The Instigator
PoeJoe
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
Dnick94
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points

Five-Round Debates Are Inferior To Three-Round Debates

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 3 votes the winner is...
PoeJoe
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/1/2008 Category: Technology
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,342 times Debate No: 5859
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)

 

PoeJoe

Pro

I sincerely hope we can stay away from semantics. This is obviously limited to debate.org, and I really hope we don't get into the definitions of "round", "debate", "inferior", or anything equally absurd.

With that said, I strongly affirm the resolution: "Five-round debates are inferior to three-round debates."

---- Contention 1: For the Reader ----

(1) Reading a possible eighty thousand charachters for a debate is absurd. There is a place for extensive discusion, but the sacrifice of readability is far too great.

(2) Furthermore, because less people will take the time to read a five-round debate, vote bombing will be more effective. Vote bombing is a plague on debate.org, and five-round debates actually encourage it.

(3) Five-round debates can lose readers in a smear war of circumlocution. With eighty thousand charachters to deal with, points will be lost through clever writing, and shyful ignorance.

---- Contention 2: For the Debater ----

(1) No one needs eighty thousand charachters to successfully evaluate an issue. For the debaters, it will cause head ache.

(2) There is almost always a winner and loser to a debate. Eighty thousand charachters is a big sacrifice. Because of this big sacrifice of time and energy, the loser will feel bad for sacrificing so much, only to lower his/hir win ratio.

(3) Like I stated previously, debaters will lose themselves in a multitude of points and clever circumlocution.

---- Contention 3: For the Webmaster ----

(1) Eighty thousand charachters are completely unneccesary to extensively evaluate a topic. Five-Round debates wastes the webmaster's server space.

---- Conclusion ----

All around, five-round debates are shown to be far inferior to three-round debates.

I leave the floor open to my opponent.
Dnick94

Con

Thank you for the opportunity to debate. I don't think we will need to resort to semantics.

---- Contention 1: For the Reader ----

(1) Reading a possible eight thousand (not 80,000) characters for a debate is not absurd. Most debaters in debate.org are literate in English and can read more than 8000 characters. There is a place for extensive discussion, but discussion in the comments section don't count. People mainly read the contents of the debate only on deciding who to vote for.

The sacrifice of readability is far too great?
Consider these three situations:

Situation one:
Each word has 3 characters.
Each sentence has five words.
Each paragraph has 4 sentences.

So each paragraph has 60 characters and there would need to be about 133 paragraphs to contain 8000 characters.

Situation two:
Each word has 5 characters.
Each sentence has 7 words.
Each paragraph has 7 sentences.

Then each paragraph contains 245 characters and there would 32 paragraphs to contain 8000 characters.

Situation three:
Each word has 6 characters.
Each sentence has 10 words.
Each paragraph has 8 sentences.

Then each paragraph contains 480 characters and there be 16 paragraphs to contain 8000 characters.

This is one of my own debates:http://www.debate.org...
In the first two rounds, I almost filled 8000 characters in my first two rounds. Would you say that the sacrifice of readability is far too great just to read my debate?

(2) Five-round debates do not encourage vote bombing. Five rounds allow more refutation and rebuttals from either side than just 3 rounds.

The majority of vote bombers came from joshandr30 and his CWO. I assume that you already know this from the forums: http://www.debate.org...

"Josh is vote bombing our members as we speak. The issue is resolved because we decided that we don't care about our win ratios and instead, want to dedicate ourselves to voting/commenting on other debates and helping new debaters grow."

Vote bombing is a plague on debate.org because of Josh, not because of five-round debates.

(3) Five-round debates may only have a slighter better chance of losing the readers.
I present you my debate: http://www.debate.org...

I wouldn't think that just because the majority of my rounds have almost 8000 characters that you could be lost. If you read my rounds, you would understand more than you would be confused unless you're illiterate.

---- Contention 2: For the Debater ----

(1) Some people need 8000 characters to successfully evaluate an issue. For the debaters, it will cause head ache for some sensitive people such as PoeJoe. I don't think no one else has a problem reading a 8000 page essay on a topic unless you are bored.

