Debate.org should not have only conduct-votes
Full Resolution: Debate.org's debates should not have only conduct-votes if the debate is over 3 rounds of argumentation, or over four rounds of the debate.
1. No forfeiting
2. You are allowed to use google docs.
3. Min. of voting ELO is 3500, because we need good voters.
4. I am taking this debate with TUF.
5. If someone else accepts, they lose.
6. You have to follow these rules. Not following these rules makes an automatic loss for the opposing side.
Debate.org: This site
debates: a formal discussion on a particular matter in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward and which usually ends with a vote.
votes: a formal indication of a choice between two or more candidates or courses of action, expressed typically through a ballot or a show of hands, choosing one side, or a tie.
No strucutre included in this debate. Pro starts at round one, and waives the last round.
This debate topic is inspired by recent events transpiring in the Debate.org forum. This issue was inspired by this thread: http://www.debate.org...
And is currently facing under review for policy moderation change based on a democratical vote here: http://www.debate.org...
Several other relevant threads to this topic can be here:
For some brief framework, this debate is specifically centralized around Debate.org's community. With that said, I am going to be focusing sources on debates and forums relative to the community, entirely internal to the website. The BOP should be shared. I asked that no semantics are used in this debate, or any other form of manipulation varied loophole. It should be understood what this topic is about based on the threads above, and what each of the debaters positions are. In other words, don't abuse the resolution phrasing in order to steal an easy debate win. This is a serious topic that directly effects the debating community, and both debaters should be upheld to respect the nature of this topic. Without further ado...
The 7 point system at a glance
During my time as president of DDO, Airmax1227 and I worked hard on pushing several different updates through to Juggle's community adviser at the time (Chrumbelievable). In that we were successful in a couple updates, the major one being the select winner system. The select winner system was during that time a very heavily requested feature from the community. It simplified the voting process in an incredible way. Too much controversy arises from the 7 point system, as the 7 point system, as it carries a voting weight not just behind the arguments, but behind sources, conduct, and spelling/grammar. A large part of the community at that time opposed the 7 point system on a basis of it being abused. A voter could at that time skim a debate for spelling and grammar errors, and give a point to the other debater based on one standard alone. A person could scour the sources near the end of the debate, and vote 2 points for the debater who had the most sources listed, or who had less sources from wikipedia(1). The overall point is, that arguments essentially didn't matter with this system as a voter wasn't required to explain point in detail. The select winner system mitigated part of that problem for the debaters. However, it didn't completely mitigate the problem. People could still award a point to the winner for a minor conduct violation, or a source violation. To combat this, Airmax1227 (the site moderator) induced a policy to remove votes that didn't take into account arguments as well. a policy was implemented to help streamline quality votes. (2)(3)
The key points to consider here are "standards" in (3).
It is unreasonable (re: the second criterion of sufficiency) to give a debater such a sizable fraction of the ballot when both debaters' S/G were close.
This same logic is applied to the conduct and sources points as well. Over the past months, more and more people start to see the dwindling efficiency of the the 7 point system because of this line of reasoning (effective as it is), because on a debate site, the actual debate seems to be more important aspects worthy of awarding winners. But let's say you had the better arguments as agreed by two to three people who fully read your debates, but are from another country, and can't spell very well. You can still lose the debate because you have more people voting on a singular standard.
The current moderation system still holds to this standard. Airmax1227 recently stated: In the example you [Me, TUF] gave, it would be considered an insufficient vote, because vote moderation considers votes of that sort ("juicing votes" with extra points for negligible aspects) to not meet the standards. So an S&G vote for a single misspelling error would likely be removed.(4)
Cross applying Logic
Whether or not you agree with the voting policies or not, they are largely what makes up the voting communities standards. People abide by these standards, and I think the larger part of the debating community agrees these standards are necessary. However in Bsh1's current standards you may have noticed this: "The person who actually showed up and didn't forfeit clearly deserves conduct points, but they do not deserve argument points because they made no arguments."(3)
This logic is completely understandable, because it demonstrates the lack of arguing, the purpose of even debating in the first place. It is missing a very large picture though by being so simplistic in nature. It is preceded by this:
Also, a person who forfeits more rounds than the other person should lose conduct.(3)
Here is the problem with this logic, is that it seems to fall in direct contention with the previous logic. I could very easily cast a vote on the person who had less spelling and grammar errors, but it would be against the rules in this voting guide.
