typical vote age is 18, and you typically need to be a resident/citizen of that country. These rules are imposed to protect the integrity of the system.
Bias is adjusted:
Numerous factors are taken into consideration to adjust for bias. The voting system takes into account whether or not a voter has initially sided with a debater. Sources, argumentation, grammar and conduct are all important factors in a debate.
Accountability:
A voter could be held accountable through reporting.
Another purpose of a debate is to get people actively involved. Most high profile debates (such as the Munk Debates), always counts the support among the audience. Having a pool of judges defeats this purpose. We are not a bunch of high school students waiting to get evaluated on our world issues assignment.
Debate Round No. 2
nonprophet

Pro

My opponent claims "The sole purpose of a debate is to convince the third person."
That may be a purpose, but by no means, the sole purpose.
I would argue, that that main purpose of a debate is to exchange ideas.
Convincing others may be a by-product of a debate, but not the main or sole reason for one.

My opponent wants to claim that "a real looking "Reason for Vote" is a reason for vote".
That's not true. For example, a voter can easily claim that "pro had better grammar: or "con made a better argument",
without being specific. Anybody can make such claims and sound legitimate. That doesn't make it legitimate.


My opponent wants to claim that, "DDO voters must have completed three debates. This protects the integrity of the voting system." It may to a small degree, but not by much. It's very easy and quick to open up an account and complete 3 debates. It really does hardly anything to "protect the integrity of DDO"


My opponent wants to claim that "A voter could be held accountable through reporting."
Unless it's a 7 point vote bomb with no reason for voting, there's not much that can be done.

My opponent then contradicts him/herself by saying "Another purpose of a debate is to get people actively involved."
So much for debates having a "sole purpose"!

Also, my opponent claims, "We are not a bunch of high school students waiting to get evaluated on our world issues assignment."
I never made that claim, but my opponent seems to be very insecure when it comes to that.

I still stand by all of my 5 reasons why the DDO voting system is not fair. My opponent made very weak
claims against my reasons.
wxyz2000

Con

First of all, I would like to congratulate Pro on catching my slip stating "the sole purpose", I meant to write "one". However, I would like to point out that pointing out fallacies in my opening statement does not reinforce his argument. In fact it weakens it. My opening statement was to back up the statement that there should be a voting system, not that the DDO system was not fair. This view is shared by my opponent. His proposal to improving the "fairness" of the DDO voting system was not to eliminate the voting system altogether, but to " [assign] 5 judges to vote from the pool of judges, so every debate gets 5 voters that are non-biased".
Con argues that having three debates does not protect the integrity of the vote. However, statistics show other. On the leadership dashboard, there are 18, 921 debaters. But by the 62nd page, you can see that the majority of debaters displayed have less than 3 debates in total. By the 100th page, you can barely see any debaters with a debate count of three or more. There are 30 debaters on each page. There are about 3000 debaters that can vote out of the 18, 921 debaters. This rule has been successfully in eliminating random voters, so we can consider Pro"s fifth point void.
http://www.debate.org...
Pro"s fourth point somewhat contradicts with his other points. Setting a high elo can ensure the integrity of the debate, prevent vote bombs, winning by "getting a ton of friends to vote for you", and prevent random people voting.
Pro"s first point, "Not everybody can vote. DDO has a system where you have to give out a cell phone number in order to be able to vote. Not everybody has a cell phone." This is faintly ridiculously. Even Americans that are in the federal level of "poverty" have cell phones. Even if some of the DDO debaters cannot vote, this rate would be quite low. As I pointed out in my last round, there isn"t a system in this world that is completely inclusive.
http://www.cnsnews.com...
If "pro had better grammar" then pro had better grammar. This is completely objective and not subjective. "Pro had better argument" really isn"t a "real looking reason", as you didn"t give a reason (By my understanding, in the voting system, the voter gets to bubble in which side he/she though had the better argument, then fill in the reason). Even though voters may give "pro had better argument" as a reason, pro hasn"t given any viable alternative for the voting system to make it "fairer". Vote bombs will also occur in any voting system. Getting friends to vote for you is also part of any voting system. I doubt Barack Obama"s friend voted for Mitt Romney in the presidential election.
I have looked up the debates of the best debaters (by elo ranking, refer the top link). These debaters give excellent arguments. The overall tendency is that the more you debate and the better you debate, the higher your ranking. Thus the DDO system seems to be working.
Although pro never directly stated "we are a bunch of high school students waiting to get evaluated on our world issues assignment", pro proposed method of evaluating debates is remarkably similar to how high school debate competitions are run.
The ad hominem statement, "but my opponent seems to be very insecure when it comes to that", is irrelevant to this debate, unsupported, and slightly insulting.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.