The Instigator
RougeFox
Pro (for)
Losing
11 Points
The Contender
bluesteel
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

Debate topics on this website (debate.org) should be critiqued

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/30/2010 Category: Education
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,112 times Debate No: 13846
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (19)
Votes (8)

 

RougeFox

Pro

The first round will be for introductions, definition, and observations and introduce some of your arguments, but not go in depth. I would also like to clarify the topic.

Debate topics- in this case, refers to the topic of debate which is either a question or a resolution

Critique- in this case, it means that members of this website should evaluate the quality of some resolutions. It can either be a con argument, if the creator of the topic is pro; or, it can be a pro argument, if the creator of the topic is con. The reason is that it can be a pro argument is so that topics will be able to be critiqued even if the author chooses to be con.

Also, by affirming the resolution, it does not mean that every topic should be critiqued.

By accepting the debate, you agree to the above terms.

=====================================================

Observations:

1. Communication is the most important aspect of debate.
bluesteel

Con

Thanks for the topic RougeFox.

Clarification - "members" who "should" critique topics should be assumed to be members other than the instigator and the member who accepts the debate (the contender)

Burden of proof - as the instigator, my opponent has the burden or proving the resolution true. He says: "by affirming the resolution, it does not mean that every topic should be critiqued." This is acceptable, but he should have to prove the resolution true in the majority of cases (50% plus one) or else he hasn't proven the resolution true, on balance. He can't just prove that there is one topic on this website that should be critiqued. This sets the threshold for his BOP far too low.

Observations:
He says I have to agree with all the terms before the observations, but I presume I can disagree with his observation. I can't agree with this observation because 1. it doesn't make sense and 2. it's not true.

1. I can't tell what communication even means in this context. Communicating effectively to the judges? Communicating in good spirits with your opponent? If communication is all that matters, why not start a conversation or post to the forums. There is a reason to specifically engage someone else in a direct debate, with the risk of winning or losing.

2. People debate for different reasons, many of which are equally valid - fun, education, for the challenge, for recognition, for the win. I reserve the right to argue one of these other reasons, depending on my opponent's case.

==Intro==

One member of debate.org started something similar to this debate as a joke - a board designed to "certify" topics as good. The "board" quickly devolved into a silly joke. I intend to argue that the Contender can choose to reject (or "not accept") a bad topic, so critiques of "bad" topics are unnecessary. If someone wants to debate the topic, that's his or her prerogative. I will also argue that critiques stifle innovation, prevent people from engaging in controversial or unconventional debates that interest at least themselves and one other person, prevent fun forms of debate (like impromptu and rap battles), and that more generally, topics should be left to individual users (like in a free market) instead of regulated by some outside body of critics (like Statist control).

I look forward to a fun debate.
Debate Round No. 1
RougeFox

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

I will begin my clarifying some things, then I will begin my arguments.

Critique
What I had in mind for this resolution was that, when debate topics were posted, then the community should comment on whether or not the resolution could be worded better, had serious errors, ect. There would not be any censoring of topics or committee to pass, just constructive criticism. If my opponent does not want to debate based on this idea, then this debate should be a tie.

My Observation

My opponent is allowed to challenge my observation, but I would like to clarify that observation. I would like to clarify that the communication is between a debater and the judges (in this case, the community of voters), and their opponent. The reason that I say that communication is the most important part of debate is that effective communication is the only way that ideas and arguments can be conveyed effectively. Several things fall under the category of communication. How convincing arguments are and how well the grammar/spelling are two parts of communication. Arguments cannot be convincing without effective communication. Proper grammar and spelling help improve communication. I hope that this helps clarify my observation.

My first argument is that, if debate topics are critiqued, then the quality of debate topics will improve. This will happen because people will learn how to word topics more effectively and clearly. This has several impacts which can effect many different purposes of debate.

Education- if the quality of debate topics is increased through critiquing, then there will be more effective debate, thus, more education. Therefore, critiquing would improve debate with regards to this purpose. Also, critiques would educate debaters on how to write topics, further fulfilling this purpose.

