(Pro)New Voting System Vs (Con)The Previous One
Debate Rounds (4)
Shared BOP to show which is better
(4) Closing statements, no new rebuttals and points shall be made other than clarification.
(4)Closing statements, no new rebuttals and points shall be made other than clarification.
(1) 6k character limits.
(2) No trolling/ this will result in a ff
I shall debate that the system of 7 points being split between 4 categories is better than making available the option for a winner-takes-all methodology of judgement.
Hopping into this straight away. Shared BOP and my BOP is to show how the new system is better than the old
C1) Mitigation of vote bombs/fluff votes
A vote bomb is not always a 7 point vote in favor of the contender but can be disguised as a fluff vote as well. It is a vote in which the intent is to award points in favor of (x) person hoping they will win. Let's review the following example
Vote x for person A
3 points for arguments
1 point for spelling
1 point for conduct
Now while this vote seem legitimate there is a big issue with this. If any given person desired they could in fact add additional points to S&G, conduct, or even sources to provide person A with more points. Even arguments is entirely subjective and dependent on the person reading it but having extra categories allows a voter to beef up their vote if they want person A to win.
Now take for example if their was a vote cast for person B
Vote y for Person B
3 points for arguments
Now the person who cast this vote states that everything else was equal and too close to call. Upon further examination you could also note that a good many other random voters state the same thing. There is no need to vote down S&G or sources because they are equal. Chances are both Persons did a good job on both categories.
But if any given person supports either person A or person B, they could justify and add points to categories that other voters normally would not. There are a great deal of users such as Thett3, bluesteel, Ore, and even myself that would normally not award sources or S&G unless it was entirely obvious and blatantly noticeable that either person A or Person B did better in that category.
While other voters may not share the same sentiment they could cast an additional 1 point or 2 points in response to a subjective opinion on who had better sources or grammar. This is not always done unfairly but either way it devalues some of the votes and makes other votes weigh more, and this tech is often used in vote bombing. Person A could ask a friend to vote for him and cast additional points in a specific category to give him a better chance at winning.
Under a straight 7 point system this stops that behavior entirely
It awards a specific amount (in this case 7) to the person that ultimately won the debate. Nothing changes in regards to why the person won. Both spelling, conduct, and even sources can be factored in when considering who wins, and can be put in the RFD. You can assign the categories winners as you lay out your vote, and ultimately pick a winner. This does not devalue the content of the debate, but makes sure that every vote is fair and balanced, and prohibits and stops the ability to cast fluff votes. This also stops one vote from weighing more than the other
This could be any random number from 1 to 1 billion. As long as person A and Person B receive the same number of points from winning there is no way to increase the chances of one person winning by adding extra points to a vote and making it weigh more.
C2) Evens out the weight of votes
This was breifly touched upon in the contention above
Under the old system 2 votes could look like this
Vote A = 4 points total in favor of con
Vote B = 3 points total in favor of pro
While both are picking a winner, the subjective nature of grammar and conduct allowed person A to receive an additional advantage based off Vote A having more weight to it.
The new system allows an option and choice to prevent that from occurring. On the new system it would look like this
Vote A = 7 points
Vote B = 7 points
This way 2 people voted, one in favor of con and the other in favor of Pro. Therefore the debate is now a tie due to the vote weighing the same amount.
C3) The new system allows the old one to be incorporated into it.
This is the big point in favor of the new system. It allows a dual choice
For the few people that liked the old voting style, the new system keeps it around. Where as the old system strictly limits use of the 7 point system only.
The new system is better than the old.
I am a very disorganized individual so I struggle to compartmentalize contentions independently of one another. What you are going to find is that all the contentions link to one another in a very chaotic ecosystem, so to speak.
Here are my contentions:
I shall put the (c)oncise (c)ontention as CC then the (e)xtensive (c)ontentions as EC. The number of the CC corresponds to that of the EC.
C1: The failure to merge is mathematically foolish.
C2: Under the new system, the default voting system is the original/older one.
C3: The 4-3 win over someone who has more convincing arguments is not likely to be a valid RFD under the newer system.
C4: The winner-takes-all system discourages people to bother being polite or grammatically coherent.
