The Instigator
krantz
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
tmar19652
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

It is difficult and/or time consuming to find other DDO members with matching "Big Issue Views".

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 4 votes the winner is...
krantz
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/14/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,134 times Debate No: 32471
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (4)

 

krantz

Pro

I have been trying to find other DDO members with matching stances on the "Big Issues" listed on their profiles. I have come to the conclusion that it is very difficult and/or time consuming to find others with a relatively high matching percentage to my specific stances on the issues.

I would like to debate with someone that believes an average user can BOTH easily and quickly find other DDO members with a relatively high "Big Issues Matching Percentage" (BIMP)

Round 1 - Definitions and Acceptance
Round 2,3,4 - Arguments (As Needed)
Round 3 - Closing Statements

Definitions

My Stances -
"Abortion - Con
"Affirmative Action - Con
"Animal Rights - Pro
"Barack Obama - N/S
"Border Fence - Con
"Capitalism - Pro
"Civil Unions - N/S
"Death Penalty - Pro
"Drug Legalization - Pro
"Electoral College - N/S
"Environmental Protection - Pro
"Estate Tax - Pro
"European Union - N/S
"Euthanasia - Pro
"Federal Reserve - N/S
"Flat Tax - N/S
"Free Trade - Pro
"Gay Marriage - Pro
"Global Warming Exists - Pro
"Globalization - Pro
"Gold Standard - Con
"Gun Rights - Pro
"Homeschooling - N/S
"Internet Censorship - Con
"Iran-Iraq War - N/S
"Labor Union - N/S
"Legalized Prostitution - Pro
"Medicaid & Medicare - N/S
"Medical Marijuana - N/S
"Military Intervention - N/S
"Minimum Wage - Con
"National Health Care - Pro
"National Retail Sales Tax -N/S
"Occupy Movement - N/S
"Progressive Tax - Pro
"Racial Profiling - N/S
"Redistribution - Pro
"Smoking Ban - Con
"Social Programs - Pro
"Social Security - Con
"Socialism - Pro
"Stimulus Spending - N/S
"Term Limits - Pro
"Torture - Pro
"United Nations - Pro
"War in Afghanistan - N/S
"War on Terror - Con
"Welfare - Pro

Relatively High Matching Percentage - >95%

Easy Search - If a random DDO user read the entirety of this debate, they would have an 80% success rate of performing the search, as described by CON, correctly.

Quick Search - The ability to produce more than 10 results out of more than 70,000 current DDO users within 20 minutes.
tmar19652

Con

If I looked at a user profile and changed my views to match theirs, I could easily find 10 95+% matches within 20 minutes.

Pro never stated that I had to find those 10 matches concurrently, and therefore, by my method, I have satisfied my burden of proof and won this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
krantz

Pro

Con simply stated they could "easily find 10 95+% matches within 20 minutes." This does not meet the burden of proof.

Con needs to show that an average user is able to "easily" perform that search. This would require Con to at least provide the method used to perform the search in order for the voters to decide whether or not, "an average user" could easily perform the search.

Here are some additional arguments that support my position on this issue;

1. There is currently no "sort by percentage match" feature included in the advanced people search provided by DDO. This means that the only way to determine the percentage match of a particular user is to view their profile. This results in a very time consuming process when needing to search through thousands of users.

2. There is currently only one configurable search parameter when conducting an advanced user search. Since only one "big issue" search parameter is offered, it doesn't have a significant impact on narrowing down search results.

3. If the search was as easy as Con says it is, Con would simply provide ten user accounts that fit the criteria for my big issue stances listed in my opening argument.
tmar19652

Con

Under my search method, I would go to the top debaters page and open up 10 distinct profiles in different tabs. Next I would change my opinions to match the first profile that I opened. I would then change my opinions to match ther second profile, then change my opinions to match the third profile that I opened, all the way up to the tenth profile.
This way, I would have 10, 100% "big issue view" matches. That could easily be accomplished in under 10 minutes.
My opponent never specified that i could not change my Big issues stances to match the other profiles Big issues stances, nor did they say that I had to maintain that 95% BIMP rating for all ten profiles at the same time. By changing my views I would find 10 users that exactly match my big issues views, and therefore I have fulfilled my burden of proof.

I would also like to note that my opponent did not say that the 10 users i found would have to match their views, they simply presented their big issues views with no stipulations attached.


