The Instigator
Patrick_Henry
Pro (for)
Winning
35 Points
The Contender
Apprentice
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

It is childish and counter productive to create voting blocks on Debate.org to support weakarguments

Do you like this debate?NoYes+9
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: 9/18/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,050 times Debate No: 5454
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (79)
Votes (5)

 

Patrick_Henry

Pro

I resolve that it is counter productive to create voting blocks on Debate.org to support weak arguments.

Debate.org is an online community, and like many online communities there is very little control over the quality of those that participate in the organization and contribute to the forum, or in this case to the process of debating.

The reason why we vote for debates is to express which arguments we felt were best argued. It is a check against the indeterminable quality of members of this website. Anyone may sign up for an account and participate, but voting and comment sections allow that person to discover what is and isn't accepted by the online community.

Recently, I received a series of messages from a group of individuals who are attempting to organize an online voting block to support weak arguments that agree with their ideological positions. Rather than contribute to the community with rhetoric and wit, they have decided to simply take away from it by blindly supporting the arguments of their fellow ideologists.

This is childish and counter productive. It does not in anyway contribute to create a site which supports the value of arguments and rhetoric. Nor does it support any attempt at discovering truth, which makes it counter productive to the mission of Debate.org

In fact, it is a clear admission that aside from being childish and counter productive, the individuals involved in the organization acknowledge that the arguments they support are the lesser arguments. It shows that they on some level know that the positions they take are untrue, or unsupportable. Indicating that since they feel that there is a need for this kind of organization that they refuse to acknowledge better arguments and truth when it comes to their positions. The zeal for their beliefs has caused them to undertake a subversive organization.

In this discussion, among the many recipients, several agreed and advocated for the initiative. I have decided to place their user names below in order to encourage them to take part in this public discussion, and this debate, so that they may have the opportunity to defend against my argument that they are childish and support weak arguments.

Jamesothy
advidiun
the_conservative
joshandr30
CiRrO
wjmelements

I would like to make public in the same measure individuals who argued against their attempts to organize their coalition of blind support, and even accused the above of being childish.

MitchPaglia
DucoNihilum

In closing, it is childish and counter productive to create organizations of individuals with the purpose of supporting weak arguments.
Apprentice

Con

Evening, ladies and gentlemen.

First of all, I want to apologize to my opponent for the extended delay; a series of damning events have prevented me from reaching the keyboard until now, and I cry your pardon. Hopefully you have used this time well.

Some clarification before I begin.

[Childish]: 1: of, relating to, or befitting a child or childhood
2 a: marked by or suggestive of immaturity and lack of poise b: lacking complexity : simple c: deteriorated with age especially in mind : senile
[Counterproductive]: tending to hinder the attainment of a desired goal
Both of these definitions came from the Merriam-Webster dictionary accessed online.

An online "voting bloc" has apparently been discovered by my opponent, the sole purpose of which is to cast votes for each other's debates. Patrick_Henry labels such individuals as "childish" and their mission as "counter-productive".

My job is to negate either one of these claims. This is, after all, a debate, and that means the greatest minds sparring against each other mercilessly no matter how reasonable a proposition the opponent might suggest.
Firstly, I wish to address Patrick_Henry's claim that the voting bloc's actions are against the mission of Debate.org.
"The mission of Debate.org is to create a global online arena for debate and open discussion that is safe, fun, and free. We will accomplish these goals by offering a technologically comprehensive website that hosts formal debate, and open communication for all who wish to participate."
"Safe, fun, and free" are vague terms, but it would be fairly safe to say that one does not encounter physical assault or is approached for payment on this site. Likewise, Debate.org's sole purpose is to establish an arena for verbal gladiators to spar; it does not infringe on the participants' right to vote, which also means it does not prohibit an individual's right to create his/her own "voting bloc" as he/she sees fit. I also do not see Debate.org's mission of "discovering the truth". The facts are as thus: Debate.org does not, and for that matter, cannot, to the best of its ability, prohibit voting blocs. It sets the structure for us to carry out our opinionated rants, but as for the evaluation of said rants, the task falls on the ranters to give points as they see fit, no matter how "misinformed" or biased they may be. After all, are not people who are reading this debate already harboring their own preconceptions? Is that not a voting bloc in essence, guided by the title of said debate? And does Debate.org deem this malignant undercurrent counterproductive? No. Debate has always been a subjective science, and voting blocs are naturally inevitable, something Debate.org understood and thus, did not include its prohibition in the mission statement. To say that voting blocs undermine the "discovering of truth" is an ironic statement at best.

In effect, voting blocs do not undermine Debate.org's mission anymore than killing people undermines the war effort.

Awaiting your reply.
Debate Round No. 1
Patrick_Henry

Pro

Thank you for providing definitions for the purpose of this debate.

It is childish to create an organization to support weak arguments because you agree with them ideologically. In fitting with the Merriam-Webster definition, it certainly indicative of lacking poise. It also shows the immaturity of the individuals involved, unwilling to accept that they lost their debate simply by arguing poorly or choosing a poor argument to make, while being unable to support it.

