The Instigator
Darth_Grievous_42
Pro (for)
Winning
41 Points
The Contender
revleader5
Con (against)
Losing
12 Points

Debate.org user's need to rethink some things

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: 12/17/2007 Category: Technology
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,178 times Debate No: 600
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (22)
Votes (17)

 

Darth_Grievous_42

Pro

I'll first clarify that I love this site. This argument is one that's been going on in my head ever since I started noticing some distressing trends in the debates throughout the site. The user's need to rethink several aspects of how they use this great site.
Here are my main pet peeves:

1) Voting - While I can't be 100% certain, it seems very clear that some of the voting tends to be bias. Many of the votes seem to lean toward the more socially acceptable side, or whichever one they personally agree with. Need I remind everyone that once the voting period starts, the words above the debate do NOT say "Which person's side do you like better?", no, instead it says "Who won this debate". Analogy: The topic is "kill the jews". A neo Nazi has posted it and is Pro. All three (for standard) rounds are compiled of statistics from credible sources, quotes, opinions, and cold hard facts. Con responds to only the first round saying "Nu-uh" and misses the other two. Who won the debate? According to the numbers at the end of the debate, most likely con. This is not right. Anyone has the right to post their opinion and back it up. The fact that their topic may not have agreed with you should not be taken into consideration, rather the skill and ability of the debater to try and prove a point. If you feel the need to justify your anonymous vote so that the many faceless patrons of the internet don't think of you as a Nazi as well, you can say so in the comments part.

2) Length - To quote Yoda, "Size matters not". In some cases this is true, as well as debating. If you can make your point clear enough so that anyone who has no prior knowledge of the subject can grasp what your talking about within two sentences, well then, good for you. However, most people cannot. Two or three sentences in most cases cannot fully explain the depth to which most debates can go to. They usually lack points for the contender to work off of, and explanations that make the pro's opinion clear. As I said before, every debate should assume that the audience has had absolutely no prior learning's on the subject, and it is your place to educate.

3) Observer attacks - If a debate was live, an audience member yelling a personal attack to either of the opponents would not be tolerated. The same concept should apply here. Your personal disagreement with the speaker does not warrant any kind of insult. This was made perfectly clear when all users signed onto the site.

4) Forfeits - Within an hour, a Neanderthal discovered fire. Within a day, most of the Constitution was signed. Yet somehow, within 2 days, people can't write a 10000 character or less rebuttal. This is ridiculous. If you don't have the time to debate, don't agree to.

5) Clarity - As my future opponent writes your rebuttal, pointing out the plethora of complications to my points in extreme detail, I'd like you to look at the bottom right of the test box, and you'll see a neat little tool that I've found to be very helpful: spell check. I very strongly suggest using it. Not only will it make your examinations clearer to the public, but it will also make you seem more intelligent. And sometimes, more than not, seeing is believing. (I just used it and am amazed I spelled 'plethora' right)

These are my main disagreements concerning the user community of Debate.org. Someone prove me wrong.
revleader5

Con

I'll debate you on this, it'll be fun.
I believe that you are partially correct. Whoever provides the most swaying argument should win. You've got me there, but people will vote for who they agree with. As long as they have read the "neo-nazi" as you said, as long as they read that person's argument, I see no reason why they shouldn't vote for the Con who said, "Nu-uh". The nazi HAD his chance to sway people to believe his side. That is really what debating is isn't it? Taking people who agree, disagree, or have no opinion on your side of the debate. You want to keep the people who agree and sway the people who disagree or have no opinion. As long as they listen to me, I believe I had a fair debate. If the "nazi" really provided enough facts, figures, etc, then he would've won. "Who won the debate?" means "Who made you agree with them or kept you agreeing?"
Debate Round No. 1
Darth_Grievous_42

Pro

Wow, I'm very surprised someone took this on. I actually did hope it might never be accepted so that it would always be in the challenges area for future debaters to read, rather than be lost in the archives. Oh well, hopefully enough people have read it. Any who...

