The Instigator
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
royalpaladin
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

Only the conduct point should be given for a forfiet on DDO

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 5 votes the winner is...
royalpaladin
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/21/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 982 times Debate No: 22202
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (5)

 

The_Fool_on_the_hill

Pro

As written plain and simple. Argue away.
royalpaladin

Con

I accept and negate. I am going to assume that the first round was for acceptance only and that my opponent wants to present the first argument.
Debate Round No. 1
The_Fool_on_the_hill

Pro


Justice


1. The main issue is that sometimes one person may have better argument in fewer rounds then somebody else has in all their rounds.


2. Secondly, we don’t want to be awarding people who don’t deserve it. Many people work hard to move up the ladder. This is not fair to other DDO members. Should others be ranked with the hard workers just because of forfeits?


3. It’s also possible that people may use another account and forfeit against themselves to move up. Again not fair to others.


4. There are legitimate internet errors and mistakes which people can’t account for. Sometimes it may not send when somebody thought it did. Some people work really hard and spent a lot of time. Only to have absolutely no chance because unpredictable happening, this will at least give them a small chance if they were in the lead.


5. It is very often that very good legitimate reasons do come up. Many people are in school, or taking care of others. And they just can’t make a round.


5. Keep in mind that their opponents will still have a whole round and conduct points from all the voters.


6. So over all there is only something to gain and nothing to lose, it will only really affect debates where the person with fewer rounds was obviously winning by a landslide all ready.


7. These small different will improve the overall systems representing better accuracy in DDO’s ladder.


I leave it to you most Honourable Royalpaladin


royalpaladin

Con

1. The main issue is that sometimes one person may have better argument in fewer rounds then somebody else has in all their rounds.
The problem with this analysis is that all forms of formal debate have a formal set of rules that exist in order to mitigate abuse. One of these rules is that dropped arguments count as concessions. You may have had a stronger argument in the fewer rounds that you participated in, but you have to defend your arguments in order for that to actually matter. If you forfeit, you are doing the equivalent of conceding that what your opponent is saying is true because you are failing to respond to your opponent's arguments and/or their responses to your arguments. Insofar as this is true, forfeits are actually concessions, so there is nothing wrong with giving more than just conduct points.


Why do they count as concessions? It is unfair for an individual to be able to ignore his opponent's points and win the debate. Plus, logically, since debate is about refuting your opponent's arguments, if you drop their points, you are not challenging them because you (presumably) agree with them.
2. Secondly, we don’t want to be awarding people who don’t deserve it. Many people work hard to move up the ladder. This is not fair to other DDO members. Should others be ranked with the hard workers just because of forfeits?
If you drop arguments through forfeits, you are not putting in the effort to move up the ladder. In fact, you are hoping to reap the rewards without putting in the effort to actually fulfill the commitment that you made with your opponent to have an intellectual discussion in a certain period of time. By participating in the discussion even after you continue to drop his analysis, the opponent is putting in extra work while you are not. Ultimately, this system is rewarding hard work and discouraging laziness.
3. It’s also possible that people may use another account and forfeit against themselves to move up. Again not fair to others.
First, even if we just gave them conduct points, they would win anyways in such cases. This means that the problem is nonunique and would exist in my opponent's ideal DDO as well.

Second, this is a problem that is outside the scope of forfeiting. The solution is to ban multiaccounters who do this and is not to change the system that was designed to check another abuse (dropping arguments that one does not know how to refute).
4. There are legitimate internet errors and mistakes which people can’t account for. Sometimes it may not send when somebody thought it did. Some people work really hard and spent a lot of time. Only to have absolutely no chance because unpredictable happening, this will at least give them a small chance if they were in the lead.
I see no reason that the opponent should be faulted for something that went wrong with your life when you forfeited. Whether or not you chose to forfeit the debate or your internet connection was bad, the overall result is the same. You dropped your opponent's analysis and thus conceded to their arguments. In the real world, if you continuously arrive late to work, you will be fired regardless of the reason. If you turn in essays late in college, regardless of the myriad of chance factors that occur in life, you will be faulted. I see no reason why this should be any different. It is not fair to give people extra time to respond to their opponent's arguments. Chance problems may occur, but time limits exist in order to promote fair intellectual discussion.
5. It is very often that very good legitimate reasons do come up. Many people are in school, or taking care of others. And they just can’t make a round.