Singular Standard Voting
So voting guide by bsh1, and the understood meaning of juicing votes from airmax, seems to be similar in that 'one standard alone shouldn't determine the winner or loser of a debate'. Why is it so different from forfeited debates? The main aspect seems to be status qou. Voting conduct on forfeited debates has something that has been done for a long time in DDO's history. In fact we used to have a forum dedicated to voting on forfeited debates. It was since changed to "forfeited and unvoted" debates, and is now phrased "Voting Thread".
But what are the drawbacks of voting on one standard alone without reading the debate? First of all, you aren't giving credence to any of the debaters arguments, if you are voting on only the the appearance of a red forfeit line. That is the entire purpose of bsh1's voting guide, and the basis for having moderators for votes. When you see forfeit only votes, not a single line of the debate is shown to be read and that is a problem. You are voting for someone and have absolutely no idea what they have said, or what you are voting against. The debater forfeiting a round may have had a serious attempt through the entire debate, posting good logic and sources, where his opponent trolls the entire debate but can still win because of voters not bothering to read the debate. Good debates often get butchered by this behavior. Here are a few examples of debates where someone lost due to just conduct points:
In all three of these debates, arguments were made that were just completely ignored by voters. In fact, serious votes were cast on these debates, but in each case, the single line forfeit votes outweighed the "good votes" that actually read the debate and provided solid feedback on the arguments. This is does not meet the purposes that are clearly perceived from the Voting Guide that the quality of arguments is what is most important in a debate.
How does a forfeit effect a debate?
What makes a forfeit such a negative voting point? This will obviously vary depending on who the voter is, but what impacts a debate to me, are arguments missed that clearly would have effected the debate. If the opponent brings up a great point and that point just can't be responded to because of the forfeit, suddenly the gravity of the forfeit impacts the debate in a different way.
Some debates, however, it doesn't impact the argument bad. On the debate "God Exists" For example, both (5) The Voice of Truth forfeited a round. However he had three very strong debate round arguments supporting his case prior to that, and was back again for the final round. The opponent in this debate didn't even mention the forfeit as impacting the argument because it didn't really. Does this mean non-forfeiting could help? Sure. The more arguments you can dish out to make sure you are tackling the whole topic, the better. But the debate clearly isn't warranted for a vote only judging the debate on one standard, because there were many intelligently written arguments in the debate.
Now there are multiple situations where this can vary, which is why this debate is phrased with "Over three rounds of argumentation". It shows that if there is substance to the debate, it is deserving of being read. This directly falls in line with the purposes of voting guidelines. Obviously a debate where one side forfeits every round or doesn't respond to his opponent, isn't going to give the voter much to reflect on in an RFD. But the examples in this debate show that this clearly isn't always the case, and that good debates often get abused with this type of voting.
We can argue all day about the impact of a forfeit, but at the end of the day the consequences are realistically negative with forfeit votes. What I mean by this, is that if we say a forfeit vote is justified on on accuracy alone, which it is because someone DID forfeit and in the 7 point system that meets a standard of a specific point, we are taking away the value of the entire debate. Just like in the three examples in my "Singular Standard Voting" Argument, the consequences of allowing these votes impact the overall debate in a way that it devalues the proper votes that spent time reading the debate. Good votes should never be placed second to bad votes, and with that I conclude that Debate.org should no have conduct only votes.
1. Old 7 point system voting standards (prior to moderation policy) http://www.debate.org...
3. Bsh1's voting guide (the president) http://tiny.cc...
I thank my opponent for accepting this debate, and I will post my arguments, and my rebuttals this round.
I will give examples of debates that can have FF’s and Pro agrees
I will give examples of debates where Pro disagrees, and thinks we should have arguments needed.
