The Instigator
donald.keller
Pro (for)
Winning
17 Points
The Contender
UltimateRussian
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Most of UltimateRussian's votes are bad and should be removed.

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...
donald.keller
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/8/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 644 times Debate No: 45482
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

donald.keller

Pro

Resolution: Most of UltimateRussian's votes are bad and should be removed if he doesn't correct them.

Round 1: Acceptance.
Round 2: Debate.
Round 3: Rebuttals.

Due to some investigating, I've conclude that most of UltimateRussian's votes should be removed unless he fixes them.
UltimateRussian

Con

I will fully defend my votes as I am entitled fully to my beliefs and am allowed to voice them, my votes are based on proper facts. I am ready to defend myself! :)
Debate Round No. 1
donald.keller

Pro

Outline:

I've challenged UltimateRussian to this debate because of his voting record. My intentions is to prove his votes are outside the rules, hoping to give him a chance to fix them. To prove my case, I must show that UltimateRussian is in violation of the rules. In Premise 1 (P1) I will outline the rules of the site. In Argument I (A1) I will display his votes for the voters to see. They will undoubtedly see how the votes do not follow the Rules of Voting.

Premise I: The Rules of Voting.
Definitions:
RFD: Is an abbreviation for Reason For Decision. These are mandatory on most debates. When a user votes and leaves an RFD, it should explain why he voted for a certain member in each voting category.
Votebombing: Is a practice on DDO where a member puts all of his votes towards one member either because he agrees with that member or because he wants that member to win. Never, ever votebomb, and if you feel it is necessary to put all 7 votes towards one member, make sure to leave a Reason For Decision (RFD) that explains your reasoning.

A good, legal vote requires a few things. It must have a proper RFD, Reason For Decision. The RFD must be detailed enough to explain why you voted the way you did. Without the RFD, your vote should be removed. The RFD can be large, or even 'explain' why you voted, and not be acceptable because the reasons are unrelated to any argument actually made or are more of an excuse to wrongly hand out votes.

The second rule is Votebombing. While the definition claims all 7 votes are involved, an experienced debater knows that's not the case. A votebomb can, and commonly so, involve just the amount of votes needed to make the person you agree with win.

1) http://www.debate.org...

Argument I: UltimateRussians Votes.

Looking at each bad vote, and describing it's errors, we'll see that 8 out of his 13 votes are bad. The others, except for one or two, are also bad, but within the rules, so we can't do anything about them. The 8th votes was deleted after the debate was accepted, but will still be discussed as evidence towards Con's voting habits. The ratio is still at 58% of his vote record.


While this looks like it's within the rules, it's not. The RFD doesn't exclain most of the points given. At most, it'd justifies sources.


This vote states that the person made stupid claims, but what of Sources, Conduct, or Spelling? It doesn't explain why the arguments were stupid, either. More insult than explanation.


This explains nothing. It's stating something about what would happen if the debate had continued, without explaining his votes. At most it might explain Arguments, but not Sources and Conduct. Despite, at most, explaining Arguments, he didn't even give anyone the argument points. It's not an appropriate RFD.


This is not an RFD.


The debate was about animal cruelty. Of course pets were involved. This is an excuse, and nothing more. It doesn't explain conduct, and especially not sources.


This is a Votebomb. Con voted because, REGARDLESS of the argument, Snowden was a criminal and the Government must so and so, therefore the person lost. Con didn't defend the decision other than by saying the equivalent of "He is wrong... That's that, period!"


Same with this vote. He doesn't explain anything, just hands out EVERY point. His only statement is that the guy was wrong though. This is both a Votebomb and lacking an RFD.


While I can't show the last vote, as it was already deleted, I can show evidence of it being there. The vote in an example of Con's voting style and how his votes should be changed or deleted.

As everyone can see, most of his votes are bad, and do not match the rules for voting.

2) http://www.debate.org...
3) http://www.debate.org...
4) http://www.debate.org...
5) http://www.debate.org...
6) http://www.debate.org...
7) http://www.debate.org...
8) http://www.debate.org...
9) http://www.debate.org...

Conclusion: As his votes do not follow the rules, he should either fix them, or have them deleted.
UltimateRussian

Con

I'm sorry you feel that way but those votes contained my honest opinion and having to state the obvious like for S&G bla bla bla had better grammar so he wins. If those are my opinions I can submit the. Stop criticizing my opinions.
Debate Round No. 2
donald.keller

Pro

Rebuttal I: Opinions

There are rules to be followed. The RFD can't just convey Con's opinion, it must explain Con's vote. The Reason For Decision isn't about Con's opinion, like in this RFD, "Obvious tho hes wrong." Or this "It was close!" Niether or those explain your vote.

We already know the RFD's are bad because the last one was removed by the Admin. It was a perfect example.

Conclusion: The resolution holds. Con's only argument was that they were his opinion.
UltimateRussian

Con

Its only my third day on the site, and because i still explained my point in some way just not the best i should not be penalized, everybody makes mistakes and I am still learning the complex points of voting and explanations according to how some of you guys like it.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by codemeister13 3 years ago
codemeister13
donald.kellerUltimateRussianTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro conducted themselves in a more proper manner whilst Con resulted to a sort of snide tone in rebuttals. On top of this, Con didn't really make any sort of rebuttal that was really backed by anything. All Con seemed to do was state that they were his opinions. While I respect that, just saying that doesn't hold up as a perfect argument. Pro was also kind enough to list the source material for each and every claim he had against Con whereas Con had no argument and thus, no sources.
Vote Placed by Defro 3 years ago
Defro
donald.kellerUltimateRussianTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro showed how some of Con's votes did not have a proper RFD and Con did not explain his RFDs as a rebuttal.
Vote Placed by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
donald.kellerUltimateRussianTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro laid out a guideline to show that cons rfs were not valid. You are entitled to your opinion con but per site rules, you have to provide a valid RFD. Pro was able to show you have not being this so the resolution is affirmed through multiple sources.