The Instigator
Kleptin
Pro (for)
Losing
47 Points
The Contender
Logical-Master
Con (against)
Winning
48 Points

Number of votes in debates should be visible only to the debaters.

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  
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: 2/8/2008 Category: Education
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,072 times Debate No: 2489
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (29)
Votes (24)

 

Kleptin

Pro

When we click on something in the voting period, we automatically see the votes that people have gotten.

People have a tendency to be biased when they see that one person has more votes than another, and would psychologically view that argument as being superior.

If we remove that, then they no longer have an "objective" method of distinguishing the better debater, since they no longer have those numbers visible to them.

In that case, it would push them to read the debate and make the decision for themselves, in a neutral position.

Another point I would like to make is that there is absolutely no reason for a voter to see how many votes each side has in the first place. Since it doesn't serve a purpose, and may hinder the neutrality of their decision, why not just do away with it and make the votes visible only to the people debating?
Logical-Master

Con

Greetings. First, I'd like to thank my opponent for extending this challenge to all debaters. Second, I'd like for the voters to vote on who provided the better arguments rather than what boils down to your own personal opinion. With that said, let us proceed.

My opponent first states that people have the tendency to be biased when they see that one person has more votes than another, but this is conjecture at best. The burden of proof belongs to my opponent, so I would advise that he provide evidence that suggest his claim to be true.

Second, even by my opponent's speculation, upholding his solution would be utterly meaningless. If voters believe that people with more votes are better debaters, then it doesn't matter whether or not the voters can see the actual amount of votes as they will still be aware of who is winning and who is not.

Third, there is nothing within my opponent's plan that is definitely motivating the voters to read the debates. Not being able to vote is no biggy as they can still vote on other irrelevant factors such as which side they personally agree with, which side presented the most text, what people are saying in the comment section, which user they like more, etc.

My opponent then states that there is absolutely no reason for voters to see how many votes each side is receiving, but I tell you that having the ability to see how many votes each side is receiving is VERY CRUCIAL when it comes to the outcome of these debates.

Voters not being able to witness how many votes both debaters are receiving increases the likelihood of debaters getting away with underhanded voting that involves use of multiple accounts. If voters can't establish that one side is winning by a peculiar amount of votes, they likely won't submit any reports to the website's administration (who can investigate and penalize when necessary). Only the debaters will have knowledge of possible underhanded behavior and there is no guaranteed exceptional likelihood of one user doing anything about the problem.

Debaters can easily lie about the number of votes they are receiving. For instance, if a debater tells the voters that he/she is losing by an unfair amount, this in turn may cause users to vote for said debater out of pity. Heck, it may even cause these users to start wasting the website administration's time by submitting meaningless abuse reports due to a lies crafted by dishonest debaters.

I now stand ready for my opponent's rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 1
Kleptin

Pro

"Greetings. First, I'd like to thank my opponent for extending this challenge to all debaters. Second, I'd like for the voters to vote on who provided the better arguments rather than what boils down to your own personal opinion. With that said, let us proceed."

You're welcome.

"My opponent first states that people have the tendency to be biased when they see that one person has more votes than another, but this is conjecture at best. The burden of proof belongs to my opponent, so I would advise that he provide evidence that suggest his claim to be true."

I concede that point. It is most definitely my own personal belief and I have little to no statistical proof that people are biased by vote count. However, I find my hypothesis rational if not probable. If my opponent agrees that the possibility exists, then I will continue defending my point by saying that in the interests of debate and the integrity of this site, that this mild change be implemented. If however, my opponent believes that there is no possibility that the vote count may bias another voter, then I request an explanation.

"Second, even by my opponent's speculation, upholding his solution would be utterly meaningless. If voters believe that people with more votes are better debaters, then it doesn't matter whether or not the voters can see the actual amount of votes as they will still be aware of who is winning and who is not."

This assumes that the winner will be visible and that the voters express their bias consciously. Setting aside the voters who vote for the winning side for reasons other than supporting the better argument, there are many who do intend to evaluate the quality of the posts. However, the number of votes a person has, clearly and distinctly placed right by the profile pictures, offer a sort of quantitative analysis of the debate. I believe that unconsciously, potential voters may be passing judgment with that prior bias.

"Third, there is nothing within my opponent's plan that is definitely motivating the voters to read the debates. Not being able to vote is no biggy as they can still vote on other irrelevant factors such as which side they personally agree with, which side presented the most text, what people are saying in the comment section, which user they like more, etc."

I also propose that each vote come with a mandatory comment, an explanation for the vote. This will, at the very least, require them to read the arguments with some detail. My focus is on eliminating outside influence within the forum. The sources of bias in a voter's day-to-day life are outside my control, but can hopefully be remedied by forcing the voter to reflect on his or her decision.