Cross apply the arguments against point 4. Plus, if you cannot make the time commitment, your opponent should not be faulted. That is your responsibility and not your opponent's.
5. Keep in mind that their opponents will still have a whole round and conduct points from all the voters.
Conduct points are one point each. If you forfeit the whole debate besides the first round, your opponent deserves more for their work. Conceded arguments should be factored into the "arguments" section of voting.
6. So over all there is only something to gain and nothing to lose, it will only really affect debates where the person with fewer rounds was obviously winning by a landslide all ready.
What is lost is the expectation that debaters will actually fulfill their obligations to present arguments within proper time constraints. This system that my opponent is advocating introduces abuse that allows people to have extra time to create refutations to their opponent's arguments.
7. These small different will improve the overall systems representing better accuracy in DDO’s ladder.
Cross apply the arguments above.

Debate Round No. 2
The_Fool_on_the_hill

Pro

Intro to the actual argument

What is important to note about this debate is that it is over where or not a forfeit, that is ‘a’ forfeit (not many forfeits but 1 round) should only be a loss of conduct point instead of losing the whole debate all together. What I mean by should is whether or not this would be better system to adopt.

To simply say that we shouldn’t because of past rules is to commit the fallacy of appealing to tradition.

And in the classic fashion of Pro’s and Con’s the debate should really be non-other than focusing on the Pros and Cons of adopting such a rule.

The rule being: that a forfeit, 1 forfeit should only count as a loss in a conduct point for lateness.

My suggestion is such:

A Forfeit should count as only a loss of conduct, rather than an automatic loss.

And these are my reasons. Mind you it’s a inductive argument not logical, where the premises are based on accumulation of beliefs.

P1. Sometimes one person may have better argument in less rounds then somebody else has in all their rounds.

-If we adopt this rule people who only miss a round can still have a chance of winning. That is, 1 sound or great argument is better them an infinite sh!tty argument.

P2. Some arguments are fatal. If it’s a logical argument and uncertainty is exposed the argument is over anyways.

P2. Secondly, we don’t want to be awarding people who don’t deserve it. Many people work hard to move up the ladder. Don’t forget the difference working long is not the same as working hard.

P3.I did also forget to mention the criteria of merit. Some people are more skill and equipped with better techniques. The ladder would also better take into account this as well.

Simply doing a lot of work doesn’t necessary improve someone’s ab

P4. Sh!t happens! And sometime there is nothing we can do about it. That is there are legitimate internet errors and mistakes which people can’t account for. People should still be given a possibility of catching up.It is very often that very good legitimate reasons do come up. Many people are in school, or taking care of others. Someone may be sick , or someone may die.

Why so Vs Why not

P1 Keep in mind that their opponents will still have a whole round and conduct points from all the voters. That is a lot of advantage to the opposition already.

P2. So over all there is only something to gain and nothing to lose, it will only really affect debates where the person with fewer rounds was obviously winning by a landslide all ready.

Intention Vs accidental

All of my opponent’s examples are worded in a way that presupposes intentional forfeits, where I have been only referring to accidental.

Ipse dixit aka bold assertion fallacy F = fallacy.

F1.if you drop their points, you are not challenging them because you (presumably) agree with them. ;)

F2. If you drop arguments through forfeits, you are not putting in the effort to move up the ladder. ;)

F3. In fact, you are hoping to reap the rewards without putting in the effort. ;)

F4. . By participating in the discussion even after you continue to drop his analysis, the opponent is putting in extra work. ;)

F5. If you forfeit the whole debate besides the first round, your opponent deserves more for their work. ;)

F6. What is lost is the expectation that debaters will actually fulfill their obligations to present arguments within proper time constraints. ;)

F7. Whether or not you chose to forfeit the debate or your internet connection was bad, the overall result is the same.

F8 this system that my opponent is advocating introduces abuse

What is lost is the expectation that debaters will actually fulfill their obligations to present arguments within proper time constraints.

This system that my opponent is advocating introduces abuse that allows people to have extra time to create refutations to their opponent's arguments.

-Ultimately, this system is rewarding hard work and discouraging laziness.

-. By participating in the discussion even after you continue to drop his analysis, the opponent is putting in extra work while you are not.

-It is unfair for an individual to be able to ignore his opponent's points and win the debate.

-Plus, logically, since debate is about refuting your opponent's arguments, if you drop their points, you are not challenging them because you (presumably) agree with them.

