The Instigator
Zealous1
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
MrCarroll
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Debate.org should award points to a debater when... (Too long, details below)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/10/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 987 times Debate No: 15290
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

Zealous1

Pro

Extension of resolution: a voter's personal opinion was altered by their good argumentation.

There are radio buttons asking the voter what position he/she had before the debate. I believe that if the voter changed positions after the debate, the debater who changed the position should get 2 points.

Rules of how it works:
If voter agrees with Pro, then afterwards agrees with Con, Con gets 2 points.
If voter agrees with Con, then afterwards agrees with Pro, Pro gets 2 points.
If voter agrees with "Tied" then afterwards agrees with either Pro or Con, either Pro or Con gets 1 point only. (The less opinionated, the easier to bend)
If voter agrees with Pro, then afterwards agrees with Tied, then Con gets 1 point. Same for the opposite of this one.


If you are able to actually change someone's opinion on a topic as a result of good argumentation, you definitely deserve points.

It also creates initiative to debate well and increases the quality of debate.

Con will have to argue that it is not net beneficial to have this extra point system.

Argumentation begins Round 1.
MrCarroll

Con

As Con, I will argue that it is not net beneficial to have this extra point system.

In comparing the current system and Pro's proposed system, the current system is more beneficial.

C1. The current voting system is currently the ideal system

The current voting system contains a maximum of 7 points to be given. This system is simple, effective, and mostly fair. This system is set up to discourage abuse of voting while still establishing a manner in how the debate was won. What I mean is that important issues regarding sources, conduct, and grammar are also emphasized while the system still maintains a sense of order.

I. The "best argument" issue is presented with 3 points giving it the most power by itself. However, it is recognized that a debater may still lose the debate despite having the best argument. If a debater acts unfairly, rudely, has awful grammar, plagiarizes, forfeits rounds, and/or fails to cite sources, the debater may not deserve a win despite his or her arguments. Because Pro's extra point system is dependent on who has the better argument and would give the most power to the better argument, this would significantly weaken the ability of the other votes.

II. The current voting system, while not absent of misuse, prevents excessive abuse. The "best argument" vote is misused rarest, and thus it has the most points. The "sources" vote can often be misused since it is worth 2 points, but I argue it is necessary. A failure to cite sources can often be plagiarism, something that cannot be encouraged. The "conduct" vote is rarely misused but since conduct is not quite as important as the other issues, it is only worth a single point. The "spelling/grammar" vote is abused the most. However, it is only a single point and is quite necessary. In general, the votes in the current system are either necessary or seldom misused by voters. It is not necessary to add any other points to this system.

C2. The proposed extra point system is not an ideal system

With additional points come additional problems. Pro's system is begging to be abused by dishonest voters, which unfortunately are prevalent.
Currently, there are only 3 points that are often misused on this site. The "spelling/grammar" and "sources" votes are responsible, yet still they are necessary. The new system would add a potential 2 points to the voting system which could easily be abused. That would mean 5 out of 9 points would potentially be misused. In other words, more than half of the points could be dishonestly given. This would mean "vote bombers" and the like could be even more dishonest then they already are.
In a perfect world, your system may be ideal, however, such misuse is rampant especially on the internet.

C3. The extra point system is unnecessary

If it was necessary, then it would probably have been added already. Since it is unnecessary, and only allows more dishonesty, then the altered opinion vote should not be allowed any points.
Debate Round No. 1
Zealous1

Pro

Thank you for accepting the debate.

My opponent's arguments are in three contentions, although I will be showing how all the fluff must be taken off and he only has two.

Contention 1 and contention 2 are the same. The only difference is the title. I will address them together. Since contention 1 is better outlined, I will address it.

Contention 1.

I. This system is not at all based on who has the best argument. It is based on what convinced the voter. Best argument is for the debater who had a strong argument, whether or not the debater was able to convince the voter. For example, lives saved is a better argument than money saved. It doesn't mean the voter was actually convinced because of lives saved, it just means he acknowledges it's a good argument.

You can see this even further when you look at the votes. Many votes show the Pro, for example, with better arguments. But the checkbox for Con is checked when it comes to who the voter agrees with. (Just a random example).

Therefore, my system is not based on best argument, but rather by whether or not the voter was convinced.

II. My opponent has provided no evidence of the amount of times certain voting issues are misused. He merely claims that "best argument" is least abused. We need to see some kind of verification of that from him.

Also, it is illogical that a certain checkbox would be "abused" more than the other. If someone wanted to vote bomb, would they not abuse them all? My opponent most likely means misjudged, not abused. A person who is trying to abuse the system would abuse them all, not just one.

