The Instigator
oncefallendotcom
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Zarroette
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Should Debate.org stop forcing us to start three debates for voting privileges?

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 3 votes the winner is...
Zarroette
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/2/2015 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 375 times Debate No: 72823
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

oncefallendotcom

Pro

I think it is silly to require casual users of this site to actually start three debates before we are allowed to vote on debates. To me, it defeats at least part of the purpose of this website. Why bother having a voting function at all if, after casting your ballot and writing your reasons for voting "pro" or "con," you are told you can't vote, only comment.

It seems to me that they could offer an alternative to this three-debate rule. It seems a lot of people are not doing this. A lot of debates on this site end in a tie. I suppose you could argue that it is meaningless in the grand scheme of things. However, some debates mean a lot to the person having them, even if some of the debates are as mundane as whether or not you support sending the Kardashians one-way to Mars (I'd vote "pro" for that).

Come on, Debate.org, this is a royal pain, and it is time to revise this three-debate rule!
Zarroette

Con

Thank you, oncefallendotcom, for instigating this debate.

I will begin by constructing my own counter-case to the idea that ‘Debate.org stop forcing us to start three debates for voting privileges’. After, I will address all of my opponent’s affirmative case. Since my opponent has the burden of proof, he/she must affirm the resolution or else I automatically win.


Counter-case


P1: Completing 3 debates takes more time than completing no debates

Under my ideal, there would not be such a seamless transition from creating an account to voting. Completion of three debates requires:


1) The making of each debate
2) An opponent for each debate
3) The time spent either constructing arguments or waiting for the opponent to respond


I believe it is self-evident that completing these 3 things would always take more time than not completing them. Hence, my position (Con) requires people to spend more time in acquiring voting privileges than my opponent’s (Pro).


P2: Voting is a vital aspect of DDO

Without voting, there would be at least a serious decline in the amount of debating, because:

1) There would no longer be an external incentive to debate, such as elo and the Debates Leaderboard [2]
2) It would be far harder to know who won the debate, due to there being no formal process or adjudication

With voting itself being an integral part of DDO, quality voting is too. Moderation is required so that votes are given fairly and accurately, at least to a reasonable extent. Voting moderators, such as bluesteel, often have their news feed filled with comments deleting poor votes [3].

To summarise this premise, *quality* voting is a vital part of DDO.


A1: Sock-puppet accounts

Definition: A sock-puppet, in terms of internet accounts, is “a false online identity, typically created by a person or group in order to promote their own opinions or views” [1].

From P1 (Premise number 1) showing that it would take more time to create an account that is eligible for voting, there is a capacity for sock-puppeting with both methods of allocating voting (i.e. Pro’s position of no debates completed versus Con’s position), BUT my position lessens this massive problem far more than my opponents. I will use an example to illustrate my point:

Under Pro’s ideal, I could essentially create an infinite number of accounts and all of them would be allowed to vote immediately. I could then use one or two of these accounts (so as to not arouse too much suspicion) to vote on the debates of my main account. This can be easily done in that it takes a couple of minutes to make accounts. The seamless transition from making an account and being able to vote should be noted here.


So, the impact relating to sock-puppet accounts is that having the requirement of 3 completed debates makes it harder for people to abuse the voting system.


A2: Inexperience

Not everyone who comes to DDO has experience with debating, let alone even knows what debating is. In the time required to become eligible for voting with the 3 debate rule, voters would have at least a bit of experience with the site and how voting operates, instead of the potentially zero experience with voting whatsoever. Experience can accumulate as simply as having people vote on the new account's debates.

Following from P2, the impact of this means that as general inexperience increases on the site, the quality of the votes will decline, meaning that people will be angrier with the poorer votes and more moderation action with be required to remove the votes.


Counter-arguments


I will address the main points from my opponent’s arguments:


“Why bother having a voting function at all if, after casting your ballot and writing your reasons for voting "pro" or "con," you are told you can't vote, only comment.”

