The Instigator
pbjh
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
THElittleRISK
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points

Debate three

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 3 votes the winner is...
THElittleRISK
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/18/2013 Category: Technology
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 682 times Debate No: 35738
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

pbjh

Con

Debate 3: I don't think we should have to start our own debates in order to have opinions on other ones.
THElittleRISK

Pro

I believe we should have to complete three debates before being able to vote on one. Here are three good reasons why:

1) It stops inexperienced voters from being able to sway debates.
Take for example, my own debate "Anderson Silva did not throw his fight with Chris Weidman" (1). This was a controversial issue with many people refusing to believe there is any way Silva legitimately lost. A good portion of the views of the debate came from visitors to the site, as shown by how the debate had 9,649 views and only two votes over three days. These people would have mostly voted based off their opinions. The three debate-rule saved the legitimacy of this outcome.

2) It makes it harder to vote-bomb.
Say you are losing a debate. If you're a rational person, you'll learn from it and move on. Unfortunately the Internet is full of more irrational people than the North Korean government, and Debade.org is no exception. These irrational people may create new accounts just to vote for themselves. Or they may use fake accounts to vote-bomb the debates of people they dislike. Either way, this is prevented by the three debate rule.

3) It makes you a better voter.
After going through three debates, you learn the hard work most people put into debates, This makes you a better voter since having gone through debates, you are more qualified to judge them because you have experienced the process first hand. You learn the gratifying feeling of having an analytical mind vote on your debate, be it for you or against you. Either way, these people put just as much effort into reading your debate as you put into making it, and that is a great feeling. This feeling would be ruined by someone who joined the site two minutes ago, votes against you with seven points, and puts their reasoning as "Pro was better." I am not saying all newcomers are unqualified, but all could learn from participating in debates.

I welcome my opponent to the site as he is new and hope that he eventually participates in three legitimate debates instead of three spam ones in order to bypass the three-debate rule, which is in place for a reason as I have proven.

Sources:
1: http://www.debate.org...
Debate Round No. 1
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Masterdebater1996 4 years ago
Masterdebater1996
Pro did post a better argument than the Con, and by posting the comment below only further proves how the Pro is right in having at least three debates before being able to vote. I personally cannot vote either right now and even though I do have opinions on other debates, I am not complaining about the rule. This is how Debate.org organized its own website and I believe we should respect the decisions made. Why else would they have put the three debates before voting on this website if there isn't any good reasoning behind it?
Posted by pbjh 4 years ago
pbjh
Of course, these are only "dummy" debates created to help me meet the requirements set for voting on other debates... I don't personally have any topics I wish to debate right now; however, I do have opinions on others I've seen on this site *sigh*
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Jegory 4 years ago
Jegory
pbjhTHElittleRISKTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: CON shows bad conduct by cheating the system in order to vote. Arguments: PRO produced many solid arguments for their claims. Sources: PRO used a source.
Vote Placed by rross 4 years ago
rross
pbjhTHElittleRISKTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I thought the reasons Pro gave defending the 3 votes rule were all excellent.
Vote Placed by Naysayer 4 years ago
Naysayer
pbjhTHElittleRISKTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro is attempting to scam the system and bypass the measures set up to ensure good voter conduct.