The Instigator
Palmo10
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
cathaystewie
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

THBT Debate.org should pay fifteen qualified judges to decide wins/losses instead of using votes

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 2 votes the winner is...
Palmo10
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/25/2015 Category: People
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 554 times Debate No: 75746
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)

 

Palmo10

Pro

Rounds

-First round- acceptance ONLY
-Second round- opening arguments (rebuttal for con)
-Third round- can introduce more arguments or elaborate/rebuttals
-Fourth round- Rebuttals only

Settings for debate

-'Qualified judges' means judges who have judged in three or more real life debates.
-'Votes' is defined by the votes people put it when they've finished reading a debate on Debate.org.
cathaystewie

Con

Thank you to side proposition for instituting this debate. I would like to ask side proposition to fulfil their burden of proof down the bench of:

a) justifying that there is a problem with Debate.org's voting system in the status quo; and
b) that introducing qualified judges into the picture will bring more good than harm.

I look forward to some action-packed discourse!
Debate Round No. 1
Palmo10

Pro

Sorry, I forgot to define something- the said "wins/losses" is in terms of debates in Debate.org.

Now let's start:

Imagine a guy called Jack debating on this site for the first time. He puts his entire effort into winning by splashing all of his energy over the keyboard, furiously smashing the words on the keyboard to fend off his opponent"s argument, which was lame and extremely ridiculous. Now if a professional debater walked in on him and saw what he was doing, he would be convinced by 99% that Jack would win.

However, the next day, the votes came in and to his surprise, he didn"t win. Jack"s opponent called his great quantity friends to vote for him. Jack on the other hand, does not have that many friends, as he"s an introvert. Another reason why he lost is because his opponent used phrases and terms which people thought were "fun" and not knowing the content of the debate, but judging entirely from the content of his "fun" attitude instead, they voted for him.

How will he feel? He"ll feel disgusted because of the ridiculousness of the way those on Debate.org voted. And he won"t ever want to even think of logging in to the site to debate ever again.

My question today is this: is it the number of friends you have and the terms you use to make you seem fun that defines your wins and losses in a debate, and your debating skill? Because if the voting of sides by ordinary people keeps going on in Debate.org, it seems that the answer for Debate.org is "yes", when the answer is an obvious "no".

Arguments:

#1 One who has no experience and judges a debate will have many flaws in comparison to one who has judged debates before and is experienced in the matter.

There are three things to consider when judging a debater: matter, which is what the debater has said, method, which is the structure the debater"s arguments were put in, and manner, which is how the debater put his or her points across (whether in a funny way or in the use of big words).

Unfortunately, many people only judge a debate in terms of manner, ignoring method and matter. This is especially true for those who have never debated before, let alone watched on. This is especially true for those who are attracted by big words, who see fifty bombastic words in a single sentence of the debater, and say to themselves, "he"s a good one, alright." This is especially true, in other words, for people who don"t even have rough idea of how to judge a debate. And while I don"t deny there are good debaters who can vote wisely in Debate.org, I have to tell you that there are people out there who don"t know how to debate, let along judge a debate.

This has to stop. It isn"t fair to let random people judge debates because they don"t know how to judge debates in the first place. And the best way to stop this, while allowing people to continue debating on Debate.org, is to hire a team of fifteen judges (a judge per page full of debates) to decide wins and losses for Debate.org debates.

Since these judges have judged in other debates before, they will have all the experience they need to judge these online debates. Furthermore, this will benefit Debate.org in the long run, because it will improve debaters on Debate.org to be better because these judges can give constructive criticism to them as well as wisely pick the winner (I will talk about the "long run" effects in more elaboration in my next post).

#2 Status quo"s way of determining wins and losses repels good debaters

What will happen if we don"t get good judges to come in soon? This unfair system of letting people vote instead of using judges, people who have absolutely no experience in debating and people who vote for their friends just because they are friends (I will talk about this in my next post as well), will definitely destroy Debate.org in the sense that it will lose many good debaters.

Why? When these debaters come into realization that there are times when votes are placed because of friendship and humour and not because of how well the debaters are in terms of matter and method, these said debaters will surely never come back to the site in disgust of the system.

#3 The enormous amount of good it will bring is better than the little bit of bad

You know, when you think about it, the only thing in Debate.org"s way now is money. However, this is a very small issue, which can be solved with methods, which I will now suggest.

These methods are:

a)Make a membership program, where people can pay to get special privileges if they are members.
b)Debate.org could also get money in through sponsorship.
c)Debate.org could also help advertise things.
d)Debate.org could host competitions, which people pay to join.