But debating is not about swaying. Debating is about making a better point. If you want to sway someone, then that is preaching. This is Debate.org, not Preach.com. If someone can prove a point better, even if it was disagreeable, then they are the winners of a debate. Whether or not someone's perspective actually changed in the process is just a plus. The Nazi made the better point, even if the majority of people don't agree, he still has the right to win the debate. Otherwise, every debate would be one sided, in accordance to the number of people who agree on the debate. If there are more republicans on the site, generally the pro's on the "Yes, We Need to Fight In Iraq" debates will win. If there are more Evolutionists on the site the "God Exists" con's will win the debates. In fact, from peoples comments, it seems many of my own debates would be losses if I had not proved my point better, as I tend to have slightly disagreeable topics to many. It is not fair for the debater who defends the less agreeable side if votes are determined by feelings rather than logic. Otherwise, the entire point of this site becomes null.

And just as a clarification, my name is Darth_Grievous_42, not Grievo us. But you all can call me Darth for short.
revleader5

Con

But is that not the entire point of the debate? To change the person's feeling on an issue? If you believe in an issue, you fight for it. I would never think to choose a side of an arguement depending on which one would be easiest to win. If you have a strong enough argument, people will sway. You cannot ask people to look at how strong an arguement is instead of who you agree with. If the arguement is really that strong, you'll agree. That is basically what debating, or even preaching, speeches, etc are.
Debate Round No. 2
Darth_Grievous_42

Pro

The point of a debate is to not influence opinions, but prove one to be better than another. I can say being a Republican is better than being a Democrats, and argue with someone who disagrees. I'm not arguing to convert, but maintain the idea that Republicans are better than Democrats. If they sway that way due to my debate, then that's great, but it was not the intention of debate itself.
You do not need to debate an issue because you believe in it, you debate just to debate. You fight on an issue because you believe on it simply because of faith in the ideal. If you like, say, God, then that's fine, but you can still debate that Satan is better than God, and your faith will remain the same, or visa versa. WHatever you debate on, its your choice, and does not define who you are, but how well you can defend the topic. If someone where to challenge me to debate on a subject I personally do not believe in, I'd still do it and try to do the best job I can. Will I change myself, or another because of it, maybe, maybe not. Probably I won't. But I still took the topic, and I'll still be who I am in the morning.
If you have a strong debate, it would not be absurd to think people will "sway". But sway in what manner? Do you think that you could make an argument so great that a panel of judges, or in this case, the internet, will convert their own ideals? I can't do it. Perhaps a small audience will change their mind, or consider it. In which case, that is a stupendous achievement on my behalf, but if debates are chosen by what the people still believe when all things are said and done, most won't have a chance. The better argument has to be the method of determination. Say that I had to defend how the Earth is flat today. I could whip out quotes, stats, charts and so on. What would this prove? SImply that I can find quotes, stats, charts, and so on. Does this make my case better? No. But if my opponent says nothing, absolutely nothing, who presented and defended their side better? Who deserves to win? The Pro who is obviously defending a side that is not true and everyone knows it but did a great job trying, or the Con who said nothing but DID technically defend the side everyone believes and knows (in most cases) is right?
revleader5

Con

That is correct. To prove to be better than one another. If it is better than another to a person, then you agree with them. As I said before, if an arguement is strong, and it doesn't sway someone, it isn't strong enough.
Debate Round No. 3
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by WaximusMaximus 9 years ago
WaximusMaximus
I would argue that to get an impartial vote you'd have to have a standard of some kind. The question boils down to are we
1) Voting on the basis of the strength of argument?
2) Voting on the basis of the tactics of the debate?
3) Voting on the issue, if it is right or wrong?

The appropriate debate would be "What is the purpose of this site?" and take a stance from there.
Posted by Darth_Grievous_42 9 years ago
Darth_Grievous_42
shelbih: I did take this into consideration for the first few days I was here, however, upon inspection of many of the debates and the voting, I found some people won for the wrong reason. Their arguements where inconclusive at best, yet still won. I think the only reasonable answer is that people voted on who they liked, rather than who won. This goes back to my origonal example: who do you think should win? A Nazi who made the better arguement or someone else who said almost nothing?
Posted by shelbih 9 years ago
shelbih
i do somewhat agree with you.
though i don't agree when you said the voting seems biased..
did it ever cross your mind that perhaps users just happen to feel the same way and are not being biased?
Posted by Darth_Grievous_42 9 years ago
Darth_Grievous_42
Dalzuga: Now that you've said that, and I reread it, I get what you are saying. To me it sounded as though you where attacking my longer explainations, but now I see that's not the case. I apologize for my rudeness and ask for your forgiveness.