I thank my opponent for his arguments, and accepting the debate. The resolution is Debate.org's debates should not have only conduct-votes if the debate is over 3 rounds of argumentation, or over four rounds of the debate. We added, only one forfeit also. So the resolution is basically, Debate.org's debates should not have only conduct-votes if the debate is over 3 rounds of argumentation, or over four rounds of the debate, with only one forfeit. I will be making my arguments about liberty, we have the right of choice, some people are lazy, etc.
Now, why are there debates and votes? They are for the debaters of course, but then with no voters, there will be no debates with conclusions. So, this means that debates are for debaters and voters to make it balanced.
Now the BoP. The BoP is shared. This is because Pro has to show why there needs to be argument votes with conduct votes (FF), when Con shows that voters do not need to award argument points for the FF votes.
Argument 1: Liberty of Choice
My first argument is the liberty of choice.
All people have the liberty of choice if the, or the voters if the vote is sufficient. FF votes are sufficient, there is nothing negative and wrong about this.
We can follow this in two ways. The first way is the Constitution.
“The First Amendment (1791) prohibits Congress from obstructing the exercise of certain individual freedoms: freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press,freedom of assembly, and right to petition. “
The second way is the harm principle
"Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law."
The Constitution says that we have the freedom to do almost anything, unless it harms others, even the harm principle says this. Because sufficiently voting does not harm anyone, for this premise, you can vote for Con. Basically the harm principle is saying that we have the right of choice unless it harms others severely.
Now I will give my other example. We have the right to do what we want. We have moral reasons. If we cannot have the right of choice, that is slavery. Slaves do not have their right of choice, and slavery is banned. This means that we need to have the right of choice. If Pro does not agree with this, this means that he thinks that we do not have the right of choice, and approves slavery which is illegal. Just for this you can vote for Con.
Summary of this argument: We have the right of choice. We have the right to do what we want. Vote for Con just for this.
Argument 2: Less people will vote.
Yes, less people will vote.
In the framework, I said that debates are for debaters are voters. If one goes away, all falls. If we ban this conduct policy of FF votes, like many normally did, less people will vote because they are too lazy. Think about almost the most vote counts in the site. More than half of their votes are FF. This shows that if we cannot vote on FF, voters like U.n, and Dsjpk cannot vote, because they almost always vote for FF. Then this means that their contributions to the site will be removed, and that means they will no longer vote.
Not just these people. Much more people, like lannan, me, a lot of voters vote for FF. If we cannot vote for FF votes, then that means that there will be less votes.
As I said earlier, debates are for voters and debaters. If one fails, they all fail. If we stop only conduct votes, then that means that there will be less votes, and voting will start failing, which makes debates starting to fail. What are we talking about in this fail? We are talking about that so many debates will ties will happen because voters are just lazy to write a RFD for a debate that just needed two characters, which is ff.
Rebuttal 1: The 7 point system in a glance
My opponent states about the select-winner system. But, this falls in saying why we should not have FF votes, which means that this argument is off-topic making there no reason to address it. This argument is dropped and off-topic.
My opponent talks about S&G voting also. I don’t get this. The debate is about conduct or FF votes, not about S&G spelling grammar votes. So this argument is off-topic.
Rebuttal 2: Cross applying logic
This argument is off-topic also, or more likely my side. My opponent shows this.
Also, a person who forfeits more rounds than the other person should lose conduct.(3)
This is basically my side. Pro’s supposed to argue to opposite of this. But my opponent gives evidence of this claim which is my side, the argument is against him.
Rebuttal 3: Singular Standard Voting
My opponent is finally on topic this argument. My opponent says that us voters don’t care about how much work the debaters put in their effort, and putting in bad votes.
This is a bare assertion that the debaters put in their effort, and get nothing. 2 out of the 3 debates Pro gave, there was argument points. This shows that the voters do care about argument votes, but then they are just lazy.
FF votes aren’t bad for should be removed. They are sufficient. All you need is sufficient votes. Whiteflame never said or removed any FF votes unless there was no FF, or if was to the other side.
Rebuttal 4: How does a forfeit affect a debate?