Fun- if the quality of debate topics is increased, then it follows that it would be more fun because, logically, higher quality topics lead to better debate and ,therefore, more fun.

Challenge- better quality topics would be more balanced, thus, there would be more fair and challenging

Recognition- better quality topics would enhance the legitimacy of debates, thus increasing recognition

Winning- better quality topics would make more fair and balanced topics and would make winning more credible.
bluesteel

Con

Thanks for the rapid response RougeFox.

*'s will denote an argument my opponent made

==Resolutional analysis==

*the community should comment on whether or not the resolution could be worded better, had serious errors, ect*

Yet, my opponent originally said, "Critique- in this case, it means that members of this website should evaluate the quality of some resolutions." I'm sorry I accepted given that my opponent and I clearly thought the resolution was about different things. But my interpretation of the debate falls well within my opponent's original statement, which was that members will in some way evaluate the quality of debate resolutions. This sounds exactly like what studentathletechristian8 tried to do with his "Board of Debate Approval" (BDA): certify the quality of debates. His system was still voluntary, but it would have, in theory, tried to shame people out of starting silly, stupid, bad, or unapproved debates.

I accepted this debate based on the original statement in round 1; my opponent should not be allowed to clarify and change the debate in round two.

His clarification is also confusing because it already happens now. Members of debate.org (DDO) can already offer criticism of topics under the comments section. I assumed my opponent was advocating a change from the status quo, since otherwise his topic is not very relevant. I thus believe my interpretation of the debate should stand.

*If my opponent does not want to debate based on this idea, then this debate should be a tie.*

I disagree. I still want to debate – I think resolutional analysis is a fair thing to debate, which opens the debate up to my interpretation. I'll also address my opponent's arguments and try to win within his framework as well. But, I don't think anyone should award a tie in this debate: vote for the debater who made better arguments.

==My opponent's case==

*Observation*

Sure, I agree. Effective communication is important in a debate round. It's unfortunate that we've already had one failure to communicate in this debate.

*if debate topics are critiqued, then the quality of debate topics will improve. This will happen because people will learn how to word topics more effectively and clearly. This has several impacts which can effect many different purposes of debate.*

1. There is already a spelling/grammar check on everyone's computer. This should be sufficient to make sure topics are worded clearly.

2. As this debate proves, topics cannot be perfectly worded no matter what. There will always be some vagueness inherent in the topic. In fact, for competitive debate topics, the framers of resolutions purposely choose vague wording and leave the topic open to interpretation to allow resolutional analysis and debates over definitions to occur. These types of debates can be even more educational than having someone tell you in the comments section how to re-word the resolution to preclude debate.

3. Following from 2, the only way to clearly explain what a debate is going to be about is to have a very clear and well-explained opening case. Most of the confusion from this debate comes from vagueness in my opponent's opening statement, not in the wording of the topic itself. Critiques of opening cases are impractical because this would be construed as the members of DDO helping the instigator with his argument, but not helping the contender.

4. A topic is one sentence long. If you can't write one clear sentence without outside assistance, there's not much hope for you in a debate anyway.

5. Signaling. Badly worded topics are signals to good DDO members that the instigator is not very good, and it helps them avoid the debate, while instead allowing the instigator to be matched to someone closer to his or her skill level. Having DDO members correct topic wording removes this vital signal.

*Education*

1. Extend my analysis about how debates about resolutional analysis and definitions are more educational than simply having someone tell you how to correct the topic.

2. Extend the signaling argument – debaters learn more from a closer matchup.

3. Critiques stifle learning and innovation. If someone wants to debate that "President Obama was born in Zimbabwe," who am I to tell that person that he is inevitably going to lose. This individual will learn more from debating his doomed topic than my comment can ever teach him.

*Fun*

1. My opponent keeps making the faulty assumption that a critique will inevitably make a topic "higher quality." A critique could make a topic lower quality. People on DDO have very differing opinions and some members are more intelligent than others. If someone new takes the wrong advice, he or she might actually lower the quality of the debate.