C5: The use of sources is essential to debates and should be encouraged in and of itself.
C6: The new system is detrimental to RFD writing of newer users.
C7: The new system essentially requires exposure the older system in order to cope with voting in the newer one.
Please observe the following list:
(1) Winner-Takes-All(WTA) > 7-Point(7P).
(2) WTA = 7P
(3) WTA < 7P
(4) (WTA + 7P) > 7P
Whether 1, 2 or 3 are true, 4 is definitely true if one of those 3 are true. So, whether the WTA system is superior to the 7P is not important if one understands that the system of having them both together is definitely correct.
The problem is that the new system is not actually equation 4. Equation 4 would be having no option of what voting system was in place and giving all the power to the voter to choose which of the two they wish to use as their style of voting. Intead of equation 4, the new system is forcing you to pick between variables WTA and 7P without informing you of whether 1, 2 or 3 is true. It is leaving it up to you to make the decision.
Contention 2 will now expand on this dilemma to justify why the new system insinuated 3 to be true as opposed to 1 and 2 and thus would lead one to wonder why there isn't either a system of giving voters the option to vote WTA or 7P as opposed to forcing the debate initiator to dictate tot he voters which of the two they must use.
Based on EC1, you would think that if equation 4 was not in place and someone is not allowed to let voters use both systems then they'd at least have the default on a 'select voting system' option as opposed to automatically placing it on the older system. Instead, the 7P (older) system is the one that is the default option. This is why relationship 3 [WTA < 7P] far more likely to be true than 1 or 2. Thus, this begins leaning one to realize that, even under the new system, the older system is revered as superior to the WTA option that is its inferior rival at present.
What I am saying is this: Under the 7P system, if someone had more convincing arguments than their opponent but had used more reliable sources for their information, had better spelling and grammar and had better conduct they'd have won 4-3 over their opponent. Instead, the new system would allow an individual to be as rude and incoherent as they like, even lie about statistics and still win the debate if they happened to be convincing enough due to a logical fallacy on their opponent's part. This is where EC4 comes in.
EC3 will lead to almost all lazy instigators (who already have an elo advantage) to pick WTA system as a safety net for sloppiness on their part. In the same way that slurring your speech would lose you a debate in real life, spelling wrong and being grammatically incorrect should at least contribute to a higher chance of you losing in a text-based debate. This is not at all made apparent to the voter who will probably think 'bless him, he's foreign' or 'that dud ei angry but smart' and in their RFD they probably won't even feel the need to address the rudeness or grammatical error as they'll feel racist or stupid to bother doing so. This will mean that being rude and sloppy in typing is not at all penalized as long as your arguments are good enough. Imagine how that will look to prospective DDOers yet-to-be who look at the website and think 'Whoa... That's a headache to read but people like him win... I think I should just watch some porn and forget I ever saw this website." and that is the doom that the WTA system will lead DDO to for its lack of penalization for bad conduct and grammar.
Sources legitimate data and statistics. If any statistic or 'fact' is disputed in debates it will often be ignored with an "agree to disagree" mentality in many intermediate debaters who do not see any incentive to use sources as they've worked out the WTA system encourages people to consider the reliability of them far less than the 7P system does. People should be encouraged to battle on facts and statistics by the reliability of their source, not by the way of their deceitful tongue. That is filthy debating and not what this website should be encouraging.
There is no EC6, it is just a statement in itself. C6/EC6 is the basis on which EC7 is based.
There is no way on Earth you can expect noob voters, who have done 3 quick debates that essentially either ended in FF or minimalistic debating depth, to have a clue how to judge a debate that my very opponent, Mikal, can enters in such as: (http://bit.ly...). It is only because he has Elo restrictions that noobs are not voting with a skewed view of how to do so. How is a noob voter supposed to know to look for conduct, reliability of sources and spelling and grammar? They wouldn't even bother considering it, nor mentioning it in their RFD to help poorer debaters in this area improve. the 7P system offers sufficient deterrence to poor conduct, spelling and grammar and source reliability and is far superior to the WTA system in every single way that is necessary to nurture a healthy, civil debating community.