Lastly, why would this point by abused MORE than any of the current ones? It's actually logical that it would be abused less, since it's very balanced. If the voter is half persuaded, then it only awards 1 point. If he changed opinion completely, it's 2 points. If there is no change of opinion (most of the time this will be the case), then it stays the same.
I'd like to repeat that. Most of the time no extra points will be rewarded for this since most people won't change their completel mindset because of a few arguments. It's also harder to say that you changed your mind about an issue than to say one person had better conduct, for example.
We need to see some kind of logical reasoning that this will be "abused" more than other voting issues.
Contention 2. "Dishonest voters, which unfortunately are prevalent"
Evidence? How does MrCarroll know that? You have to verify your account with a mobile phone to vote. It's hard to abuse the system.
"Currently, there are only three points that are often abused"
1. What makes one point more likely to be "abused" than another point? Again, I believe my opponent is referring to "misjudged", not abused.
2. Once again, how do you know that it's abused?
"That would mean 5 out of 9 points would potentially be misused. In other words, more than half of the points could be dishonestly given. This would mean "vote bombers" and the like could be even more dishonest then they already are."

This argument is on the verge of silliness. It is clearly an exaggeration. As I stated above, most of the time this won't even reward a point since most people don't change their minds on issues. Best argument is as prone to abuse as any other argument. There is no change of balance here. Plus, again, no substantiation on how my opponent knows exactly what is abused.

Contention 3. This argument is a fallacy. It's basically saying that since x hasn't be done, it shouldn't be done. That's like saying that because Congress hasn't past a beneficial treaty, it must not be beneficial and we shouldn't pass it.

We're not arguing whether debate.org has added this system. We're arguing whether they should. This argument is invalid.

The second part of the argument states that this system is not necessary and increases dishonesty.

1. I've already shown how it doesn't increase dishonesty, it increases competition and the quality of competition.

2. We're not arguing whether it's necessary, once again. We're arguing whether it's beneficial, or whether we should do it.


My own points...

Advanced feedback.

Because this would be adding another way to be better or worse than your opponent, it gives advanced feedback. Wouldn't you love to receive a vote that shows every single point you won or lost on, gives you points for very specific details, and such? It increases the educational experience.




Recap

My opponent has provided a logical fallacy for contention 3, plus two points that are practically the same and are not at all substantiated. Although it is compelling to believe that it would create more abuse and it sounds bad, I would argue that abuse is abuse and it will be there at all times. Debate.org is to have fun and learn, not to win. If the system gets abused, oh well. This point is non-unique. The system can be abused right now, and with this feature it can still be abused.

On the other hand, you'll be getting better feedback every round. Competition will also be at a higher level. It's clearly better to provide points for altered opinion. It also adds potential for more "controversial" votes. What do I mean by this? I mean that both sides could get several points and it will be closer. It's just overall more educational, breeds better competition, and is more exciting.

Lastly, I would like to point out that my opponent completely dropped two points.

"If you are able to actually change someone's opinion on a topic as a result of good argumentation, you definitely deserve points.

It also creates initiative to debate well and increases the quality of debate."

My opponent did not even mention them. When you drop a point, it means you concede it and it also means you can't argue it in later speeches. With 72 hours to respond, you definitely have enough time to respond to each and every point.

Therefore my opponent conceded these points and they are considered truth. On these points alone I believe a vote for Pro is justified because it proves that points should be awarded for altered opinion.

If my opponent brings up these points, I would ask that you mark him down on conduct since that is violating the rules of debate.

Thank you, please vote for increased competition, increased excitement, and increased education. Please vote Pro.
MrCarroll

Con

For simplicity sake I will accept Contention 1 and 2 being combined.
C1(C2).

I. This system IS in fact based on who has the best argument. Just having common sense, we may conclude that if a person believed Con, for example, had the best argument, then he would not give opinion points to Pro. They may not be completely intertwined with each other. One of the debaters just might get a few extra points as a consequence of having the better argument.

In your example, why on earth would anyone change their position from Pro or even neutral to Con when Pro made better arguments. This makes no sense. One may agree with Con at the end of the debate even if he put up poor arguments, but to switch positions makes no sense.