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

This is a great debate which both sides took the character limit to the max. I would assume that most people can understand what both sides are saying even though the debate was very long.

(2) Eight thousand characters isn't a big sacrifice if you can refute your opponent's contentions in abundance ways. You're not required to type eight thousand characters and you can type as much as you want at least if it doesn't go beyond 8000 characters. Therefore, eight thousand characters aren't a big sacrifice if the other side chose to make an informal argument of only 100 characters.

(3) Assuming that debaters are literate and that they are or had an education, they are less likely to be confused.

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

In this debate, you can see that arguments are broken down into contentions. Due to the organization of the debate, you can understand the arguments much more better than if the words were all bunched up together.

The outline of a lot of debates is:
1. Introduction
2. Contention 1
3. Contention 2
4. Contention 3
5. Conclusion

This organization can be opposed to http://www.debate.org....

In this debate, the organization has no defined introduction, body, or conclusion. Even though debates with informal organizations have less words and characters, debates with formal organization ultimately have better arguments and are much more understandable.

An example where a formal argument is better than an informal argument would be found in http://www.debate.org....

---- Contention 3: For the Webmaster ----

(1) Five-Round debates wastes the webmaster's server space. That is not a huge problem, because debate.org is advertised to have unlimited debating. 8000 characters is 8 kilobytes. So a typical 5-round debate contains about 45 kilobytes. You need about 1000 debates just to have 45 megabytes of sever space. Therefore, we won't lose sever space anytime soon. Even if we were, the moderators would notifies us to limit our debate size.

---- Conclusion ----

Five-round debates have been proven to be equal or even better to three-round debates.

*I just used 2,670 characters. I hope PoeJoe wouldn't think that the the sacrifice of readability is far too great to be able to read my debate.
Debate Round No. 1
PoeJoe

Pro

Before I begin, I would like to request that my opponent retract and apologize for his many comments regarding my literacy. They were outlandish and completely unprofessional. I would have thought better of him.

---- Contention 1 Redux ----

(1) 10 rounds * 8000 characters = 80,000 characters possible for a debate. That IS absurd. More often than not, debaters are able to sufficiently share their ideas with 48,000 characters or less. Anything more is just surplus.

You are avoiding my point. Many would-be voters are deterred from reading and voting and commenting on long, 80000 character strong, five-round debates. And it would be foolish to deny that.

(2) You attempt to refute my second point by writing, "Five-round debates do not encourage vote bombing." That was not my main point. My main point was that vote bombing is more effective in five-round debates, because less real voters read and vote on them. With less votes, it becomes very easy to vote bomb someone.

Take the debate.org user Rezzealaux ( http://debate.org... ) for example. Although he has been vote bombed by Josh, he still maintains a 50% win ratio (originally 100%). How is this so? No, he hasn't asked the cleaners to help him out. No, he hasn't messaged friends. No, he hasn't been working with Phil. He has just simply won so many debates by such a huge margin, that many of Josh's bombs are rendered void.

If five-round debates are more susceptible to vote bombing (and they are), then they are obviously inferior to three-round debates.

(3) You concede the following: "Five-round debates may only have a slighter better chance of losing the readers." Therefore, you concede this point. Five-round debates can lose readers in a smear war of circumlocution.

---- Contention 2 Redux ----

(1) My opponent attempts to argue my point -- that 80,000 characters is unnecessary for evaluating the merit of a position -- by assaulting my character. Dnick94, please address my point without being abusive. Thank you.

(2) My opponent writes, "...eight thousand characters aren't (sic) a big sacrifice if the other side chose to make an informal argument of only 100 characters." Well, if an opponent only needs 100 characters to successfully argue a position, then a five-round debate becomes totally unnecessary.

But let's be realistic. A five round debate typically deals with more complex issues. A five round debate typically requires a huge sacrifice, especially considering many debate.org users are honors/AP students. It's a lot, and more often than not, is completely unnecessary. Therefore, five-round debates are inferior to three-round debates.

(3) To refute my point -- that five-round debates often lead debaters into a spiral of circumlocution and a multitude of valueless points -- my opponent offers a solution -- that debaters should follow a strict structural outline. However, his offering a solution only serves to exemplify the problem with five-round debates -- that five-round debates do indeed need a solution to be more coherent.