2. Critiques stifle innovation. Someone might start a fun topic called a "debate rap." But if that person were the first ever to suggest such an idea, if a number of DDO members comment "that's stupid," "this site is for debating, not rapping," etc then the individual might abandon the innovative, fun new debate idea.

3. Users word topics about something they know about, even if their beliefs are simplistic or faulty. If I comment and make the debate "higher quality," but in doing so, shift it to something that is too difficult for the user to argue, he will not enjoy the experience.

*Challenge, winning, recognition*

Same answers to all of these, from above.

==Burden of proof==

My opponent agrees to my burden of proof (BOP) by dropping this argument. He must prove that 50% (plus one) topics on this site are worded badly enough to demand DDO member intervention.

==My case==

C1) Conflicting critiques

If two members give completely conflicting critiques, the instigator will not know what to do. This could get really confusing for new users.

C2) Jokes

Many members on DDO take everything as a joke. If new users take their critiques seriously, they will end up arguing ridiculous positions. This would destroy the value and quality of debates.

C3) Postpones debates

Debates often exceed 100 posts in the comments sections, with different DDO members debating each other about different aspects of a topic. If the critiques are meant to precede the debate, we would get caught in an infinite cycle of never-ending critique, with topic tweak after topic tweak. The debates will take far too long to actually begin. It is better to have more debates than more critiques. Debates themselves are far more educational than reading through 100 different comments.

C4) Pointless

Debates cannot be edited after someone accepts. If people post critiques and the instigator doesn't correct the topic before someone accepts, it will be too late.

C5) Bait and switch

Changing the topic at the last minute is bad. I almost accepted a debate but decided not to for some reason. After refreshing the page, I realized that the user had changed the topic while I was still reading his case. Had I accepted, I would have accepted thinking the resolution was one thing, but it was actually another. This is unfair to the contender.

C6) Unconstructive criticism

My opponent assumes that all critiques would be constructive. He can't guarantee this. Some critiques might be blatant ridiculing, encouraging new members to leave the site forever.

C7) Hurt feelings

People who just naturally have bad spelling or grammar might get offended if people constantly critique them. It's possible he or she has a learning disability (like dyslexia) and cannot help it.

C8) Destroys the DDO user experience

The basic idea of DDO is that you can debate whomever you want, whenever you want, on whatever topic you want. If you vote Pro in this debate, people will get used to the idea that all topics need to be critiqued (since a majority will be). Users will demand de facto approval for all topics. More on this later.
Debate Round No. 2
RougeFox

Pro

My arguments will be very brief because I have hardly any time because some important things came up.

I will point out my interpretation of the resolution in the second falls under the rules set out in the first round.

I think that debaters on this site are mature enough to provide constructive criticism. I also think that people in general are intelligent enough to tell what criticism is constructive. I will briefly refute my opponent

He said there there is a spelling/grammar check. This proves his 7th contention wrong. Also, spelling/grammar are not the only aspects of clarity. This resolution used proper grammar and spelling but was still unclear

He says that topics cannot be worded perfectly. This is true, but that doesn't mean wording can't be improved. It is like arguments, there is no perfect argument, but arguments can be improved

He says that a topic is one sentence and all ought to be able to write a clear sentence. The topic is a very important sentence, and outside critiques can help. This would prove his 8th point wrong as well because he says it should be open to whomever, and those who could not write a sentence would be included in that.

He mentions signaling. If debaters debate against stronger competition, it improves their skills. Therefore, it is a good thing to debate weaker opponents sometimes because it helps those people improve.

Education
1. Resolutional analysis has a small educational benefit when compared with the topics discussed. For example, a resolution about the situation in Afghanistan is more educational if the topics and arguments are discussed, rather than the resolution. Critiques allow for the educational benefit of improved resolution, plus the educational benefit from debate of the arguments.

2. Critiques don't necessarily stifle innovation; since the debate topics would not be regulated.

Fun
1. If someone's advice would decrease the quality of the resolution, the instigator should know this.