My opponent says a forfeit is a bad vote depending on the person. Why is this? All voters vote. It might be of bias, but it does nothing to voting. FF votes are just, ff, forfeiture, etc.
My opponent gives an example of the God Exists debate. But, there are no FF votes in that, and it says not to. No reason to make an argument out of that.
I thank my opponent for the debate, next is Pro.
I believe that we should certainly not ban only conduct FF votes. Vote for Con.
Liberty of Choice
Con starts off by stating Liberty, the right of choice to be lazy are important values to this debate. If that is the case why moderate votes at all, or require people to explain anything about their vote? Under this logic I can cast a vote for all 7 poins in favor of whoever I want, because my right to laziness is important. Con's value of liberty doesn't produce anything beneficial in this case.
Con says there is nothing negative or wrong about forfeit votes, which comepletely ignores my examples in round 1 where I literally showed "good" debates that were effected because of forfeit only votes.
Con then brings up the constitution's first ammendment. This point is entirely moot. Constitutional standards shouldn't apply to a privately owned debating website. That aside, he doesn't explain in any specific way how what he posted from the constitution is relevant to the debate. Is the right to freedom of speech in votes like "Pro FF'ed" really deserving of being outweighed by infringing on users who had good debates by not reading them?
Con mentions the harm principal.... What? He says that a forfeit only vote doesn't harm others. But my entire case is built on the harms of forfeit voting, Con is actually making an argument for me. Con then crafts a slippery slope argument not rooted anywhere in realism, saying that by removing people's right to abusively vote a debate without reading, we are transcending into slavery. Con literally put this in his own argument. So there you go, apparently expecting people to have standards to vote well isn't enough when removing votes. We will go as far as to enslave people for unfair voting. Yep, that's exactly what I am advocating....
We have the right of choice. We have the right to do what we want. Vote for Con just for this.
It's a good thing the U.S. Government doesn't operate on this logic. If the right for people to do what they wanted meant crime like rape, robbery, and murder were allowed, Con's ideas of freedom would very easily back-fire.
Less people will vote
Con mentions how people like dsjpk will vote less if this plan is pushed through. That is exactly what we should want. Dsjpk is probably one of the worst voters on the website, and abusively uses his privilege to vote in the wrong way all the time. If stopping votebombers like dsjpk is what this means, we should be glad that this plan will be implemented. There are voters out there who would rather spend time reading quality debates and voting fairly, these are the ones who should be voting. Less votes is a good thing, if it means less bad votes. This policy change doesn't effect voters who spend an hour reading a full debate and judging it fairly.
On to my arguments.
The seven point system
Con drops this argument, because he simply doesn't understand it. It's baffling to me how de doesn't understand it, but that's where we are at. It's not off topic at all, this is building my case for the flaws in the 7 point system (the only system that can really be abused by FF only voters). In this point I took examples of how S/G and source only points aren't allowed under current voting guidelines, yet conduct votes are. Con drops all of this because he doesn't grasp the concept of the argument somehow. A dropped point nonetheless.
Cross applying logic
All Con says here is that I am arguing for his side without explaining this in the slightest. Again this demonstrates that he doesn't understand the argument. He then wierdly links to something (3) but he has no source listed under number 3. I have utterly no clue what he is doing.
This argument was about how if we are going to hold to a standard on one thing under a solid form of logic, that logic should be cross applied to the other thing as well. Specifically, voting on debates on one standard alone.
This argument was dropped by Con, please extend.
Single standard voting
2 out of the 3 debates Pro gave, there was argument points. This shows that the voters do care about argument votes, but then they are just lazy.
No this shows that there ar some genuine voters out there, and more lazy ones that have no place to be voting. Pro is literally saying that he advocates for lazy votes, that they are more important than serious votes.
Whiteflame never said or removed any FF votes unless there was no FF, or if was to the other side.
You are making an argument from the status qou, and this is thus irrelevant. Whiteflame himself never said he agreed with this policy, and airmax doesn't either. That's why the policy is under review to change this. Arguing what is, doesn't mean you are arguing what should be.
Forfeits effecting a debate
All voters vote. It might be of bias, but it does nothing to voting.
