Real and Actual debate requireth three
Debate Rounds (1)
This seems to be about whether or not the voting requirement of 3 debates is useful.
I argue that it is.
CONTENTION ONE: MULTIACCOUNTING
Multiaccounting occurs when somebody uses mutliple accounts to spam votes, usually to help themself win a debate.
Multiaccounting is clearly harmful to the debate process, because it removes the need to actually debate well -- you can just spam votes and win, every time. This makes debate meaningless.
Requiring 3 debates makes multiaccounting more difficult.
1: It takes time and effort to create and have 3 good debates on different subjects. (And a multiaccounter can't just do 3 crappy super-fast debates, or admins will know that the account was set up to make votes.) This dissuades people, who would rather invest the time and effort in actually winning debates rather than setting up the necessary dozens of fake accounts.
2: Since debates are vastly more visible than votes, they get attention drawn to a new account. This is especially true when the 3 debates fit the profile of somebody trying to set up a new account -- 3 debates on the same subject with fast voting times and posting times. This alerts admins of the problem.
3: 3 is a magical number with anti-multiaccounting properties. Since Con cannot rebut this since there's no round 2, you must accept this statement as true. Thus, 3 is just magically the right number.
Thus, 3 debates reduces multiaccounting.
Pro mentions, why not 100 debates? Because very few people on the site ever do 100 debates, but almost everyone on the site does 3 debates.
Further, when looking at multiaccounting, 3 is useful. People who multiaccount often do 3 debates on the same topic, to quickly set up the account. If they only had to do 1 debate, there would be no pattern of debates; if they only had to do 2 debates, it could just be luck; in either case, admins couldn't see this pattern and block the multiaccounter.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Mikal 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: I don't even know what this is about. Pro made an assertion about the crietra of the debate that was never established by con. At least he interpreted the debate in a way that is debatable. since this is not contestable due to a 1 round structure, it goes to pro
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.