2. See above

3. Obligation would not occur

Challenge, winning, recognition

See above

His case

C1) Two conflicting critiques would be evaluated and debated

C2) a. This is non-unique to critiques.
b. If this were true, than the site should not be taken seriously because the jokers would argue ridiculous positions in good resolutions

C3) Tweaks do not have to be taken. A delayed, effective debate is better than a quick, ineffective one

C4) Even if critiques are not followed, they give educational benefit. The instigator learns for the future.

C5) a.) As my opponent's story shows, this is non-unique
b.) Critiques wouldn't change a resolution drastically

C6) a.) A degree of ridicule will occur on any site with interaction, non-unique
b.) I think that the majority of people are mature enough to not do this

C7) My opponent pointed out that there were spelling and grammar checkers

C8) Debate should be open to all, even those who cannot write effective topic sentences. He says more on this later, so I will respond when that is posted

My Arguments

My opponent said in round 2, "I clearly thought the resolution was about different things." This is not his fault. Yet, it proves my point because if clarification had occurred through critiques and my changes in response to those critiques, this never would have occurred. This shows that critiques are good things an would improve the quality of debate, upholding my arguments.

My opponent never directly refuted my claims regarding the following:

Challenge- I stated that critiques would cause balance in resolutions. He did not show how they would not provide balance

Wining- same thing applies to challenges.
bluesteel

Con

Thanks, RougeFox.

==Resolutional Analysis==

*I will point out my interpretation of the resolution in the second falls under the rules set out in the first round.*

So does my interpretation. I provided analysis about how a de facto board of approval, like studentathletechristian8's Board of Debate Approval (BDA) fell within the bounds of my opponent's first round definition of critique - that "members of this website should evaluate the quality of resolutions." Both interpretations are left standing, so both are allowed.

==Burden of proof==

Dropped again by my opponent. He concedes again that he must prove that 50% (plus one) of resolutions on this website are deficient enough to need intervention from DDO members. He makes no attempt at proving that this many resolutions need critiques.

==His case==

The order gets messy here, but my opponent drops a few key refutations. I'll go in the original order.

*Topic quality*

1. I drop this. I agree, not everyone uses spellcheck. However, if someone doesn't care enough to spellcheck, that person wouldn't care enough to take the advice in a critique.

2. Resolutional analysis and definitional debates are educational.

*Resolutional analysis has a small educational benefit when compared with the topics discussed. For example, a resolution about the situation in Afghanistan is more educational if the topics and arguments are discussed, rather than the resolution*

Resolutional analysis HAS to be coupled with good argumentation in order to win. But definitional debates allow the contender to offer arguments that the instigator sometimes tries to define out of the round. The instigators often try to narrow debates down to such an extent that no contender can win. Only resolutional analysis can even allow the contender to make an argument.

Take the Afghanistan example. A former public forum topic was – Resolved: Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is in the United States' best interest.

Instigators would define the topic as: "the contender must prove that Obama's plan will kill all the Taliban." No contender could do this. Contenders would come back and say "best interest" just means better than the alternatives (withdraw, do nothing).

3. Cases matter more than the topic.

I just had a great debate on the topic "birth vs. acquired disability." The topic was really unclear, but the debate itself was not because my opponent offered a really well thought out, lucid case in round 1.

The problem in this debate is not due to a deficiency in the topic, but a lack of clarity in my opponent's round 1 case.

He never answers my argument that DDO members should NOT help with cases because this is unfair to the contender, who gets no help. They also shouldn't help with topic wording because they might leave the contender too little ground to stand on when "improving" the topic in the instigator's favor.

4. Drop

5. Signaling

"it is a good thing to debate weaker opponents sometimes because it helps those people improve"

But it doesn't help the stronger debater improve; it should be the contender's choice whether or not to accept, based on the available information. Also, someone who doesn't care enough to word the topic correctly would not be a good opponent for anyone, even a novice debater. The problem is that it shows a lack of EFFORT not a lack of SKILL. If someone is not even willing to spend the time to spellcheck the topic, that person is not going to put much effort into the debate. Badly worded topics are still an important signal.