"My opponent then states that there is absolutely no reason for voters to see how many votes each side is receiving, but I tell you that having the ability to see how many votes each side is receiving is VERY CRUCIAL when it comes to the outcome of these debates.

Voters not being able to witness how many votes both debaters are receiving increases the likelihood of debaters getting away with underhanded voting that involves use of multiple accounts. If voters can't establish that one side is winning by a peculiar amount of votes, they likely won't submit any reports to the website's administration (who can investigate and penalize when necessary). Only the debaters will have knowledge of possible underhanded behavior and there is no guaranteed exceptional likelihood of one user doing anything about the problem."

I do understand that argument.

First, I find it highly unlikely that a band of supporters will form in order to report suspicious behavior.

Second, having a band of supporters does not inherently make it more likely for action to be taken. Whether one person, two people, or two hundred people see a suspicious voting discrepancy does not change the fact that one exists. One person reporting it to the admin is good enough.

Third, the mandated explanations I proposed will help fend off the multi-accounts. In that case, there would be much less to worry about.

"Debaters can easily lie about the number of votes they are receiving. For instance, if a debater tells the voters that he/she is losing by an unfair amount, this in turn may cause users to vote for said debater out of pity. Heck, it may even cause these users to start wasting the website administration's time by submitting meaningless abuse reports due to a lies crafted by dishonest debaters."

I thought it went without saying that the votes are to be visible to administration. In that case, I'll say it now. I view the administration as outside the debating realm, so it would be fine for them to view the number of votes. In that case, this problem could be easily fixed. Liars will be caught.
Logical-Master

Con

First, my opponent concedes to not being able to provide evidence for his speculation concerning the mindset of the voters. Ladies and gentleman, this is crucial and is enough for you to tip your vote in my favor. In order to support his plan, there must be a clear and observable reason; in this case, his plan needs evidence before consideration. However, I will pacify my opponent in attempt to remove any shred of doubt from your minds.

I agree that the possibility exist, but are laws enacted based on "ifs" and "maybes?" Of course not. Laws are enacted to reduce problems which are observable. If a government isn't (and in relation to my opponent's case, BY ANY MEANS) even certain that a problem exist, it has got no reason to create means that will reduce or extract the problem (as wasting the societies time and money is to be avoided at all cost). In this case, my opponent is suggesting that debate.org utilize its time and resources based on his hunch.

The resolution makes no mention of the winners being invisible. Because of that (and because of no clarification in round 1), I am justified to make such a conclusion. As for assuming that voters express their bias consciously, I do no such thing. As I've said earlier, I will not claim that my opponent's theory is impossible, but at the same time, I will not support it if my opponent has no evidence in favor of it.

My opponent then makes the proposition that each vote come with a mandatory comment, but he is too late in doing this as this should have been covered when defining the topic in round 1. Thus, I am obligated to dismiss this edit. Besides, through editing his plan, he is only acknowledging weakness in his original plan.

However, I will pacify my opponent by pointing out the flaw in his reasoning here. A mandatory comment system (the kind my opponent list) would not coerce voters to explain why they voted as it only coerces voters to post. Voters can get around having to read the debate by talking about pointless minutia in their comments. Furthermore (and even assuming the system did coerce voters to post their actual reason), this system compromises my opponent's ENTIRE case. If all voters are required to explain why they voted, figuring out how many votes each participant (in the debate) received will be rather simple. Thus, my opponent's plan would defeat its very purpose.

My opponent states that he finds it highly unlikely that a band of supporters will form to report suspicious behavior, but I tell you that this is very much likely. The debate.org administrators actually rely on there being a band of reporters who report suspicious behavior, hence the reason they've installed the "report abuse" option.

Second, having a band of supporters DOES inherently make it more likely for action to be taken. As one may (or may not) have noticed, there are no forum moderators. This is due to the fact that the staff doesn't have the time to moderate. In all honesty, Debate.org's highest priority is its users. This is why they are putting so much effort into creating a 3rd version of this website. With the 1000s of users here, there being a high rate of pseudo reports is more than likely and investigating every single one of these reports would be very tedious and time consuming. The easiest solution to this is having a weighted voting system. In this system, the administrators respond to reports made by a certain amount of users. This system is actually used on most online forums of this size and helps in combating an absurd work load. So basically, if enough of debate.org's users think there is a problem, debate.org is going to do everything within its power to fix that problem.

Third, the mandated explanations are not a working solution (as I've explained) and may even encourage users to spam at a higher rate than they do now.

As for the last point, my point was that it being invisible to the users could bring about a plethora of unnecessary abuse reports. By no means was I suggesting that the administrators would not be able to see the votes being made.