---- Contention 3 Redux ----

(1) My issue isn't the practical means of long debates, it is the ideal. Why waste space when it doesn't need to be wasted? Eighty thousand characters are completely unnecessary to extensively evaluate a topic, and five-round debates are wasteful.

---- Conclusion ----

I would like to thank my opponent for (1) accepting this debate, and (2) posting an excellent rebuttal. I look forward to his R2.
Dnick94

Con

I apologize, PoeJoe, if my comments offended you. However, I would only consider two of my comments to be offensive:

"For the debaters, it will cause head ache for some sensitive people such as PoeJoe."
"I hope PoeJoe wouldn't think that the the sacrifice of readability is far too great to be able to read my debate."

I have never intended to question your literacy. In fact, I would consider your literacy to be very high. However, I will address the reasons why I put these comments. I hope that if I had more comments offending you, you would be able to point them out. With that said, let the debate begin.

---- Contention 1: For the Reader ----

(1) You are suggesting that reading a 80,000 character, five-round debate will repel would-be voters. Unfortunately, many debates don't have 80,000 characters. The ones that have the most characters tend to have the most views:

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

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

If you use your 8,000 characters wisely in each round, you will show effort and possibly make stronger arguments.

The voting procedure is to look for:
# Who did you agree with before the debate?(0 Points)
# Who did you agree with after the debate?(0 Points)
# Who had better conduct?(1 Point)
# Who had better spelling and grammar?(1 Point)
# Who made more convincing arguments?(3 Points)
# Who used the most reliable sources?(2 Points)

Conduct is easy to look for, since you have to look which side used fewer personal attacks.
Spelling and grammar is easy of course. Just a simple action of copying and pasting into Microsoft Word.
For more convincing arguments, you need to look at analysis, refutation, and organization.
* Analysis - Which debater, on balance, did a better job of clearly explaining their arguments and of exposing the weakness of their opponent's arguments?
* Refutation - Which debater critically analyzed their opponents' arguments the best and developed clear, appropriate, and understandable responses?
* Organization - Which debater organized their arguments the best, creating an easily understood and readable path to follow?
I assume that you had already read http://www.debate.org....
Most reliable sources is also easy since all you need to do is to find sources as websites underlined in blue text and check them to see if they're reliable.
Therefore, the only thing that would throw lazy or illiterate people off would be more convincing arguments assuming that they wouldn't take their time reading debates they wished to vote for.

(2) There is one way to ensure equality and fairness of a debate. According to Kleptin's forum: http://www.debate.org..., "I am pleased to announce that The Cleaners are ready to help serve the community. If you feel that a debate was won or lost based misrepresentation. A misrepresented debate would be one that is seemingly vote bombed, or that has little participation in terms of voting or commenting." It wouldn't be easy to vote bomb anyone anymore especially in another Kleptin's forum: http://www.debate.org... where Kleptin states that the Josh issue has been resolved.

Most debates that Rezzealaux lost had three rounds, contradicting your statement that vote bombing is more effective in five-round debates.

The debates he lost were:
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

According to you, three-round debates should make vote bombing less effective. However, all the debates that I listed that he lost were vote bombed by Josh regardless of the amount of characters those debates contain.

(3) Five-round debates can lose readers in a smear war of circumlocution. That would be if one side wasn't clear enough to be understandable. Then the points go to the other side for being clearer on more convincing arguments according to analysis, refutation, and organization.

---- Contention 2: For the Debater ----

(1) Some people need 8000 characters to successfully evaluate an issue. Other people don't. No one is forcing anyone to post an argument consisting of 8000 characters. I wasn't intending to offend you. I was just saying that you had a tendency to have more things than other people that make you mad. Correct me if I'm wrong. However, I think that most people know that +1 threads tend to make you angry. In fact, a forum was created to anger you: http://www.debate.org... By making a conclusion from this "evidence", I would assume that more things such as reading a debate containing 80,000 characters would either give you a headache or make you angry.

