The Instigator
murdokahn
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
JustinAMoffatt
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

Debate.org should change some of the criteria for how a person wins the debate

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 6 votes the winner is...
JustinAMoffatt
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/16/2013 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 739 times Debate No: 35663
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (2)
Votes (6)

 

murdokahn

Pro

Round One is for acceptance only. Keep in mind this is a simple but quick debate - the answers must be givin within 60 minutes (which will suffice) there are two rounds.

Round one is acceptance. Round two is presenting the evidence and wrapping up with a conclusion.
JustinAMoffatt

Con

I accept :) I look forward to a fun... (well... not so much "debate"...) presentation of arguments... (?)

Either way, let's do it.
Debate Round No. 1
murdokahn

Pro

Thank you for accepting.


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?


These are the current criteria to define who has "won" the debate.

I argue that some this criteria should be change for the following reasons:

Criteria that should be changed #1. Who has better spelling and grammar? (1 point)

Reason it should be changed:

Spelling and grammar is important, but it should not decide the outcome of a debate (which is how it can currently).

A great example is this: Let's say a fierce debate is happening to decide that "gun control should be in effect".

The proponent, who agrees in gun control, great evidence, great sources, and every sentence is grammatically correct. The opponent, who disagrees with gun control also offers great evidence, great sources, except he makes one grammatical mistake - forgetting to put a period at the end of one of his sentences. This declares the proponent the winner of the debate if all else is held contant by the current criteria - which gives 1 point for spelling and grammar. This is a dubious reason to ever "win" the debate just because of that. This is purely technical - he should technically win.

I would argue that the criteria should be more like: Were there numerous grammatical/spelling mistakes that detracted from the argument?". That would be much more relevant in deciding a winner.

Criteria that should be changed #2. Who used the most reliable sources? (2 points)

Reason it should be changed:

"reliable" is a hard to define. Reliablity by bias, date of source, relevancy to the argument? It does not specify. One could argue that "Fox News" is a reliable news source or that "NBC news" is a reliable news source. There is not denying the slants of bias through different sources. Often times, the winner becomes a game of who uses the most sources in the debate wins. These are valuable points in deciding who wins a debate?

I would argue that the "reliable sources" criteria should specify more clearly what is relevant in the voting option.


JustinAMoffatt

Con

I have to routes to negating the resolution in my argumentation.

First, rebuttals/ defending the Status Quo.

P1: S/G

Spelling and grammar, as well as realiable sources, are vital to DDO and its debate structure. Also, these elements rarely, if ever, change outcomes of debates. Rather, they serve as tiebreakers.

In the example you presented, of both sides being flawless except for one side's grammatical error, this is a legitimate tiebreaker. Everything else was a tie, and therefore, points must be awarded where deserved so as to break the tie. While I will ignore the fact that this scenario is extremely unlikely, I will point out the fact that there has never been a documented occurence of an S/G vote going a certain way due to a typo.

I also think that S/G is imperative in online debating, since it is a reading and writing sport, rather than a speaking one. If I am unable to communicate through written word, to the point where my opponent (or the voters) can't understand, I should be penalized.

I think that 1 point either way is a fair enough tiebreaker when all else is even. To give it any more weight would be unfair, and to remove it entirely would provide no penalty for any amount of grammatical abuse, and offer no tiebreaker.

P2: Reliable sources

My opponent tried to use the subjectivity of votes to state that "reliability" of sources is an unfair standard. Someone who trusts NBC might not trust Fox. However, I have not seen this bias shown often. And the DDO community has a very effective system for "countering" what they call "votebombs" (a vote where subjective opinion takes precedent over the debate itself).

When you see points given on sources, more often than not they are because A) One side didn't source. (this is important to debate) Or B) One side used blogs or other easily edited sources as evidence.

Any news station will be held responsible for what they report. This is not the case with a blogger. So, technically, any established news source should be considered a "reliable" source. Part of argumentation (when it comes to sources) is discrediting your opponent's sources. If this happens, or one side fails to source, then the "reliable sources" option becomes very key to voting.

In actual debates, (events such as Team Policy, like I'm a part of) sourcing is key. If one side presents impeccable arguments, but does not source, their arguments could be thrown out entirely! That is why the sources option for voting is great as it is. It provides enough points to make a difference. However, it doesn't equate to the "arguments" option, due to some debates not hinging on sources as much.



Secondly, I'd like to provide One argument from Con. Despite the fact that I've already defended the status quo quite thoroughly (in my humble opinion), I will provide one last reason why the resolution is flawed.

The resolution states, "Debate.org should change some of the criteria for how a person wins the debate".

However, this resolution is clearly flawed in a very specific way!

The actor!

C1: Debate.org is NOT an effective actor for the resolution.

Debate.org is the domain of the company known as "Juggle". Juggle effectively runs the site, and determines and applies all changes to the site.

The resolution is not only flawed because it calls for unneeded change!

It is flawed because it is asking a website, (the website itself) and not the company, to change the website.

Debate.org can't change voting issues, Juggle can.



So for the reasons that:

-The status quo is preferable to the proposed change

AND

Debate.org can't change itself (only Juggle can change their website)


I urge you to vote CON!

Thank you to my opponent for a quick, fun, and enlightening debate!
Debate Round No. 2
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by JustinAMoffatt 4 years ago
JustinAMoffatt
Are we allowed to negate this res any way we like?
Posted by TheRuSSian97 4 years ago
TheRuSSian97
i agree its somewhat complicated
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
murdokahnJustinAMoffattTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I am forced to award arguments to CON, since the proposed changes are, as was argued, unneeded. S&G and Sources are subjective, which is why we must provide justification for our votes. Most of us will not penalize a "single error" in grammar.
Vote Placed by MrJosh 4 years ago
MrJosh
murdokahnJustinAMoffattTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: I don't disagree with PRO's position generally, but he worded it poorly, and didn't argue his case as effectively as CON.
Vote Placed by Mikal 4 years ago
Mikal
murdokahnJustinAMoffattTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: The only issue I have with the voting is that you can get trolled or someone can vote out of the fact they may not like you. After 3 debates you can just go around spamming random votes, which I do not like. However I think the way Con expressed his opinions and supported his points had slightly better content but all in all this topic is very subjective
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
murdokahnJustinAMoffattTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pros arguments for the changes are based entirely off of his own opinions and not based off of any actual problem the voting system imposes or based on any popular consensus of why voting is flawed, arguments to the con
Vote Placed by Shadowguynick 4 years ago
Shadowguynick
murdokahnJustinAMoffattTied
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 don't know. That grammar mistake might be the determining factor here :)
Vote Placed by GOP 4 years ago
GOP
murdokahnJustinAMoffattTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: "Debate.org is the domain of the company known as "Juggle". Juggle effectively runs the site, and determines and applies all changes to the site. The resolution is not only flawed because it calls for unneeded change! It is flawed because it is asking a website, (the website itself) and not the company, to change the website. Debate.org can't change voting issues, Juggle can. So for the reasons that: -The status quo is preferable to the proposed change AND Debate.org can't change itself (only Juggle can change their website)" Con said it all