I would like to thank my adversary for taking the debate, and welcome him to the site (if hes new). It's great to see a new member put up a good fight, I was expecting this to go to ffs. I was pleased to see great arguments :). Due to me underestimating him and expecting a FF, there was some basic knowledge I left out that I must clarify. This is common knowledge but it still must be stated, because it is imperative for my arguments.
DDO is a debate site, and the debate section is designed to pick a winner, a loser, or either tie the debate. Meaning while we are exchanging ideas, the point is to win the debates you take. The judges ultimately will pick a winner or either tie the debate. This is true for both the new system and the old.
I am going to state my rebuttals as (R) and clarify my contentions with (C)
R1) The failure to merge is mathematically foolish.
My adversary states something that I was going to conclude in the following round and that is thisThe new system = (WTA + 7P) and the old system = (7p only). So what my adversary must to do to fufill his BOP is essentially show that (WTA +7P) < (7P). I must do the same except exchanging the < for a >.
What this equates to is for him to fulfill his BOP he must show that there is a better reason to use only the old system opposed to the new system. Where as the new system offers both, he must establish a case to show as where only using the old is better.
R2) Default system
This is irrelevant. Whether it is default or not does not make it superior. He would have to show a correlation between it being the default setting and superiority.
as for now we can dismiss this.
R3) The 4-3 win over someone who has more convincing arguments is not likely to be a valid RFD under the newer system.
Actually this is false and I can cite some debates to prove this. Review the following.
On (a) in blade runners vote in the comments he clearly states he accounted for grammar weighing heavily in favor of my adversary. In (b) the same thing occurs, most people cite they account for grammar in their decision.
The cat that you can not assign a specific point for grammar or conduct does not mean that it can not weigh into your decision as a voter. Remember as I stated at the start
If you award someone a 4 to 3 win, the person you are awarding the 4 points to is essentially awarded the win. The 7 point system offers you the same concept (this does not devalue the criteria of voting, and you can still use s n g and conduct as a guideline for you vote. This was also done in 2 debates within the past day that I linked), while offering the advantage of weighing votes evenly.
So on that 4 to 3 win, instead of offering someone an extra point in which gives them an advantage, you are offering them any possible weighed number (x) so that the votes account for a winner fairly. This also mitigates the effects of fluff voting and vote bombing, while upholding the credibility and criteria of votes.
As we can see from the 2 debates I linked as well, this does not devalue sources, grammar, or anything else. It is still factored for in voters decisions.
R4) The winner-takes-all system discourages people to bother being polite or grammatically coherent.
Note (b) debate from above. In 2 votes on their my adversary tries to troll me (which is bad conduct), and both people account for the fact they awarded me and weighed conduct in their decision, and almost awarded me the full win.
Again does not discourage grammar or being polite, as this is still weighted in a voters decision to choose a winner. My adversary would have to correlate a relation between bad etiquette and bad grammar with the new system to make a compelling case.
R5) The use of sources is essential to debates and should be encouraged in and of itself
Same logic as C4, we can dismiss this argument from lack of correlation to the new system. He would have to show that the new system has discouraged sourcing, or that sourcing does not play a factor in a judges decision. Which I have already shown is false, and that both are still used as guidelines for picking a winner.
R6) The new system is detrimental to RFD writing of newer users.
This is false. Again even with the old system an RFD from a new user would be something like
"Pro had better sources"
There was never any justification with this. The only way to fix R6 is to educate new voters on what is considered a viable vote. We can dismiss this point as well.
R7) The new system essentially requires exposure the older system in order to cope with voting in the newer one.
There is no vital errors in this argument
(a) They can still use the old system as a guideline
(b) There is no correlation between the new system and discouraging bad votes from new users
New users are casting bad votes because they don't understand what a viable vote is. Even with the old system the only thing that is occurring is that it is giving them categories to pick votes on. This often leads to new members with bias bombing debates. Again this links in to my C2 from R1, and how a 7 point system can mitigate this. Because that one bad vote would weigh as much as 2 good votes with the old system
The new system is offering the old system for those who prefer it with a WTA system for those that like it as well. To conclude my response to R7, the only way to fix bad votes are to educate voters. We can mitigate the bad votes with the new system though.