(2) "A five round debate typically requires a huge sacrifice, especially considering many debate.org users are honors/AP students." It depends on how much do they type. They'll wouldn't be forced to type 8000 characters every round. Most people post less characters even though they have a lot of characters remaining. Five-round debates allow more rebuttals and more points to be presented.

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

In this debate, the main reason why JBlake lost was because he didn't get to refute any Con's arguments. The more rounds a debate has, the more points that could be addressed. There is almost always a winner and loser to a debate. The winner and loser to the debate could be more easily decided in five rounds than three rounds. There could always be a chance that one side could give in when that debater has no more rebuttals to present. In three rounds, people would be less likely to give up assuming that they have a strong case for debates.

(3) Debaters should follow a strict structural outline. According to http://www.debate.org..., "All debates should follow a strategy or outline. Before you write your response create an outline or even a few bullet points to help set up your argument. For even better clarity, write your entire argument in a word processing program then copy and paste it onto Debate.org! Debating is like chess, a strategy is needed. Try to impress your audience."

Debaters may not always used the outline I proposed, but they can use a similar outline to help clear arguments. This applies to any debate, not just five-round debates.

---- Contention 3: For the Webmaster ----

(1) Why waste space when it doesn't need to be wasted?

The amount of debates or the length of debates won't affect the webmaster much. Some people choose to post eighty thousand characters. Why should they be limited on how much characters that they can type. For example, I wouldn't be able to type all this if I couldn't post 8,000 characters. Waste or no waste, debates are supposed to be fun and they shouldn't be limited to less than 8,000 characters.

"I hope PoeJoe wouldn't think that the the sacrifice of readability is far too great to be able to read my debate."

If these was offensive to you, then I'm sorry. I'm just hoping that my arguments wouldn't be so much a headache to you, considering the amount of characters I'm typing.

---- Conclusion ----

I also look forward to your R3. I thank my opponent for having this debate which I supposedly have fun and enjoy.
Debate Round No. 2
PoeJoe

Pro

I accept my opponent's apology.

---- Contention 1 Redux ----

(1) My opponent attempts to refute my argument -- that five round debates sacrifice far too much readability -- with a multitude of statements. He first writes, "The ones that have the most characters tend to have the most views". To prove his statement, he provides two debates as evidence. The first debate deals with anime/cartoons, which are prominent sources of interest for debate.org users. The second debate deals with the CWO controversy. Their extensive viewings have nothing to do with the fact they were five-round debates; rather, they were debates that interested the debate.org community, and who were only coincidentally five-round debates as well. Using his logic, I can claim three-debates are superior using my date plea to monkeyyxxsun ( http://www.debate.org... ).

My opponent continues to concede, "...the only thing that would throw lazy... people off would be more convincing arguments assuming that they wouldn't take their time reading debates they wished to vote for." And that is a reason why five-round debates are inferior. Don't let my opponent fool you into believing five-round don't sacrifice readability.

(2) True, the Cleaners have been very successful countering vote bombing, but many still do not ask for their help. Indeed, their very existence proves vote bombing is a problem. And five-round debates, which typically reach a much smaller audience, are more susceptible to vote bombing.

Also, I did not source Rezzealaux to prove he preferred three-debates; I sourced him to prove that debates with wide winning-margins are often immune to Josh-iphilus. Again: Because three-round debates reach a wider audience, they are more often more immune to Josh-iphilus.

(3) Five-round debates often lose readers in a smear war of circumlocution and a multitude of valueless points. My opponent writes that if a debate becomes confusing, that "the points go to the other side for being clearer on more convincing arguments according to analysis, refutation, and organization." This is not so. Besides the readers (already few in numbers) who will get discouraged from reading more of the debate, a confusing debate will often make it hard to vote. Quite simply, confusing debates are confusing. And more than that, they are five-round debates.

---- Contention 2 Redux ----

(1) I would have thought my opponent would have grown tired of attacking my character. I, anyway, am tired of defending myself. Obviously, ad hominem does not refute a point. No one needs eighty thousand characters to successfully evaluate an issue. It is unnecessary.

(2) My opponent attempts to refute my point -- that five round debates waste the time of its debaters for no practical benefit -- by sourcing a one-round debate, saying that the instigator did not have time to respond. No duh. This is debate about three-round debates, not ONE debates. I totally agree with my opponent that five round debates, although bad, are better than one-round debates.