II. While I cannot back this claim with statistics, I can give a logical reason. If someone reads a debate and is convinced by Pro, then the person might give Pro the better argument. Often however, a character will take the rest of the points and also give them to Pro even if neither Pro nor Con had any sources or grammatical errors, especially if that character is biased. You can see this by looking at debates with many votes and neither side having sources or grammatical errors. These characters do this, I presume, to give the Pro the maximum amount of points so Pro might win. Typically, the "best argument" vote is not as misused. It is the other votes that people just throw in there without consideration.

I don't believe your points would be misused MORE then some of the others, but there is no reason that it won't be abused like the other votes are sometimes misused. "Most of the time no extra points will be rewarded for this since most people won't change their completel mindset because of a few arguments." I bet they will. If they lie about half of the votes, why not claim that you had your mind changed even if you didn't? For example, watch people voting on this debate give you the spelling and grammar vote, even though you have multiple spelling errors.

"It's hard to abuse the system." It is actually very easy. Someone can just give one of the debaters the grammar and spelling, conduct, or sources vote for the heck of it. No one makes a big deal about it, but lets say people start giving out these potential 2 extra points every time. That could cause problems. I'm not saying the votes are drastically abused, I mean that points are quietly and dishonestly given many times, or maybe as you say, "misjudged." The current system is structured for honesty, and good judgment, but your system may introduce a bad type of controversy.

C3. Basically, I was saying there's not much of a reason that I can see of us adding this point system. The site has not given any points to the "agreed with" or opinion votes, I assume because they figured it was unnecessary. Let us then move on to Pro's arguments for the system, or why they would be more beneficial because this is what C3 deals with.

Advanced feedback
This is irrelevant since we already have feedback in this area. There are just no points given. Adding points to these already established votes will not increase the educational experience. No one will receive any better feedback then anyone already receives.

"Debate.org is to have fun and learn, not to win." Maybe I'm unusually competitive, but I want to win every debate. Pro even stresses competition, which brings up a point:
"Competition will also be at a higher level. " I don't believe you ever gave a reason that competition would be increased. Either way, you're contradicting yourself.

"If you are able to actually change someone's opinion on a topic as a result of good argumentation, you definitely deserve points.

It also creates initiative to debate well and increases the quality of debate."

"If my opponent brings up these points... [he] is violating the rules of debate."
The reason I ignored Pro's two "points" was because I felt they were not adequately explained, and I figured we would get to these later on. I will admit that I forgot to say anything about the first point at least. Still, Pro was not clear on these rules of debate. I have no education on debating, and you may be right on these rules. I would like to know where these rules could be found.

I would like to then request that Pro would explain the logic in Pro's first point. If the "rules of debate" require me to concede this point then I will do that instead.
I would also state that the whole debate is centered on the second point regarding the quality of debate. I have been arguing this the entire time.

Lastly, you never explained how competition would be increased and this is one of your main points. In fact the only point you discussed was increased feedback. You still have yet to explain increased excitement and competition.

I conclude that the current system needs not be changed, the new system would have negative consequences, and the new system would have no significant benefits.
Debate Round No. 2
Zealous1

Pro

Thank you for responding.

I.

"In your example, why on earth would anyone change their position from Pro or even neutral to Con when Pro made better arguments. This makes no sense."

Opinion is not necessarily based on everything the person wrote.

"One may agree with Con at the end of the debate even if he put up poor arguments, but to switch positions makes no sense."

My opponent just conceded that the voter is not likely to change positions even if one team had better arguments.

Let's tie in what he conceded to my response to the first quote. The logic behind keeping your position even if one team had a better argument is that you yourself have a bias and some arguments that you have in your mind. In a sense, your brain is constantly debating what the team whose opinion is opposite of yours is stating. That's why you might switch positions: you bring up your own mental arguments that were sparked by Con and subconsciously or consciously debate with Pro's arguments. You realize your last stance was not necessarily wise. So you change positions.

Yes, it's hard to get there with logic, but since my opponent conceded that you might stay on the same side even if the opposing side makes better arguments, it follows.

II. My opponent tried to prove this point logically, but it did not fly. Let's look at one of my previous debates.
http://www.debate.org...

In the votes, you see that ALL of the voters stated that I had better arguments, but they tied everything else. Take another one.

http://www.debate.org...

The single voter gave me best argument, but tied everything else.

Last one.

http://www.debate.org...

Voted for my opponent, tied everything else.

Second voter voted for me and added the conduct point to me as well. (My opponent used ridiculous semantics in that round.)
That is all my wins, and they all either only gave me best argument or in one case best argument and best conduct.
Ah, I just googled something related to debate and found this randomly:
Look at the votes. Every single one is only judged on best argument, NONE on conduct, grammar, etc. There are over 7 votes on there. Just another example.