Since all of my (C)'s went untouched there is no point to add to them due to only contentions for his round.
My adversary stated what he must do to win himself. I will refer you to his own words.
(4) (WTA + 7P) < 7P
He has not done so
My BOP is upheld
I agree that (WTA+7P) > 7P but I am saying that the system in place is not actually WTA+7P.
The system in place forces the instigator to, in turn, force the voters to use only one of the two systems. The point I am trying to make is that the very presence of WTA as an option is detrimental to DDO far more than a system of 7P only is.
A system of WTA+7P would be the instigator beign unable to differentiate between WTA and 7P and each individual voter picking which of the two they prefer.
Now, onto the good stuff.
R1) Mitigation of vote bombs/fluff votes
This is irrelevant due to the fact that the 7P voting system is still an option, and is the default option that all noobs who don't know how to use settings very well, end up picking as their debate's voting system. Thus, the current system is not mitigating this very well at all and the drawbacks (which I shall come to later) outweigh the benefits..
R2) Evens out the weight of votes
This is actually a bad thing, not a good thing. Vote A would have punished pro for having poor grammar and encourage him to keep up the standard in the future. If the RFD did not state the exact grammatical, or spelling, errors then the person is welcome to report the debate vote bomb (or for lack of RFD which is an independent violation to vote-bombing) and the mods will clean it up and discipline the voter. Thus, this contention is rendered futile.
R3) The new system allows the old one to be incorporated into it
Yes, that's the good part. The problem with it is the WTA option.
Now I shall (c)ounter-(r)ebuttal
CR1) I explained the misunderstanding earlier in this debate. I am aware I have equal BOP here, that wasn't the point I was trying to make.
CR2) The fact that 7P is the default option as opposed to a neutral option such as 'select voting system' which would force the instigator to consciously pick the voting system means that almost every single noob instigator ends up with the 7P system. Now, either this is a flaw and a reason to hate the new system or it's a good thing because 7P is superior.
CR3) Firstly, you have prevented noob voters via the elo restrictions so the data is already skewed in your favor but on top of this I was referring to the fact that if i person has better grammar, conduct and sources they'd beat a more convincing opponent via 7P whereas in WTA it's very unlikely this would happen. Thus, being convincing is held above all other things put together and the need to be polite is no longer required, nor encouraged in the new system. What you will find is that newer voters won't understand what the 7 points are supposed to be weighted upon so they'll just go for the smoothest talker as opposed to the more logical debater who may have less textual charisma. 7P reminds them what to look for and how to judge in the first place. All the debaters on your debates had previous, extensive exposure to 7P before voting on WTA so the problematic outcome was nullified by the elo restriction in place on voters.
CR4) Just read my CR3 please...
CR5) As I said, please refer to CR3 as well.
CR6) "pro had better sources2 is reportable for the lack of RFD violation. The point you're making is moot. On the other hand, it is more likely that the 7P system is going to at least give them guidelines as opposed to "ooh there's a button for pro and pro types cooler slang, yay!" *clicks*... *7 whole points to Pro*
CR7) (a) is true but (b) is false. There is noway on Earth you can say that a noob voter seeing one button for 7 points and no wording as to what the poitns should be going to is somehowgoing to knwo how to vote accurately or fairly. The 7P system is so much more efficient at trainign noobs, ther eis literally no rebuttal for this. You are just saying that because 7P happens to be an option that they will all be voting on it to begin with. Some may be seldom voters who ony bother voting for the WTA ones as it's just a one-click proceand easier to explain away withotu splitting it into several parts.
I want to raise a new contention since you allow this in your R1 structure:
C8 - The splitting of votes is inevitably superior to the condensing of them if one wants to truly have the one with more points being the genuine winner.
The fact that you mention that if someone happens to subjectively think that pro had better grammar while the other person just gave 3 to con, is actually a perfect example of why the 7P system is better. This not only allows people to better spot RFD inconsistencies and thus report this violation better but the 'vote bombs' are far easier to be cancelled out by other people splitting votes fairly and explaining it too.