Closing Statements: The main reason you should vote for my case is due to the fact that my opponent's plan does not have enough evidence to even support the notion that the problem it prevents actually exist. However, as I've insinuated, there are numerous other problems with this plan such as how it can encourage spam, dishonesty, as well as how it can slow down necessary site updates due to the number of investigations the administrators would be obligated to check up on. Oh, and lets not forget how mandatory comments would compromise the plan altogether. In short, it's more trouble than it is worth. Thus, I strongly urge you vote against my opponent's case.

I had fun and thank my opponent for the debate. I also thank all those who took the time out of their day to read. Peace out!
Debate Round No. 2
29 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by sweatycreases 6 years ago
sweatycreases
LOL!!! HEY LOGICAL MASTER / KLEPTIN: I TOOK YOU UP ON YOUR ADVICE AND REPORTED YOU TO THE ADMINISTRATORS AND THIS WAS MY REPLY:

Hi Sweaty,

After doing some investigation I was unable to confirm your hypothesis.
I
will continue to look into the matter. Having multiple accounts on
Debate.org is against the terms of service and warrants account
closure.

Regards,

Webmaster

IT'S BEEN FUN. SPANKS FOR PLAYING!
Posted by Kleptin 6 years ago
Kleptin
Wait a minute. Now I feel pretty stupid. I had to run off to another topic to find Logical Master and try to figure out why his win % and my win % went down at the same time.

I apparently could have just spoke to a mirror!
Posted by Kleptin 6 years ago
Kleptin
Yeah that's right. I'm Logical Master. You got me. Put the shackles on and haul me away XD

I guess I was responsible for this misunderstanding. I saw the "Everything is GRAY" statement on LM's profile and decided it fit me perfectly. That's why I started debating both sides of all these issues like evolution, death penalty, homosexuality XD

I'm even arguing for the infallibility of the Bible!
Posted by sweatycreases 6 years ago
sweatycreases
SORRY PAL, IM NOT EYELEAPY. UPON READING THE COMMENTS ON ANOTHER DEBATE I JUST SO HAPPENED TO NOTICE THAT ON THE BELIEFS PORTION OF KLEPTINS PROFILE IT SAYS "SEE LOGICAL MASTER". ITS PRETTY OBVIOUS THAT BOTH ACCOUNTS ARE THE SAME PERSON'S WHICH IS PRETTY LAME BECAUSE YOU DEBATE YOURSELF, OFFER COMMENTS FROM BOTH ACCOUNTS ON THE SAME DEBATES, AND VOTE MORE THAN ONCE FOR EVERY DEBATE EITHER ACCOUNT HAS. WHO KNOWS WHAT YOUR WIN RATIO WOULD BE IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE MULTIPLE ACCOUNTS. NOW THAT YOU MENTION IT, REPORTING YOU TO THE ADMINISTRATORS IS A GREAT IDEA.
Posted by Logical-Master 6 years ago
Logical-Master
Are these new accounts of yours, leapy? You didn't even introduce me to them. =D

As for that rubbish about me being kleptin, feel free to report me to the administrators if you really believe that to be the case. However, I'd advise that you do it without making the fact that you have multiple accounts too obvious. ;)

I see this is the only debate which you haven't voted against me in and I now see the reason. :(
Posted by atwinraven 6 years ago
atwinraven
Well then in that case, I don't know who to vote for.
Posted by sweatycreases 6 years ago
sweatycreases
RAOTFLMAO!!! Kleptin and Logical-Master are the same person.
Posted by eyeleapy 6 years ago
eyeleapy
Battle field? Dont worry, you rock, and Master debater does not>
Posted by Kleptin 6 years ago
Kleptin
What the hell is going on here?

I didn't do very well in this debate. Why do I have 8 votes?

If you have personal issues, don't make this your battlefield eyeleapy.
Posted by eyeleapy 6 years ago
eyeleapy
wow, you must smoke serious conj, we have an imagination, but at least we live, love, and feel. you on the other hand is a machine, a robot, you can't feel what people feel, or touch as people touch. LOL :O jajajajaja
24 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 months ago
9spaceking
KleptinLogical-MasterTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: con pointed out a lot of flaws in kleptin's plans
Vote Placed by Kleptin 5 years ago
Kleptin
KleptinLogical-MasterTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by patsox834 5 years ago
patsox834
KleptinLogical-MasterTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by JBlake 5 years ago
JBlake
KleptinLogical-MasterTied
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 Checkmark-1 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 Tatarize 5 years ago
Tatarize
KleptinLogical-MasterTied
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 5 years ago
Logical-Master
KleptinLogical-MasterTied
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 kevsext 5 years ago
kevsext
KleptinLogical-MasterTied
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 Robert_Santurri 5 years ago
Robert_Santurri
KleptinLogical-MasterTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Pluto2493 6 years ago
Pluto2493
KleptinLogical-MasterTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Jamcke 6 years ago
Jamcke
KleptinLogical-MasterTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30