On what reasoning is this assertion justified? Con also literally just said that bias votes do nothing to voting. I continue to be baffled by the lack of intelligent argumentation from Con.
My opponent gives an example of the God Exists debate. But, there are no FF votes in that, and it says not to.
You again completely mis-understood the entire premise behind that point. The point is that a single forfeit doesn't negatively effect the quality of the debate in all circumstances. Con drops this point, let's extend it.
Con dropped every major point, mis-understanding every aspect of my argument. We can't even call this a debate if Con refuses to actually debate. His arguments were very poorly written and don't tackle the issue at hand. Multiple times in this debate Con has advocated for lazy votes, bias votes, and votes from voters who clearly demonstrate bad voting behaviors. At this point, the debate has gotten us nowhere, and if someone actually intelligent would like to re-match me on this topic, I invite you to do so. Because this debate is an absolute disaster.
I thank my opponent for making his arguments
I will be posting my defense and my rebuttals to my opponents defense. You can easily vote conduct for me, not a FF vote, because Pro is raging, and making others feel bad, also negative remarks, which can easily make conduct votes come to me.
Because Pro is not talking about my framework and premises, I will think that he is agreeing them.
Defense 1: Liberty of Choice
My opponent says that he can vote for anyone because laziness is important, with my logic. However, I clearly said that laziness does not matter, if the vote is sufficient. A ff vote is suffcient. Nothing wrong about it. No reason to remove it. Some people might not like, it but if it is sufficient, it is totally fine.
My opponent says that good debates were effected by ff only votes. Pro fails to rebut that ff votes are sufficient, so there is nothing wrong for them. Pro misses my main point of a ff vote is sufficent, and that is all we need.
My opponent says that the Consitiution is irrelevant to the debate. I was merely showing an example that people have the liberty of doing what they want, like right now. Unless it harms others which is basically from the voters view of it not sufficient. Pro fails to actually rebut my Consitiution case, just saying that is irrevelant, when I just merely showed an example.
Pro says that is it deserving for ff, if the debate is good, and the voters didn't even read them? Merely, the FF debates are all bad. If they have bad argumentation, do we have to vote arguments? No. If you want to vote arguments, do it. It is just that not everyone needs to follow this rule. It is deserving, because they didn't have time to post, which is their fault.
My opponent says I am making an argument for him. Totally false, ff votes might harm the voters, or debaters, but they have nothing to do with it. It is sufficient. No problem if voters think it is a problem. If it is a problem, then we should vote arguments, but this is not a big problem anyways.
Then I talk about slaverly. Pro fails to refute this, just saying it is silly that voting goes until slavery. Yes it does here. Pro fails to rebut this, this argument is dropped. Just for this, you can easily vote for Con.
Defense 2: Less people will vote.
Pro says that them not voting is what we want. He says Dsjpk is one of the worst voters. How is he? He votes sufficiently. Pro says less votes is a good thing, which means more good votes. My point was that, no much bother to vote for argument points, when they can just easily write, FF. This will probably make people not vote, making no one win in forfeit debates. My opponent fails to rebut my framework also.
The opening line strike over thank is cute.
Pro is accusing me of raging, but doesn't provide any examples of this. Dis-regard. Also framework isn't something neccesary of refuting. With that said, pro also didn't "Refute" mine, though there is nothing to refute. Framework is to set up a premise behind how the debate will be run, in which all firewings framework does is say he is making arguments about freedom and liberty. This conversation is pointless.
Liberty of Choice
However, I clearly said that laziness does not matter, if the vote is sufficient. A ff vote is suffcient. Nothing wrong about it. No reason to remove it. Some people might not like, it but if it is sufficient, it is totally fine.
My opponent is not explaining how a forfeit vote is sufficient. He is just saying that it is, and expecting you to just take his word for it. This is not an argument. We are arguing a "should" that means Con is required to provide reasoning for why a FF vote is sufficient, which he is not doing.
My opponent says that good debates were effected by ff only votes.
They are and Con has yet to refute the sources I posted demonstrating how good debates were ruined by FF only votes.