On top of this, look at the following scenario:
Pro 7 (voters X+Y+Z)
Con 6 (voters 2+3)
Pro 7 (voter 1)
Con 14 (voters 2+3)
7P mentality: X successfully explains in his/her RFD why Pro has better conduct and arguments via his interpretation. Whilst Y felt that Pro's sources were more reliable but that Con had more convincing arguments and Z felt the same about conduct as X and the same about convincing arguments as Y.
WTA mentality: "He is kinda better slightly so... 7-points to Gryffindor!"
C9 The probability of equally good debaters getting actively tied is drastically lowered via WTA
This now requires equal number of voters whereas in other system can be a fair split between an odd number of voters. This makes people afraid to vote to not be mean to the other guy whereas in old system they could split their votes fairly and not feel as bad because there's only a 1 point difference due to them that can be countered by another voter looking at the debate in a different way.
Equally good means equally good, not "Oh, well... someone has to win, so I might as well give an entire 7 points to that guy."
The system in place is (WTA + 7P) > 7P. That is the burden he most uphold. It is an "and/or" situation and stating that having WTA on the site degrades the quality of everything is a bold statement that he has failed to uphold. He has to show that the current system degrades the quality of votes/site so much so that it is better to have only the 7 point system in effect to win this debate.
So if he wants to rework the equation we can write it this way (WTA) (7P) > (7P). This would entail you get the effects of both, but both are different and not used in the same debate.
This round is entirely for clarification and rebuilding major points previously presented. You can offer rebuttals for clarifications as the rule states, but no new arguments will be presented.
CR1) Mitigation of vote bombs/fluff votes
This statement is entirely false. While the new system is still active mitigation means the ability to lessen or decrease the harm of in (x) instance.
I am not going to spend a great deal of time refuting this because it should be obvious the statement is wrong. He claims because the 7 point system is still in effect it does not mitigate vote bombing. As I stated mitigation entails the lessening of harm. Having the new system in place will prevent a vote bomb at some point, so it will in fact mitigate damage as far as cheating goes
So set this up as an syllogism
[P1] The new system allows for users to chose a WTA option
[P2] If any conceivable means of cheating has been prevented by a WTA, it has been mitigated
[C] Cheating has been mitigated
The question is how much does it mitigate cheating. Well for the contention to hold, it has to mitigate cheating in general which it has. He has not even addressed the major concern, which is how much. The fluff votes generally occur with more well known members. Meaning they will ask friends or people to vote on debates. As I said new users cheating is not really the issue, it is just a lack of knowledge about the site. We can teach new users how to vote at some point, that is not the issue. We can even set an "elo floor", where new users will not be able to vote if they do not understand what quality a vote should be held to (which also mitigates fluff votes). The WTA is always there for members who prefer it and have experienced fluff votes.
I mean take for example if you are debating abortion. This is a topic where a lot of members will vote off personal thoughts rather than the material in the debate.
This occurs constantly and all the time. I can attest to this in my own debates, and others like thett3 and bluesteel can verify this as well. Having a WTA system prevents the impact of bias votes and fluff votes. Therefore it mitigates cheating and a great deal at that.
CR2) weight of votes
This point is mute. As I stated he is still working under the assumption that the new system condones bad grammar and conduct. Every argument is still considered with the new system, and you can still punish (pro) by awarding the debate to con if the conduct is bad enough or if he cheats or trolls etc
You can have a virtual outline in your mind, that you can use to weigh who wins the debate. Meaning if you want to punish pro for bad grammar in the new system, or if his conduct is bad. That can weigh in as a factor to award the debate to con if the arguments are pretty even. The new system still offers the same conditions as the old , but with the impact of mitigating vote bombs and cheating as well.
CR3) New system/Old system
Agreed upon/ acknowledged.
R1) Failure to merge
Basically my adversary has to provide some sort of evidence to support his conclusion. That by adding the WTA to the 7 point is so bad that it is < 7 point. The statement is that by adding the WTA to the 7 point you are lessening the 7 point so having the 7 point with the WTA is worse than having just the 7 point. There is no evidence to back this up, and seeing how this round is just for clarifications and no new arguments, it will not hold. Granted there is possibly no argument he could present to support this claim.
Again we can drop this argument.