See, there are so many ways to overcome this harm, which is the only big harm in the way of bringing judges in to judge. However, there are not this many methods when it comes to the unfairness of letting random strangers judge a debate- the only way is to get judges in.

Therefore, I proudly propose.
cathaystewie

Con

cathaystewie forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Palmo10

Pro

CON has forfeited the last round. Even after being given an extra amount of time, as CON requested, CON still refused to post anything. Only after BOTH deadlines given did CON post. Never mind, I will still accept CON's argument (which is in the comments) and respond to them.

Hello to CON and people reading this debate. In this next round, I will first talk about the importance of winning in a debate. Then, I"ll be discussing about how not having qualified judges in a debate does more damage to serious debaters" debates on Debate.org than having qualified judges does to the so-called "playful" debates. Next, I will talk of the bad long-term effects not having proper judges will have on Debate.org. I will also be talking about the biasness of some voters, who may be voting for a side just because their friends are arguing for that side.

#1 Why winning in a debate is not to be taken lightly

Give a child a cookie for doing something wrong and he'll do the wrong thing again. The reason we reward someone is because that someone did something right. In the case of a debate, that someone needs to be rewarded with a win because he or she did better than his or her opponent. If someone is rewarded wrongfully, that someone is sure to make the same mistakes over and over again. If someone is voted rightfully, he or she is surely going to be encouraged to do as well next time (not necessarily all the time though, as I will further elaborate in this same post).

#2 Having judges will not disrupt "your mom" and other debates with playful topics, however, not having judges will disrupt serious debates.

CON very blindly assumes that judges won"t want to judge debates having playful topics. Well that is simply ridiculous because before applying for the job, obviously these judges will be notified about the types of debates that go on in Debate.org (they"d probably go check it out for themselves as well!), and this notice will obviously include playful topics. And I dare you to tell me that of the hundreds of judges around the world, none of them would want to judge a fun debate. And since nearly anyone can judge a fun debate, it is very safe to assume that these judges will be able to too.

However, not everyone knows how to judge a serious debate and give it constructive feedback or at least they won"t be able to do it as well as qualified judges would (I think I"ve already mentioned why in the previous round). And this is where the judges would really come in handy.

And it"s not as if there are very few serious debates on Debate.org. Just look- out of twenty topics on the first two pages of the site, I have found thirteen that are serious debates:

Is Abortion Moral?
Should cigarettes be legal?
Should children have the right to choose their learning and education?
Presidential Term Limits (US)
Science is a major threat to human existence
Women are tools for cleaning & cooking, and for pumping out babies
shold we spend money to plant 100 billion trees to offset carbon immissions?
Since children are necessarily property, is it moral and ethical to monetize children?
Should the draft be extended to women too!
Freedom Of Religion: Secular Law/Society Vs. Islamic Law/Society
Polygyny As Prescribed In Islamic Law Should Not Be Permitted
Education: Secular System Vs. Islamic System
WODC: This House Believes That Provisions of Internet Services Should be a Public Utility

So with this many serious debates, someone qualified really ought to judge them and these qualified people should not be those debating in "your mom" debates.

#3 Bad long-term effects on Debate.org if there aren"t proper judges

Soon, if there aren"t good judges on Debate.org, the quality of debaters here will surely drop. This is for two reasons, both of which are caused by the terrible quality of the voters" judging.

The first reason is that with bad judging, people may be rewarded with wins that they don"t necessarily deserve. Therefore, as I"ve mentioned, they might make the same mistakes again. And even if they are rightfully judged, without the constructive feedback of some qualified judges, they will not know how to improve next time.

The second reason is that those good debaters who aren"t in fact swayed by terrible voting, may not like the site because of the trashy way it handles wins and losses. Therefore, these debaters will not want to debate on Debate.org anymore because of the wins they deserved but may not necessarily have gotten.

Next, to my rebuttals

#1 Some, while not all, will be swayed by wins/losses

CON assumes that people won"t be swayed by wins/losses. Well, remember what I said about giving a child a cookie for doing something wrong? While not everyone will be swayed, some who are weak in character will be.

#2 On monetisation

I wasn"t talking very seriously in terms of the examples given- my point was just to let you know that there are ways for Debate.org to pay it"s judges. And the reason why I refuse to harp further on this is because this debate is about why we should implement judges- the technical issues can be solved later.

#3 Improvement is better than consistency.

In our world today, things are always updating- from technology to video games. I believe that Debate.org should too.

This change is not going to betray anyone who is already in the website of course, because user participation is still happening through comments and of course the debates themselves and also because it"s not just an evolution- it"s an update! And update means improvement!