Votefool

royalpaladin

Con

Framework

My opponent contends that we are discussing "a" forfeit (of a round) and not multiple forfeits in the same debate. She did not make this clear in Round 1, so I rightfully assumed that she was discussing "a forfeit" of an entire debate. She is introducing new rules in the final round, and this is unfair to me because she is doing so in order to make my entire case irrelevant. My opponent is essentially becoming a moving target. Please do not accept this; it is a violation of standard debate proceedings.

Past Rules

She classifies this as any appeal to tradition fallacy. However, this is a strawman of my argument. I never said that we should do this beause we have always done it; I said that we should do it because these are standard debate rules that permit us to disincentive concessions. Extend the anlaysis that notes that forfeits, or drops, are the equivalent to failing to respond to arguments. It is unfair to win debates by ignoring the arguments of the opposition.


P1: Better arguments in fewer rounds

The point is that they are failing to respond to opponent's arguments. Debates are distinct from regular discussions precisely because they have time constraints. If an individual does not have the time to not concede his opponent
s arguments, then he should lose the round. Her response is that her procedures would allow forfeiters to have a better chance to win. This is precisely why the current system is good. It punishes tardiness and disincentivizes concessions and thus promotes good debates. If forfeiters could win more easily, then fewer people would make a good effort to submit arguments in a timely fashion.


P2: Some arguments are fatal. This is a nonissue. The system is designed to promote good debates and not good discussions. Debates have time limits in order to motivate people to respond properly. If you do not respond to your opponent's analysis, no matter how good your analysis is, you ought not win the round because you are not making an effort to seriously win the debate.

She claims that we do not want to necessarily reward "long" work. The problem with this analysis is that this is actually hard work and not "long" work. The opponent is making an honest effort to respond to the analysis of the forfeiter, but the forfeiter is not making an effort to respond to the rebuttals. This should be rewarded in order to disincentivize laziness. This takes care of Premise 3 as well.

P4: Internet errors. Yes, things happen, but the opponent should not be faulted for it. This is a debate, not a discussion. If you do not submit your schoolwork or vocation work on time, you face retributive action. It should be the same for debates.

Conduct points are one point each. My opponent knows well enough that they are functionally meaningless; she even says this when she says that forfeiters should be able to have a better chance of winning.


Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 4 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
5. It is very often that very good legitimate reasons do come up. Many people are in school, or taking care of others. And they just can't make a round.

5. Keep in mind that their opponents will still have a whole round and conduct points from all the voters.

Think it is made pretty clear in these sentences. And no its just morality. I said specifically that the ladder would be a better reprentation of the skill leve.
Posted by KRFournier 4 years ago
KRFournier
It was never mentioned that a single forfeit also causes your debate to never appear on the front page of the website. So, if I invest several hours into researching and writing my case, only to have a single forfeit cause it to disappear into DDO limbo, then my hard work just went down the toilet. To still lose on top of that because people thought my 3 full rounds weren't as convincing as my opponent's 2 rounds just adds insult to injury. If that were common practice, I would reconsider debating here as it would feel like the costs outweigh the benefits. Conversely, if I have to forfeit a round, I accept my loss graciously and even go so far as to post my forfeit in the debate so that it will still get visibility for my opponent.
Posted by Mestari 4 years ago
Mestari
I would accept this if I were not already debating you.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
The_Fool_on_the_hillroyalpaladinTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pros arguments relied on hypothetical situations that do not apply to most of the debates on DDO. Also pro proved there was no reason/moral reason to force the voters to vote only conduct. Con wins.
Vote Placed by lannan13 4 years ago
lannan13
The_Fool_on_the_hillroyalpaladinTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguements are heavily what ifs. Con easily swept him away.
Vote Placed by Koopin 4 years ago
Koopin
The_Fool_on_the_hillroyalpaladinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Royal convinced me.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 4 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
The_Fool_on_the_hillroyalpaladinTied
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: Pro's arguments relied on the various possibilities of why a debater may forfeit a round through no fault of theirs. Con convincingly showed that regardless of external factors, when a debater agrees to debate a topic, it is their responsibility to complete it.
Vote Placed by KRFournier 4 years ago
KRFournier
The_Fool_on_the_hillroyalpaladinTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's resolution places a moral obligation--not on DDO--but on the voters. Therefore, Pro needed to convince me that voters have a moral duty to only use the conduct vote when forfeits occur. Nothing convinced me of this, and so my vote goes to Con. Also, conduct to Con since Pro did not clarify his position until round 3.