*Education*

Resolutional analysis/signaling are extended above

3. Critiques prevent learning

*Critiques don't necessarily stifle innovation; since the debate topics would not be regulated.*

This doesn't answer my argument one iota. I'll just repeat my argument here: "If someone wants to debate that "President Obama was born in Zimbabwe," who am I to tell that person that he is inevitably going to lose. This individual will learn more from debating his doomed topic than my comment can ever teach him."

*Fun*

1. Bad advice

*the instigator should know the advice is bad*

If the instigator isn't smart enough to word the topic correctly, why should we assume that he or she can differentiate between good advice, bad advice, and joke advice.

2. Stifle innovation

*see above*

Not really refuted. If someone wants to do something unconventional, DDO members shouldn't try to shame him out of it by making fun of the new idea.

3. Improvement = less fun

"Higher quality" topics might be equated with "more serious" topics. Advice could make the topic higher quality, but less fun to debate. Joke topics all fall in this category.

*Challenge – more balanced*

Advice could also unbalance the topic in favor of the instigator. A great deal of advice on topic improvements would likely be in regards to how to make it harder for the contender to win.

==My case==

C1) Conflicting advice

*Two conflicting critiques would be evaluated and debated*

Proves my C3

C2) Jokes

My opponent's response doesn't make sense. Novices won't know when people are joking. For example, brian_eggleston creates topics that seem serious, but are jokes, such as "The U.S. Dept. of State should issue special "Agricultural Intern" entry visas to famine victims," which is really him arguing for bringing slavery back to the U.S. http://www.Debate.org...

C3) Seriously delayed debates

My opponent concedes under C1 that conflicting advice will be debated endlessly by DDO members in the comments section. The real debate might not start for days or weeks while DDO members debate the proper topic wording. Both instigator and potential contender would learn more from simply starting the debate right away, rather than wading through 20 pages of comments and advice about topic wording.

C4) Pointless

Instigators often never check the comments section or someone accepts first, so the topic cannot be edited. This is a waste of DDO members' time, which is why they should not offer critiques.

C5) Bait and switch

Major changes are bad because a contender may accept while thinking the topic is still the old topic. My opponent makes a HUGE concession here: "Critiques wouldn't change a resolution drastically." Then what's the point – DDO members aren't here to correct minor spelling mistakes, which is a huge waste of our time and talents.

C6) Unconstructive criticism

My opponent clearly hasn't spent enough time on the forums. A lot of DDO is just blatant ridiculing: the bickering between theLwerd and Mirza, nearly all responses to charleslb, everything JimProfit posted, nearly everything brian_eggleston posts is a joke, a great deal of what C_N says is condescending, etc. DDO is filled with trolls, jokesters, and condescenders.

C7) Hurt feelings

Many people will be ridiculed for being dumb. For example, a recent transgender individual posted a topic about gay marriage, made a number of spelling errors, and was blatantly ridiculed for days on the comments section. This made him/her quit DDO.

C8) Destroys DDO user experience

*Debate should be open to all, even those who cannot write effective topic sentences.*

Exactly my point. Enacting a de facto system or review board that is needed to critique/review topics will mean that anyone whose topics do not pass muster cannot debate. Anyone who is deemed by the DDO community as too stupid, or too bad at spelling, or too silly, or too contentious, or too much of a troll will be turned away by this de facto system of shaming/critiquing bad topics and debaters.

Because my opponent fails his BOP to prove that at least 50% of topics need to be critiqued and because I have demonstrated downsides to critiques, specifically their exclusionary nature and their tendency to greatly delay the start time of debates, I urge a Con vote.
Debate Round No. 3
RougeFox

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for a very good debate.

As I said, this will be brief because I have very little time.

What this debate comes down to is whether critiques will be helpful to improve this website. I think that it does for the following reasons.

Topic quality will be improved.