He is stating that having it as default correlates to it being superior. There is no evidence to support this. Meaning that whatever is labeled as default would be superior in every instance. He has to provide evidence to support this stance , and show that some type of possible causation entails superiority which can correlate to the default position on the selection list.
Basically he is stating this
[P1]Default = superiority
[P2]Default = 7P
[C] 7P = superior
for this statement to be true he must show that premise 1 is true for [c] to be true. He has not accomplished that.
R3) The 4-3 win over someone who has more convincing arguments is not likely to be a valid RFD under the newer system.
Again he would have to show that this would be any different in the old system.
[P1] There are (x) number of 7p debates that exists where a noob can still offer a bad RFD
[P2] Noobs have offered bad RFDS on 7p debates
[P2] If they can offer a bad RFD on a 7P debate they can offer a bad RFD on a WTA debate
[C] Bad votes from noobs does not entail causation to which system is better.
This does not show which system is better, it means we need to educate users on how to vote. Bad votes will happen no matter which system is used.
In addition to this educating newer voters show that they can still include these categories in their vote.
R4) Re (word count, se title in previous round)
Again this does not discourage bad grammar or conduct. Both can still be used as weight for your vote in the new system.
again this is false, he would have to show that the new system has promoted bad RFD from new users. Both systems have bad RFDs from new users. Education is the key, bad votes to not increase with the new system
The outline is still in the new system and as my adversary stated is the "default choice", so this can help noobs have an outline.
I am at a loss as to how on Earth the new system mitigates vote bombs. Just because 'subtle vote bombing' cannot physically occur doesn't mean that you can't post the exact same RFD are all 7 points to the other guy anyway. In fact this guarantees that all vote-bombs will be 7 points instead of any less amount and the subtly will be in the RFD as opposed to the votes themselves. It hampers absolutely nothing, it merely amplifies the extremity of system-abuse to 7 points minimum.
A 7-point vote-bomb justified by mentioning that one side wont because o grammar is actually far worse than giving one extra point to a side that can be individually reported or revoked at a later stage with mod intervention. This has absolutely no basis whatsoever. The WTA forces vote-bombs to be 7 points, it doesn't 'display' them any better since the RFD will be the same as if it were the 1 point vote-bomb you described in round 1.
Additionally the fact that the default system is the default position means that the majority of debates (since noobs won't think to set it to WTA) will be 7P and thus be vulnerable to 'subtle vote bomb' attack which i still think is far less severe than a 7-point attack on a WTA system which has a wishy-washy RFD to make it 'subtle' anyway.
Cheating isn't mitigated, it's only amplified to 7-point scales. There is absolutely no mitigation whatsoever, this is a complete lie on Pro's part and I hoped they'd just concede it.
My opponent attempts to amend the system by creating something called an 'elo floor' and training new members in this manner. This is not only a new point to raise in the last round but is also an amendment which only further proves that the new system needs severe amendment in the first place.
He again baselessly asserts that it prevents bias voting. the 'fluff' in fluff voting would be the RFD as opposed to the vote distribution, that means the skewness would me magnified to 7-points while the ability to carry out fluff votes has actually been made easier as it is now one click only as opposed to two or more.
After this, he states that people can attest that fluff-voting happens in the 7P system. Not only does the new system incorporate the 7P system but the alternative option has magnified the damage to a 7-point extremity. The only difference is that the deception is in the RFD, not the physical vote itself. It's hampered absolutely nothing and has only made it worse! Bluesteel and thett3 haven't seen this new system enough because, simply put, it's new and most people using it are restricting it to members of an elo that indicates previous exposure to 7P.
What is the point of having a system that forces you to think in the exact same framework that 7P does but forces you to give all the point that you would have evenly distributed between the people all to one side? What is the single possible benefit? None that I can think of and none that you've supplied so far.
I have no idea what the R1 is referring to and I am just going to negate that on grounds of irrelevance and incoherence. I never once said that you are 'lessening the 7P' by adding WTA, I said that WTA begin an option has corrupted voting far worse than what a 7P-only system would have done in this amount of time being implemented.
