The Instigator
bearsfan
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
untitled_entity
Pro (for)
Winning
31 Points

It is not suspicious that almost all of the theLwerd's ties and losses are in the Post-Voting Period

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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: 8/16/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,501 times Debate No: 9237
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (5)

 

bearsfan

Con

I find it somewhat suspicious that all of theLwerd's losses and ties are in the Post-Voting period with the exception of one. It's almost as if someone votebombed all of her debates in her favor.

Just look at it http://www.debate.org.... Her record is 133-5-3. This seems very improbable even for one of the best debaters on the site.

This may be seen as kind of a dick move, because I put the word "not" in the title and took the side of CON, but my opponent has the burden of proof because they are PRO. http://www.ddofans.com...
untitled_entity

Pro

I thank bearsfan for instigating this debate and effectively switching the BoP. Anyways, I look forward to an interesting exchange.

Resolved: It is not suspicious that almost all of theLwerd's ties and losses are in the Post - Voting Period. I negate.

-- Burden of Proof: I must prove that it is not suspicious at all. that theLwerd's ties and losses are in the Post - Voting Period. On the other hand, my opponent must prove the exact opposite - that the fact that her losses/ties are inherently suspicious.

--Terms :
Suspicious - 1 : tending to arouse suspicion : questionable 2 : disposed to suspect [http://www.merriam-webster.com...]

TheLwerd - debate.org user --> (http://www.debate.org...)

The fact that theLwerd's losses/ties are, for the most part are post-voting period should actually deter suspicion. If her losses/ties were still in the voting - period they would be more susceptible to vote bombing and could increase her win ratio further. Granted, some of her voting period debate losses/ties do seem a little fishy, like the seven points for her entire forfeit (http://www.debate.org...) the fact that they are post voting - period seem rather obsolete.

Due to the fact that her debates are post - voting period, they have little to do with suspicion. Resolution affirmed.
Debate Round No. 1
bearsfan

Con

"The fact that theLwerd's losses/ties are, for the most part are post-voting period should actually deter suspicion. If her losses/ties were still in the voting - period they would be more susceptible to vote bombing and could increase her win ratio further." This makes absolutely no sense. My point is, is that someone, or many people, vote bombed every debate they could. The fact that they are in the post-voting period means that if someone votebombed her, they couldn't make her win those 7 debates.

Using your definition, it does arouse suspicion, and it is questionable that she has won every debate in which the results could be changed, except for one.

I have a feeling that her record is going to change to 134-4-3 after this because I have showed the votebomber(s) that they forgot one, but I sincerely hope that it does not.
untitled_entity

Pro

Way to copy exactly what Alex said. Anyways, I thank bearsfan for his fast response.

"Using your definition, it does arouse suspicion, and it is questionable that she has won every debate in which the results could be changed, except for one."

She has obviously not won every debate with the exception of one or else we wouldn't be having this debate. There are many debaters on this site that have near perfect records[*], or pretty good records at that. In addition to this, some debates can and often do have votes removed if the site mod believes that they are vote bombed, so even if a debate is post - voting period the result of it can still be changed [**].

Whether or not her losses are post voting period does make very little sense - she has already lost, she cannot lose any further. Although some of her wins have been questionable at best, most of her voting periods are of a respectable length and probably don't contribute to her win or loss record.

I will not protest the fact that there are indeed vote bombers on this site, if you need proof look no further than Mongeese's win record. But to assume that because someone has a decent win record their debates HAD to have been vote bombed is a little absurd.

* - These are debates were votes have been retracted. One was a debate with Mongeese on S.C.H.I.P. in which I forfeited everyone and was still voted up, and the other one was with Alex_hanson on Gay Marriage that may or may not have been a landslide.
- http://www.debate.org...
- http://www.debate.org...

** - The following users have perfect, or near perfect win records.
- alex_hanson911
- vi_veri
- feverish
- sportsguru
- theitalianstallion
- burningpuppies101
- Inquiretruth

etc.
Debate Round No. 2
bearsfan

Con

I did not copy what Alex said, I still do not know what you mean by that.

It doesn't matter if other people have near perfect records, we are not debating whether they are suspicious or not, we are debating the validity of theLwerd's record. Those others could be subject to another debate, but I will leave that to someone else.