If topics are being critiqued, debaters will learn what makes topics effective by weighing the community's opinions. This, over time, will improve topic quality.

If an instigator knows his topic will be critiqued, it provides incentive for him/her to word the topic more effectively.

My opponent makes the assumption that quality relates to seriousness, but it does not. I have provided a definition of quality to prove this. Merriam Websters Online defines it as "degree of excellence" (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)

I will now go through the purposes of debate and show why critiquing would be helpful for them

Education
-Since topic quality will be improved, there will be more effective debates and more education
-The critiques themselves will provide educational value because they teach about resolutions
*My opponent states that resolutional analysis will be educational and he says that resolutional analysis needs effective argumentation.
-This is true, but the same educational value can be provided through critiques. The difference is, with critiques, not only is the wording and structure of the topic discussed, providing educational, but also the issues are discussed. Going back the the Afghanistan example, the resolution could be critiqued, providing educational value, and the arguments about Afghanistan can be debated providing even more education.
Thus, critiques help this purpose

Fun
-Higher quality topics would provide more effective and fun debate.

*Stifle Innovation
-Members can understand the purpose of a topic. The instigator and contender also understand the purpose. Thus, this is not relevant because 'fun' topics will be debated anyway.
-Innovation will not be stifled because the "doomed" topic will be debated in addition to the various comments.

*Seriousness
- "Quality" is not equal to seriousness
-Resolutional Analysis, which my opponent suggests as an alternative, is not as fun as a "fun" resolution.

Challenge/Winning/ect.
-My opponent's rebuttal is not sufficient. He makes the assumption that debaters on this site are not intelligent enough to provide critiques which would balance resolutions. Higher quality resolutions would be more balanced because balance is one of the most important parts of a resolution

*C1) Conflicting Advice
-This would provide education to all the members involved. The critiques could be evaluated as the debate unfolds because they would still help future resolutions instigated by the members involved

*C2) Jokes
-Never responded to it being non-unique, thus, this must not be looked to

*C3) Delay
-See my response to C1.
-Contender would be better off with a higher quality resolution, so the point about starting the debate must not be looked to

*C4) Pointless
-Even if the topic is not changed, it provides future reference for the community. Thus, it still provides education

*C5) Bait and Switch
-His anecdote proves this would non-unique to critiques
-Critiques would not change a topic from being about, for example, Afghanistan to steamboats.

*C6)Unconstructive Criticism
- It can be looked past

*C7)Hurt Feeling
-Non-unique because of trolls on forums and this occurred before critiques

*C8) Destroys DDO user experience
- Non-unique. Trolls will be trolls.
- Those who are deemed by the community "too stupid, too bad at spelling, ect." will be turned away anyway after loosing and being ridiculed even without critiques.

I have met the burden of proof because my opponent stated,"topics cannot be perfectly worded". This means all resolutions have room to improve and thus, all resolutions should be critiqued.

You should vote pro for the following reasons:
-My opponent has failed to prove how most his contentions are unique to critiques
-My opponent has not linked his contentions directly to critiques effectively, the con's case does not carry much weight.
-My impacts outweigh his. My impact of improved quality outweighs his of turning a few people away. These people wold be unlikely to stick around anyway because the people who would be turned away would be ineffective debaters who are not willing to learn.
-As I showed above, I have met the burden of proof
bluesteel

Con

Thanks for a great debate RougeFox.

==BOP==

RougeFox accepts my burden of proof throughout this round – that he must prove that 50% (plus one) of the resolutions on this site are bad enough to need critiquing. He has failed this burden. At any given time, about one fourth of topics are created by established DDO members, so they are well worded, and another one half of topics come directly from competitive debate (Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, Policy debate) so they are automatically worded well.

Scanning three of the most recent topics I've seen, they are perfectly well worded:

"Be it resolved that Genetically Modified (GM) agriculture is beneficial to society."

"The school year should be year-round (12 months)"

"'Black' Americans should not be referred to as ‘African American'"

RougeFox thus fails the BOP that he has accepted throughout this round.