I don't think that Pro understands that if the option isn't neither of the two, it is automatically in favor of one of the two. The designers of the system made it default knowing that noobs, who don't know the settings well enough, will only pick what they are forced to pick and ignore the rest to begin a debate as soon as possible. The fact that it is not forcing the noobs to consciously pick 7P over WTA indicates that it is automatically favoring 7P. This is very simple to understand and is irrefutable. Additionally, if 7P is supposedly worse than WTA then the fact that the default isn't WTA, or a neutral option, only furthermore proves that Pro's assertion of 7P's inferiority insinuates that malign 7P the default option is an inherent flaw within the new system.
My opponent claims that bad votes will happen no matter what system is used. Would you rather have a vote of 7 points or 3? Exactly. Irrefutable. Don't pretend that the 3 is easier to hide, or even a 4 is, because if the RFD is insufficient that's a reportable offense no matter what system is in place. The only question is do we want a 7 point bomb or a less point bomb and I think we all know the answer to that one.
The concept of education under the new system is not supported by anything the new system has put in place. the old system forced people to structure their votes correctly, some people abused this but at least they rarely did it to a 7-point degree. Also my point about equally good debaters being pressured to have a win or loss as opposed to the tie they rightfully deserve is undisputed.
I conclude that the new system is both objectively and subjectively maladaptive in comparison tot he old one.
Thank you for reading, I hope you vote-bomb 7 points in the right direction.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 2 years ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: Very good debate and I honestly believe both debaters had valid points that should be discussed further in the forums. The current voting systems are in my opinion both flawed However, I believe Pro showed that the winner takes all system is the more fair system as it promotes a winner of the debate based on who had the best arguments. Conduct is important, as well as spelling and grammar but when these points can outweigh a good argument then it is not fair. Con to point out that the voting had Elo restrictions was a red herring BTW.
Vote Placed by TN05 2 years ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: For full disclosure, Con asked me to vote. I'd write up a full RFD, but ultimately this debate came down to one point: Pro's argument that the new voting system still allows you to use the old one. Con failed to prove the existence of the new WTA voting system is bad enough to outweigh that.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by bsh1 2 years ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments. [Full Disclosure: I was asked to vote on this debate by Pro.]
Vote Placed by The_Scapegoat_bleats 2 years ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: A site like DDO depends on attracting new users. The new system - as Con effectively proves - does not introduce new users to the standards that should be applied to voting as a privilege. Pro did not build up a real case against that. Under the old system, a 7-point-vote would automatically raise suspicion of beig a vote bomb, making them easier to identify and report, for lack of a detailed RFD. The new system allows to award seven points based on a win in one category alone, making it much harder to detect vote bombs. Conduct to Con, because Pro needlessly expressed contempt for all new users, who he meets with the extreme prejudice of them being forfeiters all. The fact that accomplished debaters find this site at a later point in their career escapes him, apparently. This had no place in this debate. All other points were tied.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 2 years ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: One difference between the system of categories and the winner-take-all system is that the categories give specific weights as to what is important in the debate. Without categories, the only reason for rejecting a vote bomb RFD is that no reason was given for asserting whatever the voter thinks important was carried. Con made this argument in different respects in C3, C4, and C5. The counter argument that voters can still use the old categories if they wish actually supports the Con position that voters can choose any weighting that pleases them. Having no standards for what is important is bad for debate and bad for the site.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
|Who won the debate:||-||-|
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments... 7points nearly given to Mikal for just S&G.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments.
Vote Placed by SeventhProfessor 2 years ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LtNMdyuRSUsOTChj5o8Sq1XJ9plnIbZ7nj9OgLHTo6M/edit?usp=sharing
Vote Placed by Jonbonbon 2 years ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: This was a pretty good debate. Both arguments provided some strong arguments. In the end it mainly came down to the argument about mitigating vote bombing. That's kind of the main problem when it comes to voting structure, so that's why I put the argument at the top. What pro argued is that under the old system (as was witnessed by a lot of members), was that one bad vote could negate two good votes. Under WTA one bad vote = one good vote. So the problem is mitigated. Con didn't negate this argument, and it was an important argument. The others were hard to decide on, but since I can say with certainty that one important argument was won, I vote for the person who won that argument. That was pro. Good job to both
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.