The Instigator
zach12
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
alto2osu
Con (against)
Winning
35 Points

Opponents in a debate should have an option to extend the debating period.

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: 5/26/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,004 times Debate No: 8419
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (10)
Votes (6)

 

zach12

Pro

I am supporting the proposition that, if the two debaters agree, there should be an option to extend the current time to argue. That means that if there is an event that makes both debaters unable to argue such as a holiday, sporting event, etc., the debate doesn't have to end in a forfeit for simple bad luck for being the one who's argument was due when the event occurred.

Benefits:

1. Fewer forfeits, which would enrich the debating experience.
2. An opportunity for a friendlier debate.org community
3. It seems logical :)

Good luck to whomever takes up this short debate.
alto2osu

Con

Thank you to my opponent for making this a 2-rounder. It's nice to have a short debate now and again. :)

While the capacity to mutually extend a debate would seem useful and logical, I find it to be the opposite. Hence, I negate the resolution.

Here are my reasons for doing so:

1. Time is already adequate: as it is, allowing debaters a maximum of 72 hours to complete a single round of argumentation is perfectly effective. If a person cannot budget the time specified by the author of the debate, then that person has the opportunity to refuse to debate the topic as presented, or may start a new debate with modified times to suit his or her fancy.

2. Coersion and in-fighting: since the choice must be mutual, according to the affirmative, new types of problems with arise that are actually worse than the previous "unfriendliness" that my opponent cites:

One debater could easily be pressured into consenting to a time extension that he/she does not actually want. If the time period becomes unfavorable, the unwillingness to adjust one's time periods could cause people to stop debating with this person, which causes unnecessary censorship and tension. With a fixed time limit that cannot be changed, this tension cannot occur.

If the choice isn't mutual, then all sorts of problems besides those outlined above can occur.

3. Skill building: in any other form of competitive debate, or even in the general context of life, deadlines and time limits are a reality. The time limits serve a specific purpose: stagnant debates are essentially worthless. Not only will the website suffer more due to individual schedule fluctuations, but meeting a given deadline, word count, etc. teaches a specific skill to members of the website. It is another piece of the educational infrastructure that we should not seek to erode.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response to the affirmative advocacy:

Argument 1:

*Fewer forfeits would be a blessing, but a cost-benefit analysis shows that, in a world with fewer forfeits vs. a world with more animosity, stagnating debates, and less overall education, the negative world will outweigh.

*Though statistical analysis is nearly impossible, forfeits are not abundant on the website. After perusing all of the debates on the first two pages of the home page, I've yet to find a single forfeit in a debate that was worth reading. The most popular, most educated, best debates on the website, those that are worth reading, are followed through. And, if they aren't, then the opponents simply repost the debate. A fix for this exists in the system, and is just as convenient as a time extension. Don't fix it if it ain't broke...

*Extension of time allows bad debaters to continue to debate badly, as forfeits are a systemic check. Reconsidering my second response to your first contention (above), bad debaters who are cornered tend to forfeit remaining rounds, or debaters who can't time manage properly forfeit rounds. Automatic forfeits encourage these debaters to reassess their skills and schedules, and encourages them to return to the website after having improved themselves. Either that, or it will scare the bad debaters away. Forfeiting is basic quality control.

Argument 2:

*Please cross-apply my 2nd argument. Coming to a mutual decision about time extensions will actually cause more unfriendliness than a forfeit. In fact, if a debater is that cheesed about his opponent forfeiting, he can simply abandon the old debate and post the topic freshly with higher standards, which will inherently improve the overall quality of the debates on the website.

Argument 3:

*Please explain this more so I can respond properly in round 2. By the logic in my round 1 post, it would seem that this argument is negated. Seeming logical and being logical are two different things. :D

Thanks for posting this topic, and I look forward to your response!
Debate Round No. 1
zach12

Pro

Thanks for responding quickly, alto2osu, even though I was unable to do the same.

I apologize beforehand fore the grammatical issues with this post, I'm in a hurry. Gonna take my girlfriend to the movies.

My response to my opponent's 3 points:

1. Time appears adequate when you begin a debate but things can change into the debate, especially if it is a 5 round doozy. My opponent's statement here is all saying "Don't start a debate you can't finish." And this seems fine until you think about it. There are so many things that can happen AFTER you accept the debate that are beyond your control or your ability to predict. Your computer can malfunction; you can go through family problems, swine flu could keep you bed-ridden, but I'm serious, you could get ill.