As far as being counter productive is considered, it depends on the goal of the user of Debate.org. Many come here to debate, and as you said rant. The Debates are then subject to what many would hope to be a relatively fair review by fellow users. So, for users who specifically hold this goal it is very counter productive.

Individuals that are interested in belonging to a community online will also find voting blocs to be counter productive. The online community will suffer if individuals debating are left with a nasty taste in their mouths as the votes come in because they have been in a debate targeted by one voting bloc or another. This will naturally lead to hostility.

While violence is certainly one way to create an unsafe environment, it is not the only way. With the use of the internet, there are many ways that a person can attack another without ever getting up from their key board. This could lead to a number of poor results, causing financial damage and emotional pain. There is also the possibility of terrible personal attacks being made that are completely unfounded.

Having groups of debaters forming voting blocs and launching personal attacks at one another hardly sounds like "fun" to me. To have these personal attacks then supported by more talented users of technology with cyber attacks doesn't sound safe, although it could possibly add to the fun - but I doubt that's the kind of fun the creator of this website meant.

My resolution still stands that voting blocs are childish and counter productive to create voting blocs to support weak arguments.

I was not making a statement that all voting blocs are childish and counter productive, fore instance it might be quite beneficial to the community if a voting block was formed to support grammar or polite arguments. However, creating a voting block to support weak arguments because of an agreement with ideology, for an example, is childish and counter productive.

The difficulty is, of course, the that inspired this debate dictated that you support the arguments "If you agree with them." It doesn't say to support the argument that was the strongest, just the person you agreed with. Voting for what you agree with is different than supporting the strongest argument.

It is supporting the weak argument that will make fun and safety less apparent on this website.
Apprentice

Con

Apprentice forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Patrick_Henry

Pro

As the con may well be suffering from the poor constitution which he referenced in his opening round, I graciously extend to him my hopes that he is able to recover from his aliments.

Out of respect to his illness, I will not be furthering my argument with this round. I ask that the fellow users of Debate.org join me in wishing him a speedy recovery.
Apprentice

Con

Apprentice forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
79 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
Though my name was used in the initial argument, I did not participate in that discussion. My only message in it, which was far afterwards, was:
"We don't need to unionize the conserative movenment of debate.org. I don't want the liberals joining in leagues and voting that way, too."
I don't want you putting my name out like that and ruining my appearence online.
Posted by Apprentice 8 years ago
Apprentice
Honest apologies for the forfeiture, Patrick_Henry; it was my own fault for ignoring the timer. =[[
I thank you for your condolences and will be sure to post a worthy argument this time round. =]]
Good luck on your other debates too, hope your opponents there are actually proving to be a match for you~

-Apprentice
Posted by Patrick_Henry 8 years ago
Patrick_Henry
The forfeiture makes me quiet sad.

I thought we might be able to actually have a good, well argued debate on this subject. Though I have noticed that several other debates have arisen as a cause of this debate, and I think its original purpose has been served.
Posted by Patrick_Henry 8 years ago
Patrick_Henry
God, they really are a bunch of dweebs.

Earlier today I got a message from Jamesothy asking me to help him with some of his debates.
Posted by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
Yeah, Kleptin the corrector just got slapped himself, probably by the same group of people. Someone dug up a whole bunch of my debates and shifted them a few points over. It was fairly noticeable because my losses went from 19 to 23 and my ties went up from 0. I regularly shift through my losses to see which ones I really deserved to lose, these shouldn't be there.

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.debate.org...
Posted by brittwaller 8 years ago
brittwaller
I know. It would be an automatic admission of guilt.

I know you're reading, children. My wins have changed again, since the intervention of Kleptin the Corrector. I'm sure you've noticed I've done nothing to your debates, however. That is the difference between us. Figure out what it is, if you can.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Aww, but taking this site seriously enough to host a full blown "war" is more entertaining.

All kidding aside though, the culprits will NEVER reveal themselves, so there is little point in your challenge. The most you can do is move on
Posted by brittwaller 8 years ago
brittwaller
Precisely. I have no interest in any world order. If there is war it is now personal. Just remember it was not I that started this idiocy. I do intend to finish it, however. I challenge all of them, from here, which I'm sure they're reading, to an open debate. Whatever subject they like. Their choice. If I win, they must debate each other on who is a poorer examlpe of a human being. If they win, I will vote for McCain. Any takers?
Posted by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
A Liberal World Order would only serve to legitimize their unethical behavior.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Indeed, a war is coming , . . winner take all.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
Patrick_HenryApprenticeTied
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 animea 8 years ago
animea
Patrick_HenryApprenticeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
Patrick_HenryApprenticeTied
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 Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Patrick_HenryApprenticeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Patrick_Henry 8 years ago
Patrick_Henry
Patrick_HenryApprenticeTied
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