Example:
By changing my views to match the following 10 profiles big issues views, I could easily satisfy Pro's challenge in under 10 minutes.
  1. RoyLatham
  2. Danielle
  3. Kleptin
  4. JustCallMeTarzan
  5. bluesteel
  6. TheSkeptic
  7. Ore_Ele
  8. beem0r
  9. thett3
  10. Grape
In fact, through my method, I could have a 100% match with any of the 70,000+ members on this site, because you did not say that i had to do so concurrently.

Since I fulfilled the burden of proof, I urge you to vote con!
Debate Round No. 2
krantz

Pro

I stated, during my opening round of acceptance, "I have come to the conclusion that it is very difficult and/or time consuming to find others with a relatively high matching percentage to my specific stances on the issues.". I then proceeded to list my "specific" stances on the big issues.

What Con is proposing is clearly not burden of proof as he is not using the specific stances provided in round one.
tmar19652

Con

While pro is correct in having posted their specific big issues views, they never said that I had to find 10 profiles matching their specific views. They simply stated that I had to be able to "BOTH easily and quickly find other DDO members with a relatively high "Big Issues Matching Percentage" (BIMP)", which I showed how to do! Please remember that in their resolution they did not write that I had to find profiles with high BIMP values relating to their profile, they only said that they were having a hard time doing so as expositional information.

I have still fulfilled my BOP and I was never specifically confined to the specific stances in round 1.
Debate Round No. 3
krantz

Pro

I think it is clear at this point that Con doesn't actually disagree with my conclusion that I introduced in round 1. "I have come to the conclusion that it is very difficult and/or time consuming to find others with a relatively high matching percentage to my specific stances on the issues."

In round 2, Con stated, "By changing my views I would find 10 users that exactly match my big issues views, and therefore I have fulfilled my burden of proof."

An intelligent person that is evaluating this debate would be able to conclude that the method Con has suggested doesn't actually produce 10 users with matching profiles, since by changing personal stances to match the second user immediately disqualifies the first user as a qualified match.

This is my first debate here at DDO and I am disappointed that it wasn't taken seriously. Please keep this in mind when voting for conduct.
tmar19652

Con


Pro tries to insinuate that I did not fulfill the burden of proof because I could not provide 10 profiles concurrently, however in their resolution it never said that I had to find the matches concurrently, and therefore I should not be bound by that rule now!


At this point pro has essentially conceded to defeat, and they are trying “dirty tricks” such as introducing new rules in round 4 of the debate. I urge you to vote Con!


Debate Round No. 4
krantz

Pro

Con claims to have described how it is quick and easy to find other DDO members with high matching percentages. As I am sure all of you reading this would be interested in finding new members with matching percentages in a brief and simple manner, I encourage you to give Cons method a try (as Con has described during the course of this debate).

Let us both know how it works out.
Enjoy!
tmar19652

Con

Well, there you have it, I proved my case and pro proved nothing. It should also be noted that pro had the BOP because they had the affirmative claim, therefore it was their duty to prove their case, which they did not do. Vote con!
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by krantz 4 years ago
krantz
Thanks to everyone for their support.
If anyone stumbles upon this debate in the future and does have some way they feel it could be done, I would love to hear your ideas.
Posted by tmar19652 4 years ago
tmar19652
I did prove you wrong, you need to write stronger resolutions.
Posted by krantz 4 years ago
krantz
tmar...

I was looking forward to finding someone that actually had a method for finding like mind users. I would have been happy to have someone legitimately prove me wrong.

Thanks for nothing..
Posted by tmar19652 4 years ago
tmar19652
Don't worry imabench, I got this.
Posted by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
If you define matching views as FRICKIN 95% then yeah, youre going to have a hard time finding anybody, almost as hard as it will be to find someone who would accept this debate...
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Not really
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Controverter 4 years ago
Controverter
krantztmar19652Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Filthy debating at its finest.
Vote Placed by Misterscruffles 4 years ago
Misterscruffles
krantztmar19652Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Same reason as Roy Latham and Pennigton.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
krantztmar19652Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: The meaning of the resolution made clear in the challenge. Con elected not to debate the resolution, which is conduct violation. The lame attempt at a semantic argument left Pro's challenge unanswered. Semantic arguments only work when the challenge is unclear.
Vote Placed by Pennington 4 years ago
Pennington
krantztmar19652Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro introduced a resolution which said that it is difficult to find like minded users and his resolution was trolled. Con gave a faulty way of finding new users and by so losing the debate. If you change your opinions then you would not be getting like minded members but false like minded members. Because of this trolling I also give conduct to Pro.