==His case==

---Topic quality---

He drops all 3 KEY arguments here:

Extend the #2: resolutional analysis solves the problems with badly worded topics.

Remember, even if a topic is vague or badly worded, the contender can offer definitions and analysis that make the debate much more clear. This solves the problem. Contenders will not accept topics when the round 1 is super unclear, the topic is unclear, and there is no room for the contender to offer his or her own definitions and interpretation of the topic.

Extend the #3: cases matter far more than topic wording

Remember, even if the topic is unclear, a good case should clarify what the instigator means by the topic. Remember my example: I had a recent GREAT debate on "birth vs acquired disabilities," which is a vague topic, but the instigator's case made the debate perfectly clear. Another recent example: a topic was "the reality of God" but it became clear from the instigator's well written case that he meant "God exists" and the contender should argue that God doesn't exist.

Extend my analysis that critiques should not help the instigator with his case – this is unfair. Debaters debate solo, not with the help of the DDO community.

Also, I made an argument here that "fixing" the topic often means making it easier for the instigator to win, which is unfair.

Extend the #5: signaling

Badly worded topics signal that the debater in question does not intend to put that much time or effort into the debate. Having DDO members fix the topic would eliminate an important signal to contenders.

At the point where my opponent drops all 3 refutations, he loses his case, since his other standards for a good debate (education, fun, recognition, etc) all stem from the assumption that critiques are necessary or desirable to improve topic quality. The first two dropped refutations prove critiques are unnecessary to improve topic quality (contender analysis and the instigator's case solve); the latter refutation (signaling) proves that improving topic quality is undesirable because it eliminates an important piece of information.

---Education---

*the same educational value can be provided through critiques*

Again, this doesn't answer my specific argument here. If someone wants to debate the topic as pro on "Obama was born in Zimbabwe," who am I to critique his topic and tell him all the reasons he is wrong. He will learn more from actually debating someone on that topic than merely reading my critique and abandoning his debate entirely.

---Fun---

If someone wants to do something silly or unconventional, DDO members should not shame him/her out of doing it.

*Members can understand the purpose of a topic. The instigator and contender also understand the purpose*

Not responsive. DDO members might understand the purpose, think the purpose is stupid, and shame the instigator.

Also, in saying "the instigator and contender understand the purpose of a topic," my opponent cold concedes the entire debate. The only reason for a critique is to make the topic clearer to the contender. If the contender understands the purpose of all topics, then critiques are unnecessary.

---Challenge/winning---

*He makes the assumption that debaters on this site are not intelligent enough to provide critiques which would balance resolutions*

Not that they're not intelligent, but because the advice is directed at the instigator, critiques are more likely to give the instigator advice as to ways to make it harder for the contender to win, by eliminating some of the possible strategies that the contender might take.

C1) dropped in previous round to prove C3

C2) Jokes

*Non-unique*

My argument is unique to critiques. Users like brian_eggleston might trick n00bs into debating utterly ridiculous resolutions.

C3) Delay

Remember, my opponent said in the previous round that: "Two conflicting critiques would be evaluated and debated." This would lead to an infinite string of debates between DDO members on the comments section about how to tweak the topic or whether it is a good topic. Debaters learn more from starting a debate immediately rather than waiting a week to read through hundreds of comments.

*My opponent says that debaters can ignore the comments until later and start the debate anyway*

If our advice will be ignored, why should DDO members take the time to write critiques?

*Contender would be better off with a higher quality resolution*

Contenders can and do refuse to accept if the topic isn't to their liking. If it already is, the debate should start immediately.

*I have met the burden of proof because my opponent stated,"topics cannot be perfectly worded". This means all resolutions have room to improve and thus, all resolutions should be critiqued.*

Nothing is ever perfect. This proves my point that my opponent supports infinite critiquing of topics, without any actual debating occurring.

C4) Pointless

If a contender accepts, the topic can no longer be changed, so critiques are pointless unless the instigator checks the comments section every few minutes.

