The Instigator
Vern99
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Emilrose
Pro (for)
Winning
22 Points

Should the voting privilege rules on debate.org be in place?

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...
Emilrose
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/23/2014 Category: Education
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 475 times Debate No: 65701
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (10)
Votes (5)

 

Vern99

Con

Does it really protect against trolls or other stupid things? Why do I need to complete 3 debates? What is the point? Who are they trying to stop from voting? What if I just want to vote and spectate, and not actually partake in any debates? Why can't I just be a judge?
Emilrose

Pro

Opening argument

It seems that Con is mostly looking for opinions, or rather "answers" on as to why each member of this site is required to partake in a minimum of three debates before having the opportunity to vote. Here I will outline the following reasons as to why such a rule is necessary:

The first example is the integrity of the site. Overall the site is obliged to protect its integrity and by maintaining a minimum three debate voting rule it largely ensures that only members that have gained experience in the area of debating--and moreover, have learned about the protocol of debating are able to vote. If members that have not participated in any debates could vote it would very likely lead to spam voting (I.E excessive votes) or "troll" votes, which thus would not secure a fair outcome for the two debaters--and as an additional result, undermine the sites integrity; which naturally constitutes as an important thing to uphold.

Secondly and alluding further to the point of "fairness" with debate results, it's also more probable for those without any completed debates to base their vote on opinion rather than actual objective assessment, namely due obvious lack of experience within the area of debating. There may be a misunderstanding of specific point providers such as "conduct" and "better sources"--because having not fully explored the debate system, one wouldn't necessarily attach the significance to such points or be aware of exactly why debaters are awarded them. Each members has to precisely know what a debate fully consists of and what makes one argument better than another, or in some cases, equal to each other.

The entire point of being enabled to vote and reward points is because you yourself have the gained experience (just to highlight: most voters are active debaters) and therefore more qualified to exercise judgements.


Additional rebuttals:

"Does it really protect against trolls or other stupid things?"

As specified here, the requirement of three completed debates strongly protects against trolling and other things such as spam. If all members who had not completed debates could vote: the case of troll votes would be unavoidable and thus far higher than in existing cases--depending on the experience of the debater, such votes may also be reported--making the entire process pointless and providing the moderator with the extra job of deleting the vote. The current system avoids both examples.


"Why do I need to complete 3 debates?"

Simply put, to prove your experience and credibility as a voter; and to ensure that you know exactly what you're providing points for.

"What is the point?"

This is the point. Each and every voter must have that minimum experience.

"Who are they trying to stop from voting?"

As previously highlighted, namely trolls and those who spam. But also the larger category of people who will misuse the voting system and the privilege that it is to vote.


"What if I just want to vote and spectate, and not actually partake in any debates?"

If you want to spectate you can easily do that in the comments section, in fact, that's precisely what it is for. Voting on debates is not about spectating but rather about assessing who you think outlined the best argument and awarding points for that individual in the necessary areas. Another reason for a required three debates is to avoid mere spectating; that's explicitly not voting entails. As for not partaking in any debates--again, such a thing is compulsory if you actually want to achieve the privilege of voting yourself.



"Why can't I just be a judge?"

No one is enabled to "judge" without having having the necessary experience prior to actually judging. Having the ability to vote is a benefit that is to be earned. How is that you propose you judge (or rather "vote") on debates when you've not participated in any of your own? Again this alludes to the point that each voter should know exactly what their voting for.
Debate Round No. 1
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Vern99 2 years ago
Vern99
bravo though
Posted by Vern99 2 years ago
Vern99
I was clearly not trying that hard, that's why it was one round
Posted by Vern99 2 years ago
Vern99
I just feel like 3 paragraphs and an additional rebuttals wasn't quite necessary
Posted by Vern99 2 years ago
Vern99
miraculous gets it
Posted by miraculous 2 years ago
miraculous
I would vote for Pro but the damn voting privileges are in the way. See what I did there? Contradicting isn't it?
Posted by Emilrose 2 years ago
Emilrose
*a debate.
Posted by Emilrose 2 years ago
Emilrose
That is kinda the whole point of the debate. Btw--I did not try to call you anything.
Posted by Vern99 2 years ago
Vern99
I was just trying to get one of the 3 out of the way, but thanks for taking this ultraseriously and going crazy trying to call me an idiot.
Posted by Emilrose 2 years ago
Emilrose
@TheSymbiote, actually if you complete three debates you don't have to give your number: you can go straight to the site moderator and ask him to enable it.
Posted by TheSymbiote 2 years ago
TheSymbiote
I dont enjoy giving out my cell phone numberto a web site :l So I would rather not vote than give out information. Like my face ..... -_-
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Gabe1e 2 years ago
Gabe1e
Vern99EmilroseTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: 1 round, and Pro just blows Con out of the water. Good job.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
Vern99EmilroseTied
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: con completely was destroyed
Vote Placed by 20CoWhite 2 years ago
20CoWhite
Vern99EmilroseTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Vern99 if you have a debate make it good
Vote Placed by Zanomi3 2 years ago
Zanomi3
Vern99EmilroseTied
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 arguments were clearly more in depth and stronger. All other categories were the same.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
Vern99EmilroseTied
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 argument was more indepth and all inclusive while refuting all of Con's points.