My opponent’s argument here is a false-dicohtomy, in that he/she assumes that if (1) if not everyone can vote, then (2) there is no point in having it [4]. The voting function exists regardless; it is just not available to everyone.


“It seems a lot of people are not doing [voting]. A lot of debates on this site end in a tie.”

The opportunity cost of not being able to vote immediately is swamped by the poor votes and all the problems that come with poor votes. As explained under Counter-case, quality voting is a vital part of DDO and votes that do not meet the quality required negatively affect the site. Both A1 and A2 show why this procedure is a necessary and desirable part of DDO. My opponent never shows that it is better that a debate is open to new-account voting than ending in a tie.

Furthermore, my opponent’s argument assumes that there would be a noticeable difference in people voting in the time difference between creating an account. He/She even concedes that debates ending in a tie “[are] meaningless in the grand scheme of things”. By my opponent’s own words, even if you do not agree with my counter-response here, my opponent concedes that this point is meaningless, thus it has no impact.




Conclusion


I maintain that at the expense of initially preventing people from voting, having the 3 debate rule (A1) helps to prevent the damage that can be caused by sock-puppet accounts, (A2) helps improve the vote quality of the site, thereby leaving people less angry with poor votes and helping lower the moderator’s workload. Both of my arguments go completely uncontested, too. I also addressed the two main points of my opponent’s arguments, the first falling prey to a false dichotomy, and the second being internally nulled. This is why you should vote for me.

Thank you, oncefallendotcom, for the debate, and thank you for reading =)


References

[1] https://www.google.com.au...
[2] http://www.debate.org...
[3] http://www.debate.org...
[4] http://c2.com...
Debate Round No. 1
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Valigator 2 years ago
Valigator
Definition: A sock-puppet, in terms of internet accounts, is "a false online identity, typically created by a person or group in order to promote their own opinions or views" [1].

Oncefallen is linked with many pro sex offender groups who link to articles they want bombarded with like minded opinions. They actually have terms for their members that contribute to online forums, "communication warriors and or minutemen". The goal is to propagandize the public with specific points or opinions. (1) Abolish the sex offender registry (2) lower age of consent (3) diminish the repercussions via the legal system for those who have been convicted of sexually based crimes.
Those "opinions" are suppose to encourage the unsuspecting public that there is unanimous consensus on these issues. The original "concept" of the propagandizing campaign was formed by "NAMBLA"
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by tejretics 2 years ago
tejretics
oncefallendotcomZarroetteTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's counter-case effectively refuted Pro's resolution by showing the sheer impact of votes on debates, and the need for maintaining a stringent Elo system. But the crucial point was vote-bombing, sock puppet accounts, and inexperience. Pro's arguments were weak and not well-constructed; they were *all* bare assertions with *no* proof to support them. Pro makes too many fallacious statements and does not cite sources to back his statements up with evidence. Con makes strong, unrefuted arguments and rebuttals, showing that Pro's arguments are fallacious and that her own arguments show exactly the purpose of the three-debate limit - with sources. Hence this decision.
Vote Placed by BLAHthedebator 2 years ago
BLAHthedebator
oncefallendotcomZarroetteTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: In a one round debate like this, the contender is most likely to win since they can make arguments and refute the opponent's arguments without being responded to. Pro makes too many fallacious statements and does not cite sources to back his statements up with evidence. Con makes strong, unrefuted arguments and rebuttals, showing that Pro's arguments are fallacious and that her own arguments show exactly the purpose of the three-debate limit - with sources. That some people can't vote and that some debates remain unvoted is shown by con to be insufficient reasoning for the abolishment of this limit, and that experience and prevention of sock puppet accounts are valid to keep this system. Thus, I vote Con.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
oncefallendotcomZarroetteTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I too strongly disagree with resolution to give pro's argument fair consideration, thus null vote.