In the time I have spent re-reading old forum threads, I have found that votebombing has only been reported if it is against someone. I noticed that the CWO votebombed to help their members, but that is the only other case I found. Because that is the case, votebombers would not be banned, and their votes would not be cancelled. All because no one would report something that is helping them, would they?
untitled_entity

Pro

Whether theLwerd's record is valid or not is up to her, whatever religious deity you believe exists and probably Phil.

However I do not believe the fact that all her losses/ties being post - voting period have anything to do with suspicion. Due to the fact that all her losses/ties are post - voting period it means that it is impossible she could win those debates and improve even more on her record so therefore it is beneficial and rather inconspicuous that her losses and ties are post voting period.

I thank bearsfan for this interesting debate.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
Yup cuz I always deserve them :P

Ps. Bearsfan's fake account was finally deleted - yay : )
Posted by Lifeisgood 7 years ago
Lifeisgood
I believe that Lwerd gives herself +7 points on all of her debates, even the ones she has forfeited on. At least from what I have seen.
Posted by untitled_entity 7 years ago
untitled_entity
Indeed, Panda.
Posted by I-am-a-panda 7 years ago
I-am-a-panda
This debate is ridiculoush.
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
3) All of the debates I've started recently ALL have time caps. I usually limit voting to 3 months. Therefore, if I'm winning a debate (and like I said - I'm confident I win most of them and people's voting reflects that) then after a certain amount of time, the voting will stop and it will continue to say that I have won those debates. So, I really fail to see how you've made a point here. You have said it looks shady, but haven't argued the fact that I am deserving of those wins, pointed out debates that I should have lost, nor have mentioned Phil's severe crackdown on vote bombing and being aware of multiple accounts or vote bombing accounts. In fact, sometimes I get mad at my own gf for going online right after me because I am so cautious of being accused of cheating. And! For the record I don't have any friends who would be remotely interested enough in DDO to make an account, let alone go around voting for me.
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
2) This whole proposition of yours only makes sense if I didn't actually deserve to win those debates. I'd like for you to find a debate that I won in which you don't feel like I should have won. The reason I ask is because first, the only "fishy" debate put forth was by untitled_entity in which I was rewarded 7 points for a completely forfeited debate... HOWEVER, I didn't win that debate (and I shouldn't have), so it's entirely irrelevant to your case. Second, my win ratio stands somewhere around 92% -- I don't know the exact number -- and I am very confident that my debate record on this site should be around there. I consider myself a very good debater. The only "proof" I can offer is that in a nine month long debate tournament run on this site way before you were ever a member, I not only won the tournament but I was UNDEFEATED throughout it and that incorporated unbiased judges who *had* to present open RFDs. Using that example alone I had a 100% win ratio as opposed to the 92% or so I have now... what's your point?
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
Here is the response that you have been waiting to impatiently for, bearsfan:

1) While people only report negative vote bombing, I have been vote bombed on MANY occasions and have never reported it. The extent of my complaining was that it's something that happens to ALL debaters on this site, and that I really didn't care about my win ratio one way or another. However, since The Cleaners (a group devoted to anti-vote bombing) may have noticed that people were *OBVIOUSLY* down voting me maliciously... i.e. in this debate which I was originally losing, as you can tell by the 72 vs. 75 points (RIDICULOUS): http://www.debate.org... then maybe other people felt bad and decided to vote appropriately.
Posted by untitled_entity 7 years ago
untitled_entity
B/A : PRO
Conduct : PRO - bearsfan switched BoP when it was entirely on him. BoP debates are fussy and annoying.
Arguments : PRO - I had an argument, bearsfan never proved his BoP.
Sources: PRO - I had sources.
S&G : TIE
Posted by JBlake 7 years ago
JBlake
Conduct: Pro
Sp/Gr: Tie
Argument: Pro
Source: Pro

bearsfan, the burden was almost entirely on you. It doesn't matter that you worded the resolution with a negative and took the con. You are the one making the positive claim. You are the one trying to prove something (that theLwerd is cheating, or has people cheating for her). You didn't provide any evidence, your argument was weak, and you attempted to shift the burden. Six points to Pro.
Posted by bearsfan 7 years ago
bearsfan
Why should it go pro? She has BoP and didn't provide it. Why can't you vote for me?
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
bearsfanuntitled_entityTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 7 years ago
Vi_Veri
bearsfanuntitled_entityTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by untitled_entity 7 years ago
untitled_entity
bearsfanuntitled_entityTied
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:06 
Vote Placed by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
bearsfanuntitled_entityTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by JBlake 7 years ago
JBlake
bearsfanuntitled_entityTied
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:06