I want to end this point by saying this: do you want to stay with your bicycle, or move on to a car? Do you want to continue using a typewriter or start using a laptop? Do you want to continue using votes, which destroy Debate.org"s debaters" qualities or start using judges to improve their debating quality while still not disturbing the fun "your mom" debates?

In conclusion, debaters may come to Debate.org for a fun time, but it will be blind to assume that all of them do. Some of them come to improve their skill also, and without doing much damage to those who want to have fun, we want to hire some judges to help those who come to improve their skill in debating. If this system goes on, not only will the website destroy it"s own good debaters; it will also shoo them away.
cathaystewie

Con

cathaystewie forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Palmo10

Pro

Palmo10 forfeited this round.
cathaystewie

Con

Hello all,

There is nothing for me to rebut in this round as PRO has yet to post their closing argument, despite the 21 hours in addition to the 24 hours of my debating time that I have granted him/her to do so.

I would like to reiterate the fact that PRO has failed to uphold his/her BOP. Take the example of the motion "This is a big red ball". As PRO, one is expected to justify all three points of contention: that the ball is red, the ball is big, and the ball is in fact a ball in the first place. If we apply that into the context of this debate, PRO will need to fulfil the following:

a) why Debate.org needs qualified judges, which both sides have clashed upon, and
b) why Debate.org needs to pay these judges, which I have raised substantives against but have been refused any discussion upon from PRO.

Therefore, I have managed to refute at least one of the two BOP entries that PRO needs to justify, and have taken the debate.

If PRO wishes to further the debate, he is more than welcome to do so in the comments section, and I ask all voters not to take forfeiture into consideration when voting should PRO choose to deliver his third round in the comments. Thank you to PRO, this has been a fruitful debate.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by cathaystewie 1 year ago
cathaystewie
Hi F-16_Fighting_Falcon,

I do believe that my forfeiture should not be taken into consideration except for the 'conduct' criterion. I do recognise that I am not exactly the most organised person but I do try to uphold my responsibility of keeping the debate going using any viable means.

Thank you for your feedback though!

cathaystewie
Posted by cathaystewie 1 year ago
cathaystewie
Hello Palmo10!

My arguments for the second round have been posted on the link, just scroll down and you'll be able to see them. I apologise for any inconvenience caused. As is stated in the opening paragraph of my second round, feel free to eat into a day's worth of my debating time for the next round as I have eaten into a day's worth of yours.

Thank you and I do ask for you and any audience members to pardon me.
Posted by cathaystewie 1 year ago
cathaystewie
Hi PRO as well as any audience members,

Below is the link to my Round 1 debate:

https://docs.google.com...

Thank you for your patience!
Posted by cathaystewie 1 year ago
cathaystewie
Hello! sorry for the delay, I am writing mine as we speak. Please feel free to go ahead with the second round. I will be posting my first round argument as soon as I finish it. I will not be rebutting any of the arguments you post in your second round in my first round.

Sincerest apologies
Posted by Palmo10 1 year ago
Palmo10
Ur time's up. U forfeited twice.
Posted by Palmo10 1 year ago
Palmo10
Ur time's up. U forfeited twice.
Posted by Palmo10 1 year ago
Palmo10
Accepted. I will give you one day minus an hour. When the timer strikes 2 days, you should have already posted your argument. I will post this on the exact time your time commences.
Posted by cathaystewie 1 year ago
cathaystewie
Dear PRO,

It is regretful of me to inform you that I will not be able to meet the deadline for the second round. Please accept my apologies. I will be posting my arguments in the comments in sections in here within the 24 hours or so. I ask that you please allow me to offer my arguments before you commence the third round.

Apologies if this comes as an inconvenience to you. Thank you!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 1 year ago
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
Palmo10cathaystewieTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con cannot rebut in the last round lol. Pro makes a very good point, he brings up a plethora of bad in the status quo including friend and political voting (votes to get votes). I must agree that 15 paid voters would be a high value to the DDO community. When I was new the whole system pissed me off. I hated that the cite had its own made up debate rules whereas I had just come from policy debate where there were set rules and all were based on some logical reason. Voting was harder, while I do think that we should have paid voters I also think we should still be able to vote on debates that we want to, because reading other debates and cultivating your skill as a judje is also part of the experience, overall though I do agree and in any case there is no competition because con gave you a terrible round. good job
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 1 year ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Palmo10cathaystewieTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate is somewhat of a mess but since it is unvoted, I'll add in mine. Con forfeited two rounds, missed the deadline Pro gave him in the comments section and as far as the actual debate is concerned, posted nothing besides the closing argument. I can't take his google doc into consideration and he missed the deadline anyways. Conduct to Pro because he forfeited only one round while Con forfeited two. Only Pro made arguments within the debate rounds which is really all I care about.