But back to my point, three-debates are way-more-than-sufficient in evaluating an issue. I am pretty sure readers of THIS three-round debate have a pretty clear understanding of our points. Five-round debates waste the time of its debaters.

(3) My opponent has agreed to his concession that five-round debates have a higher chance of confusing its readers. He has not disputed this. And indeed, he has devised a solution for this problem. He says that former-webmaster Nate (now fired) once believed debaters should follow a strict structural outline. I'd like to ask where he got the idea to qualify "structural outline" with "strict". I don't see the word "strict" or any implication of the word "strict" in former-webmaster Nate's writing anywhere. And furthermore, where did he get the idea that most debaters followed Nate's writings anyway? Five-round debates are so confusing that Dnick94 is desperately finding ways to make them better. That shows the inferiority of five-round debates in it of itself.

---- Contention 3 Redux ----

(1) This is not a debate to ban five-round debates. It is simply an attempt to prove that they are inferior to three-round debates. When my opponent writes, "Waste or no waste, debates are supposed to be fun and they shouldn't be limited to less than 8,000 characters," not only does he concede that five-round debates are wasteful, he creates a straw man argument. Don't let my opponent fool you.

Five round debates are idealistically wasteful, because there is little point to them.

---- Conclusion ----

My burden in this debate has been to prove that five-round debates are inferior to three-round debates. I believe I have met my burden. Because I have proven that five-round debates deter voters, read poorly, confuse readers, waste the time of its debaters, and waste server space.

I'd like to thank my opponent for this awesome debate, and the audience for taking the time to read it. Thank you.
Dnick94

Con

Five-Round Debaters are equal to three-rounds debates regardless of the amount of characters and either way, any debate has the chance of being vote bombed by Josh. You can see all my debates: http://www.debate.org...

You can even see yours: http://www.debate.org...

You can't even refute what I just said because this is the last round.
But regardless of who won the debate, I know that one of us will be vote bombed my Josh regardless of the length.

Both of us has been vote bombed by Josh and this debate will probably be vote bombed too. Josh hates both of us so regardless of the amounts of characters we post or the amount of rounds we have, this debate can still be vote bombed easily by Josh.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by saamanthagrl 8 years ago
saamanthagrl
"The issue is resolved because we decided that we don't care about our win ratios and instead, want to dedicate ourselves to voting/commenting on other debates and helping new debaters grow."

nice ^
Posted by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
First off, let me just say that I soooooo agree with Pro on this. I've commented on other debates that 5 round debates are too lengthy to read and vote on. Two reasons: first, this site is a hobby for me and I just am not interested in spending a long time on a single debate. Second, it is more often than not the case that Rounds 2 and 3 of a 5-round debate rehash the same arguments and refutations from Round 2.

On to my vote:

Conduct: Pro. Con engaged in some minor ad hominem attacks.
Spelling and grammar: Tie.
Convincing Argument: Pro. I admittedly agreed with Pro's side before the debate, but Con was unable to convince me otherwise.
Most reliable sources: Con. Con did an excellent job citing a huge variety of debates to support his position. Pro did a good job too, but I felt Con really went the extra mile.
Posted by PoeJoe 8 years ago
PoeJoe
"Five-Round Debaters are equal to three-rounds debates regardless of the amount of characters and either way, any debate has the chance of being vote bombed by Josh. You can see all my debates:"
Many of the debates that I won by HUGE margins are immune to Josh-itus. That was my point.
Posted by Dnick94 8 years ago
Dnick94
So Josh, who won't the debate considering the fact you had vote bombed both of us and that is why we have less than 50% win ratio.
Posted by knick-knack 8 years ago
knick-knack
I don't think I have ever read a 5 round debate.
Posted by PoeJoe 8 years ago
PoeJoe
I just realized my "(sic)" tag was misplaced. Oh the embarrassment.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by el.edward512 8 years ago
el.edward512
PoeJoeDnick94Tied
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 PoeJoe 8 years ago
PoeJoe
PoeJoeDnick94Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42 
Vote Placed by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
PoeJoeDnick94Tied
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:42