The Instigator
Johnicle
Pro (for)
Winning
42 Points
The Contender
NOK_Domination
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

Logical Policy Format: "Resolved: Webcorp should substantially increase the welfare of debate.org."

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 7 votes the winner is...
Johnicle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/11/2008 Category: Technology
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,406 times Debate No: 6213
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (7)

 

Johnicle

Pro

ATTENTION: This is intended to be a Logical Policy Debate round. Meaning a policy round (with inherency, disadvantages, etc.) BUT with evidence only used when absolutely necessary. Please take this into account when accepting the debate or judging it.

Rounds 1/2: Constructives
Rounds 3/4: Rebuttals

I affirm:

Resolved: Webcorp should substantially increase the welfare of debate.org.

(By accepting this debate, please also accept that I can (and am) fiating webcorp rather than the usual federal government.)

OBSERVATION 1: INHERENCY/HARMS

A) There is no requirement for vote justifications.
-When someone goes to vote, they can simply put in their vote without even reading the debate. There are ways to determine who voted for who, but for this takes time and can come down to even a guess when people have similar ideals. Furthermore, this allows people to be able to vote for themselves with the other person hardly even knowing.

B) ‘Vote Bombing' has become a regular occurrence.
-Certain members of debate.org have deemed it necessary to not leave the ‘regulars' alone and simply vote bomb us. After we discover them, their account is closed and they get another one and do it again. Currently the cell phone system and the voting generalities are good, but have yet to completely fix the problem. Something must be done to stop these atrocities.

C) Members are leaving because of the upsetting nature of debate.org.
-From the Semi-Final Debate of the first debate.org tournament (member: Darth_Grievous_42)
-"I will now officially be able to delete this account so I can finally leave this shamble of what was debate.org. Darth_Grievous_42 out. "
-From this, you can draw the conclusions that people want some sort of change in the system. Therefore, I urge people to realize that we must change, the only question is how.

D) Debate.org has a message system that is a send/wait/refresh system.
-When you message in debate.org, it is to inform. However, webcorb should understand that debaters (on debate.org) like to be able to have discussions that are more real life -which currently they are not able to do in the present system-. Not to mention that there is no current system that allows us to do any form of cross examination.

E) Contacting members is based on friend status'.
-If I want to contact someone, I need to add them as a friend, or they must open up their inbox -or profile- to everyone. This makes it difficult for me to contact someone I don't know or someone who won't accept me as a friend for whatever reason.

F) Running tournaments from debate.org directly is difficult.
-Currently, there is a tournament system run off of facebook. However, Webcorp should realize that it would be more convenient for its members if that same tournament could be run on their website with their software. The forum section is good, but is not satisfactory to running tournaments on.

OBSERVATION 2: IT IS BECAUSE OF THIS, THAT WEBCORP SHOULD SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE THE WELFARE OF DEBATE.ORG BY PASSING THE FOLLOWING PLAN:

A) Webcorp will require that all votes cast in a debate have a minimum 500 character Reason for Decision (R.F.D). All R.F.D.'s will be available under the ‘votes' category that each debate has. All currently existing debates will be grandfathered in.

B) Webcorp will create an instant messaging system that can be initiated from the "Online Friends" section under people, AND can be made optional for debates. If this function is used for debates, it must be specified before the debate begins and will be published after the appropriate speech. If they don't complete ‘Cross Examination' before the speech time ends, then the cross-examination will simply not occur.

C) Webcorp will open up inboxes and profile comments to all members from all members unless otherwise specified by the member. This way, it can be private, but only if the person makes a deliberate decision.

D) Webcorp will create a group feature. This feature will allow people to make comments, add pictures, add ‘news of the group', allow it to be private, allow it to be secret, allow separate forums, have specific admin's of the group with the power, and make events for groups possible. These Events can be started either from the group or by themselves and they will include the same possibilities of a group but will have an expiration date specified by the creator.

E) I reserve the right to clarification, webcorp intent, and webcorp fiat.

OBSERVATION 3: SOLVENCY

A) Vote bombers will be less apt to vote bomb under 500 character R.F.D. requirements.
-If a vote bomber had to write up reasoning to his/her actions every time he/she vote bombed, then it would get annoying and that person would be more likely to stop their actions. Therefore, fewer vote bombings will happen thus substantially increasing the welfare of debate.org.

B) Vote bombers that simply put 500 random characters would be easier to spot.
-One of the problems with vote bombers is that they can vote and it is hard to tell who did it. However, if they had to write up an R.F.D., then it would be obvious who did it when you have someone who wrote the alphabet 10 times on all of someone's debates. Therefore, if the vote bombers don't go away, they will at least be easier to spot.

C) Instant messaging would be awesome.
-Simple enough.

D) Cross-Examination would add another level of competition for debate.org
-If we could not only argue, but also try to trap our opponents into admitting we are right, it would only make debating all the more sweeter. Not to mention that clarification of the debate could also be nice for several people. It's a lot better to understand your opponent BEFORE you make all of your arguments.

E) Debate.org members could contact anyone that didn't specifically block the member in question.
-This makes it so that I don't feel obligated to add everyone as a friend just so I could message them.

F) Tournaments and similar interest groups could finally have a specific place for them to talk WITH privacy options. This would make tournaments smoother and would also allow LDers to talk with LDers and Dolphin fans to talk with Dolphin fans and so on.