*it provides future reference for the community*

I don't know what this means, but my opponent has assumed throughout this debate that whatever he means by "the DDO community" is a bunch of super-smart, highly ethical, and serious people. If he concedes that the community has a lot to learn, he concedes my arguments regarding unconstructive, useless, or confusing criticism.

C6) Unconstructive criticism

*It can be looked past*

Not always because 1) newbies may not know when DDO members are joking and 2) my example in C7 proves that people take critiques personally.

C7) Hurt feelings

Extend my example of the transgender individual who quit DDO after being ridiculed by critiques of her topic and case.

*non-unique*

No, people who want to avoid trolls could avoid the forums and stick to debating.

C8) Destroys DDO user experience – due to all the reasons above

No need to repeat.

==Round summary==

Vote con because:

1. My opponent fails his BOP and doesn't prove that critiques are WIDELY necessary

2. Topics don't need to be clarified because:
a) instigators' cases will clarify
b) if not, contenders' definitions/analysis will clarify

3. Badly spelled/worded topics are an important signal to contenders not to accept

4. New members cannot differentiate good advice from bad/joke advice

5. Too many critiques will seriously delay debates

6. Critiques stifle innovation, destroy education, and turn sensitive members away from the site
Debate Round No. 4
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
just balancing the vote bomb
Posted by OrionsGambit 6 years ago
OrionsGambit
Shoot, I thought sources was 0 points. My bad.
Posted by bluesteel 6 years ago
bluesteel
I think you should debate me, Sieben, or J.Kenyon for real.

But thanks for the vote on this debate, I guess... I don't really understand how I won sources though, since there weren't any.
Posted by OrionsGambit 6 years ago
OrionsGambit
I've justified all of my votes Sieben. Stop throwing a tantrum because I made you look like a fool on a totally different part of the site.
Posted by Sieben 6 years ago
Sieben
Oh I just assumed OG would be a jerk and vote down all the people making him look stupid in the politics forum. Now that I look more closely, there's another votebomber the other way so it doesn't make a diff.
Posted by OrionsGambit 6 years ago
OrionsGambit
I've justified all of them, while the majority of other people haven't. A handful of ppl are sad pandas and are trying to drag an issue in one topic to other parts of the site. Poor, poor manners.
Posted by annhasle 6 years ago
annhasle
No, a vote bomb is when you give all the points to one side without a RFD. It's a sketchy thing to do. Now, if you don't want to be labeled a vote-bomber, why not just justify your vote for bluesteel with a RFD? Not that hard to do.
Posted by OrionsGambit 6 years ago
OrionsGambit
I dislike bluesteel? I've had no interaction with him outside of this debate and I voted for him. How does that mean I dislike him? Likewise, I've merely disagreed with you and Sieben and laughed at the fact you two turn to insults when you can't refute my points.

And again; "the current contention of "vote bombing" is anyone who votes for someone who they believed did the better job, but who votes against your own interests".
Posted by J.Kenyon 6 years ago
J.Kenyon
Orion suffers from the Dunning-Kruger effect, so he's not a very good judge of intelligence. He seems to enjoy going from debate to debate votebombing against the people he dislikes (namely me, bluesteel, and Sieben).
Posted by OrionsGambit 6 years ago
OrionsGambit
Again, the current contention of "vote bombing" is anyone who votes for someone who they believed did the better job, but who votes against your own interests".

Tis is just sad. Besides, at least I'm consistent, Sieben voted along with me to "balance me out".
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by ethopia619 6 years ago
ethopia619
RougeFoxbluesteelTied
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:24 
Vote Placed by OrionsGambit 6 years ago
OrionsGambit
RougeFoxbluesteelTied
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 
Vote Placed by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
RougeFoxbluesteelTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Sieben 6 years ago
Sieben
RougeFoxbluesteelTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
RougeFoxbluesteelTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by I_vin_zee_game 6 years ago
I_vin_zee_game
RougeFoxbluesteelTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
RougeFoxbluesteelTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Vote Placed by rogue 6 years ago
rogue
RougeFoxbluesteelTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10