Pro fails to rebut that ff votes are sufficient, so there is nothing wrong for them.
Con is literally lying to you. I set up an elaborate round 1 argument explaining exactly how good debates end up getting butchered by multiple bad votes as opposed to 1 or 2 good ones.
Pro fails to actually rebut my Consitiution case, just saying that is irrevelant, when I just merely showed an example.
To be clear, Con never actually provides a "case" for the constistution. He only posted a qoute that means nothing if he fails to explain how it is relevant to the debate.
Unless it harms others which is basically from the voters view of it not sufficient.
This is pretty un-intelligible (like a lot of Con's 'arguments'), but he is just repeating that FF votes are sufficient because they are without acknowledging any of the arguments I laid out in R1.
Merely, the FF debates are all bad. If they have bad argumentation, do we have to vote arguments? No.
But the thing is you don't actually know if they have bad arguments if you fail to read a debate prior to voting. THATS THE WHOLE THING. You are assuming because of a forfeit, the rest of the arguments made are null and void. Unless you are mentioning purely forfeited debates, in which case this is not even relevant to the debate. The resolution is phrased so that a FF votes should not be cast on debates with over 3 rounds of argumentation.
ff votes might harm the voters, or debaters, but they have nothing to do with it. It is sufficient.
Con is now using an ad nauseum fallacy, where he is just repeating the same thing over and over again without explaining what he means. He also literally just said FF votes might harm the debaters. He essentially is destroying his own case.
Then I talk about slaverly. Pro fails to refute this, just saying it is silly that voting goes until slavery.
I have no clue what you are talking about. You said that restricting bad votes equates to advocating slavery. You are absolutely lying to the audience and manipulating them at this point.
Less people will vote
My point was that, no much bother to vote for argument points, when they can just easily write, FF. This will probably make people not vote, making no one win in forfeit debates.
Exactly, Con is not proving how FF votes are beneficial to the site, he is only saying that they are sufficient. We need to consider how these votes are sufficient, not just accept them as being sufficient and move on from the discussion. Con is refusing to debate me in a 5 round debate. This makes no sense. I half feel like I am being trolled, and I half worry for Jason's sanity.
My opponent fails to rebut my framework also.
Con already said this and fails to show how his framework was making an impactful argument. Con clearly doesn't know what framework is, or how to even debate for that matter. I suggest Con does research on how to debate before debating people out of ignorance. Especially if he is ignorant of concepts as simple as framework.
Yes ladies and gentlemen, we are more than halfway through the debate and STILL con has refused to argue a single point of mine. This debate is a sh1t show, and I was trolled by thinking the user firewings would give me a serious debate. Firewings is wasting my time and yours until he decides to actually debate me. I appologize to any readers that have to do endure this, I surely wouldn't have ever accepted this debate had I bothered to look at any of firewings previous debates to see just how bad he actually is.
Wow, today was the most busiest day of my life. 60 pages of homework (seriously?) 5 test in a day, I just can't do this round. I might make arguments for the nest round, but it is just crazy. Congrats for 145 pages of homework, 24 tests, math competition, and spelling bee. Congrats.
Bascially, I pass this round.
It seems my opponent has forfeited a round, meaning that this debate is essentially over. My opponent if he decides to make real arguments at all, will now only be able to post them in the final round. At most you can only really get one round of debate here, and thats if Sir FireWings even decides to actually argue at all.
With that said, just because he forfeited a round and didn't argue, doesn't mean his side doesn't deserve to be read so you as a voter can come to that conclusion yourself. Don't just throw a conduct point at him, actually read his lack of substance to prove that you did read his "argument" first, that is what this debate is about, and that is my over-arching point.
On to the 5th and final round, of this, our main event of the evening.
I guess I don't really know what to say at this point. This debate was never really a debate at any point. At any rate, if you made it this far, then I commend you and thank you for reading, and once again appologize to you for the disaster this debate turned out to be. If you would like to logically debate this topic with me, PM me. If I determine you are a serious debater I will contact you. I didn't do enough research on my opponent this time around to know this debate would be trolled.