2. I believe that people on this website are generally intelligent and reasonable enough to consider extending the time limit as the exception, not the norm. Most people get their arguments in significantly before the time limit anyway, so extending it would be a rarity reserved for genuine problems. If one debater thinks the time limit isn't the way to go, then fine. Implementing my idea would be a good thing in some situations, and an ineffectual things in others. All in all, the people on the website will keep it honest, and if they don't, it should be revoked.

3. time limits will remain. See post 2. Extensions of the time limit will be the exception, not the norm.
alto2osu

Con

I appreciate my opponent's responses, and thank him for this debate.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pro's Advocacy:

Pro's initial advocacy goes cold dropped in the round. Please extend all responses made and keep this in mind as you case your vote.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pro's Responses to Con Advocacy:

On My Argument 1:

Certainly you could, but until my opponent warrants that this is happening often enough to change the status quo and that this is causing more squabbling and infighting than the problems outlined in my advocacy, there's no reason for you to vote pro on face.

This directly bites the harms I outlined regarding stagnating debates. If people get ill, etc., the debate will stagnate. This will reduce overall debate quality, as well as turnover, esp. since the opponent who is waiting on said sick person will not be able to debate anyone else in the interim, as you can't commit to more than one debate at a time.

Let's face it, my first priority in a family emergency will not be to get online and ask my opponent on debate.org to extend our debate time limit. I'll probably have more important things to do at that point. So, my opponent is only giving you extreme scenarios in which debaters would rather let the debate forfeit than extend the time, anyway.

Extend the fact that forfeits are not abundant. Hence, none of the pro harms discussed are even huge problems for the website in the first place, making status quo adequate.

On My Argument 2:

So, the defense to this plan is that we can revoke it if it doesn't work? How is that affirming his resolution?

Evidence to the contrary that all debate users will properly respect the mutual time extensions. It's a public website with essentially unrestricted access, and people game this site all the time, whether it's a terrible topic, vote bombing, etc. This can be exploited just like anything else.

Extend my argument about the two debaters disagreeing, which causes infighting, and the harms of possible censorship of minority debaters who don't share majority views on time extensions. These harms are not properly disproven.

On My Argument 3:
The pro cannot possibly speak to how or how often time extensions will be used. If anything, the amount of usage is a wash. However, with any amount of usage, you still get the harms in my 3rd argument. Any stagnation is bad, and if one side provides more stagnation than the other, you should vote against that side.

Extend the benefits of learning the skills associated with a time limit and a forfeit rule, as well as the fact that the forfeit-only rule is a natural check on bad debate.

Because the con advocacy inherently leads to more good debates on this website, I encourage a con vote!

Thanks for the debate. :D
Debate Round No. 2
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by zach12 7 years ago
zach12
ya i meant to say 'for' obviously and why is that so funny? is it unthinkable i could have a girlfriend?
Posted by Kefka 7 years ago
Kefka
I apologize beforehand fore the grammatical issues with this post, I'm in a hurry. Gonna take my girlfriend to the movies.

Nuclear Launch Detected- In terms of awesomely funniness .
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
Awwww :(

My RD 2 posting: "cast" your vote...dang it...
Posted by zach12 7 years ago
zach12
Yai think i will actually try an argument...
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
Although, it'd do your advocacy little good :)
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
I was wondering if you'd do that :D Tee hee hee...
Posted by zach12 7 years ago
zach12
I'm very tempted to wait till the last minute then say "I couldn't make it in time, but maybe if my idea was implemented we could have had a better debate"
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
Is short, so I shall take it :D
Posted by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
I don't think this will be picked up any time soon, but I'll favorite it anyway =D
Posted by Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
That is a sweet idea. I'd debate it but I'm taking a rest from debates for a bit. I need to veg a little. :D
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Josh_b 3 years ago
Josh_b
zach12alto2osuTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: I believe the primary BOP was on pro for his statements. He had a clear issue (the more reliable resource) and a reasonable solution (the more convincing argument).
Vote Placed by LadyHavok13 7 years ago
LadyHavok13
zach12alto2osuTied
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 zach12 7 years ago
zach12
zach12alto2osuTied
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 alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
zach12alto2osuTied
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 fresnoinvasion 7 years ago
fresnoinvasion
zach12alto2osuTied
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 Justinisthecrazy 7 years ago
Justinisthecrazy
zach12alto2osuTied
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