G) By doing this, more members will be happy and thus the member numbers will increase thus making the revenue for the site substantially increased. A win-win situation for everyone involved!

I therefore urge you to pass the Affirmative plan. I look forward to a response from my opponent!
NOK_Domination

Con

I was just going to call you a d-bag, unfortunately there's a profanity filter, so I apologize for accepting this debate. Having said that, get ready for December 27th because it's going down.
Debate Round No. 1
Johnicle

Pro

Well I can't wait for December 27th either but couldn't you have just messaged me? or write on my profile? lol

If anyone wants to actually debate this let me know. Then I'll personally challenge you.
NOK_Domination

Con

I didn't know how and I didn't have time to figure out how (I was reading some Hornet columns). I am winning this debate by the way. 15 days.
Debate Round No. 2
Johnicle

Pro

Your winning? hmm.....

Please flow through all of my dropped arguments which happens to be all of them.

Now I'm winning! Plus, not knowing how is not an excuse of doing it wrong.
NOK_Domination

Con

No it's not, but it does explain why I did it. And seriously who flows online debate rounds? I didn't even read the whole thing 'cause it was way to long. If I wanted to read a novel I'd drive on down to Borders and pick one up. Since normal people don't have time to read your argument in round 1 we can disregard it, which means as of now I am winning this debate due to the length of my arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
Johnicle

Pro

Well at least my novel had something to do with the topic. Even though your arguments are short, doesn't mean that you have even BEGUN to talk about the topic. Not to mention that you aren't even close to Policy Format.

If you have no argument related to the topic or related to my arguments or related to the type of debate, then you ought to have no vote.

=====================================================================

By the way... I'm sorry the Chiefs blew it so bad. It was a good game though.
NOK_Domination

Con

You are correct that this isn't much in the format of policy, but from what I remember, you need four people for a policy debate, so the resolution is flawed from the start since it is not possible to include four people in a debate on this site, nor are there any opportunities for cross-x. The fact that there is no possible way to make this form of debate happen, it must mean that the whole resolution is flawed, making any arguments for it meaningless. So even though I haven't touched on the subject, it makes no difference since you chose the side that automatically loses, kinda like picking the Chiefs to win a football. While you may have the game in hand, you are inevitably bound to lose the game. Unfortunately that's how life works and how you lost this debate. I'd like to thank everybody that participated in this pre-determined debate and voted for me. If you voted for Luke, you are retarded. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by NOK_Domination 8 years ago
NOK_Domination
It's unbelievable that any of you could vote for Johnicle when he's arguing for a flawed resolution. At least one person voted for the right person.
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
AMAZING DEBATE, GUISE.
I give my virtual vote, all 7 points, to Johnicle.
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
How about requiring each new sign up to complete debates before being allowed to vote? It would be difficult to complete three debates without a vote bomber revealing his identity by his style of debate. Cheap to implement too.
Posted by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
Heck, I'd be happy to forego the RFD if voting wasn't anonymous. I think it's the lack of accountability that allows vote bombing to persist. In any case, I'm Pro on this issue so will be watching instead of debating.
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
Interesting topics for discussion. Any improvements involving software changes cost a whole lot of money, so the issue is not just whether it is a good idea or not, it is whether it is practical. I have built a bunch of web sites, and you just wouldn't believe the effort involved for things that seem to be trivial.

My solution to vote bombing is to have a user agreement that specifies that the user agrees to pay a $500 fine or the cost of discovery, which ever is greater, if he is caught vote bombing. Maybe nailing one or two as examples might be required, but I think that would scare off most.

If that doesn't work, requiring a $1 fee on a credit card to sign up would do it. That would make it always possible to track someone down. Maybe the fee would only be required for voting membership. For no fee, a person could debate and comment, but not vote.

I don't think that every debate is worth a 500 word comment. Sometimes it is obvious that one of the debaters was so incoherent as to be a non-contender at every level. The guy who showed up with his brain should get the win, but it doesn't deserve 500 words of explanation. To encourage critiques, maybe every dozen 500 word evaluations could earn a gold star on the debaters profile page, or some such thing.
Posted by Johnicle 8 years ago
Johnicle
lol... I know. but they would all be the same thing (essentially) and I knew where that one was so I just grabbed it and called it good. I know there has been a lot of damage from vote bombers (like josh) and I have been lucky enough to avoid it. Libertarianism has really paid off. (at least, it seems he attacks based on party. Although, I was gone for most of the josh era. when he showed up, i took a break. when he (started) to leave, I arrived back into debate.org)
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
I think more than one person should be cited on Inherency/Harm C, but that's just my opinion.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Why not place this in LD format instead? I'd love to see your Value/Criterion. :D

Oh yeah, and if you're looking for some extra evidence that prove the harms, I've got plenty. ;)
Posted by kara 8 years ago
kara
challenging I don't think ill take this one.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Snakepliston 8 years ago
Snakepliston
JohnicleNOK_DominationTied
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 NOK_Domination 8 years ago
NOK_Domination
JohnicleNOK_DominationTied
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 sgtsledge 8 years ago
sgtsledge
JohnicleNOK_DominationTied
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 InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
JohnicleNOK_DominationTied
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 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 Nesnej 8 years ago
Nesnej
JohnicleNOK_DominationTied
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
JohnicleNOK_DominationTied
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 Johnicle 8 years ago
Johnicle
JohnicleNOK_DominationTied
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