Solarman1969: I'm sorry you feel that knowledge and wisdom can only be truely recognized through age. There may be flaws with youth, but I hardly think that that is absolute reasoning to say that their opinions matter any less than, say, a 38 year old.
Posted by dalzuga 9 years ago
dalzuga
hey nooo, dont get me wrong! i meant that in response to the debate topic, not to the way you write at all! i think that you should continue writing the way you do.

small misunderstanding lol :)
Posted by Darth_Grievous_42 9 years ago
Darth_Grievous_42
I may misunderstand, but it seems that you (dalzuga) have a problem with me trying to make my points as clear and succinct as possible. I'm sorry that I decide to write a book rather than cliff notes. I guess I'll just get to the point next time, rather than make one. Good advice.
Posted by dalzuga 9 years ago
dalzuga
ok, grammar:

*his point by reference

*does not have to waste her time
Posted by dalzuga 9 years ago
dalzuga
Darth, sometimes the public is already on your side, or already knows what you mean. I think that in a debate, the debater is allowed to use the public's opinion and knowledge to his own advantage. For example, the debater with the advantage does not have to spend a whole round explaining something that people generally know, when he could describe it in one sentence. Even though he did not write out the whole thing, as long as people understand him, he has successfully conveyed his point and should be given credit for that. All he did was to include her point by reference, which is something perfectly allowable.

Now, let's say there's a ridiculous debate. Person A uses the most flawed logic there is, and everyone sees through it. I would say that Person B does not have to waste his time and point out all the places where Person A's logic falls apart. Person B could just say "I'm sorry but your logic is evidently flawed." This is allowable, because Person A has been given something work with. If Person A has a problem with Person B's point, she could just say "I think it is not evident. Could you please tell me where it falls apart?"

There is a fine line between refuting a point under any justification, and not answering. If Person B refutes Person A's point under some sort of justification (no matter how flawed or vague that justification is), this is allowable because Person B has given Person A something to work with (the justification). But if person B doesn't refute Person A's point under any pretext, she has lost the round.
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
If you care about the voting, you are vain - it has nothing to do with the arguments made

Simply put, this place is popoulated by teenagers, who have no clue, so you get what you get

still its lots of FUN!

cheers and MERRY CHRISTMAS~
Posted by 08tsuchiyar 9 years ago
08tsuchiyar
You both bring up good points. I think you both argue your points well. It's a bit of both. A bit about respect (pro side) and a bit about swaying (con side). If I hear a great argument that may not have swayed my opinion but gained my respect I would certainly vote for that or the opposite happened and someone I agree with just was really poor I would vote for the other person. Swaying is a large part of it but so are the arguments presented.
17 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by GaryBacon 5 years ago
GaryBacon
Darth_Grievous_42revleader5Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: No sources were really used by either side, so I left that part a tie. But Darth_Grievous_42 made his points much more convincingly. Con really needed to elaborate his points. Especially in the later rounds. It seems like he wrote less and less with each round. Not that it should matter, but there was no new argument from Con. It was a bit like a broken record.
Vote Placed by SexyLatina 9 years ago
SexyLatina
Darth_Grievous_42revleader5Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by TeaandScarves 9 years ago
TeaandScarves
Darth_Grievous_42revleader5Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by hark 9 years ago
hark
Darth_Grievous_42revleader5Tied
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 BornDebater 9 years ago
BornDebater
Darth_Grievous_42revleader5Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by invertman 9 years ago
invertman
Darth_Grievous_42revleader5Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by shelbih 9 years ago
shelbih
Darth_Grievous_42revleader5Tied
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 Darth_Grievous_42 9 years ago
Darth_Grievous_42
Darth_Grievous_42revleader5Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Cindela 9 years ago
Cindela
Darth_Grievous_42revleader5Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by megan91509 9 years ago
megan91509
Darth_Grievous_42revleader5Tied
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:30