Lastly, with my own logic... Just because one team made better arguments doesn't mean the voter is going to root for that team. I rarely see "vote bombs" that are like this.


Contention 3.

My opponent made no attempt to refute this. He just worded it differently. My argument still stands. He ignored my argument and I quote it:

This argument is a fallacy. It's basically saying that since x hasn't be done, it shouldn't be done. That's like saying that because Congress hasn't past a beneficial treaty, it must not be beneficial and we shouldn't pass it.

We're not arguing whether debate.org has added this system. We're arguing whether they should. This argument is invalid.

Contention 3 can be thrown in the trash where all fallacies go. I would also say that he may not respond to this since it was basically dropped (restating does not equal refuting), but since my opponent clearly has no background in competitive debate, imposing the stricter rules would be unfair to Con. So therefore I'll give him the chance to respond to it.

"Advanced feedback
This is irrelevant since we already have feedback in this area. There are just no points given. Adding points to these already established votes will not increase the educational experience. No one will receive any better feedback then anyone already receives."


I will admit, yes, that it won't be significant. But when there are points awarded for this, the voters will pay more attention to it. They will actually consider deeply whether they're convinced or not. They will probably also add that into their comment. Yes, it's insignificant. But yes, it is an advantage.

"Debate.org is to have fun and learn, not to win." Maybe I'm unusually competitive, but I want to win every debate. Pro even stresses competition, which brings up a point:
"Competition will also be at a higher level. " I don't believe you ever gave a reason that competition would be increased. Either way, you're contradicting yourself.

I understand how my opponent might believe I contradicted myself. I should not have used the word "competition". What I meant by "Competition will also be at a higher level" is that the quality of debate will be higher. Whenever the quality of debate is higher, education gleaned from the debate is also higher.

"The reason I ignored Pro's two "points" was because I felt they were not adequately explained, and I figured we would get to these later on. I will admit that I forgot to say anything about the first point at least."

Advice for next time: do not ignore. Briefly mention them and say "I did not understand these". Chances are, if you did not understand it, the voter didn't understand it either.

"Still, Pro was not clear on these rules of debate. I have no education on debating, and you may be right on these rules. I would like to know where these rules could be found."


I apologize for not being clear about these rules, I just assumed you knew some of the general debate "things". Ask any competitive debater: especially college, and you will get the same answer. I do policy debate and dropped points are a big deal. In parliamentary (usually college), it's an even bigger deal.
For next time I will mention that it is policy rules.
"I would also state that the whole debate is centered on the second point regarding the quality of debate. I have been arguing this the entire time."

My opponent not once has even mentioned quality of debate. Also, abusive voting has nothing to do with the quality of debate. No, my opponent has not been addressing this point.

"Lastly, you never explained how competition would be increased and this is one of your main points. In fact the only point you discussed was increased feedback. You still have yet to explain increased excitement and competition."


Basically competition would be increased because debaters would now also be trying to think up more possible arguments that the voters will like and hopefully bend opinions for. Higher quality and greater quantity of points is likely to appear.

Increased excitement:

I already explained this, but I'll do it again. Because the points would be closer (you might get 3 points for best argument and then the opposing team get 2 for change of opinion), it would increase the voting period excitement.

Also, of course, since the quality and education of debate is increased, excitement is naturally increased as well.


"I conclude that the current system needs not be changed,

That was contention 3. which I showed was a fallacy.

the new system would have negative consequences,

I took out my opponent's "abuse" point with evidence from four debates: my three wins and one randomly selected. I can show more if needed.
and the new system would have no significant benefits."

Yes it would, because of

1. Increased excitement.

2. Quality of debate (dropped by my opponent)

3. Education

4. You get points you deserve. (completely dropped by my opponent)

5. Advanced feedback

I believe that on point 4 alone we should reject my opponent's stance and choose mine. But there are four more.

Thank you, and please vote Pro.
MrCarroll

Con

MrCarroll forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Zealous1

Pro

My opponent forfeited. That means he conceded every single point I had. Please vote Pro.
MrCarroll

Con

MrCarroll forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Grape 6 years ago
Grape
I can speculate as to some reasons that Thaddeus might be thinking of but we can discuss them after the debate.
Posted by Zealous1 6 years ago
Zealous1
Thank you for not posting it.
Posted by Thaddeus 6 years ago
Thaddeus
Completely disagree for a very obvious reason. However, I won't post it so as not to interfere with the debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by RougeFox 6 years ago
RougeFox
Zealous1MrCarrollTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit=Concession