The Instigator
9spaceking
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
UchihaMadara
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

That the User Known as RoyLatham Should be Awarded with (At least) One Free Win

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
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...
UchihaMadara
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/9/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,111 times Debate No: 62983
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (16)
Votes (3)

 

9spaceking

Pro

The resolution is easy to understand. "That the User Known as RoyLatham Should be Awarded with (At least) One Free Win", as stated above, is the resolution. Round one acceptance.
BoP is shared.
RoyLatham: debate.org/roylatham
"A free win": One free conditionless victory added to the list of RoyLatham's victories, with the addition of some elo of course.
No semantic arguments, neither trolling.
UchihaMadara

Con

Interesting resolution...
I look forward to seeing Pro's arguments for it.
Challenge accepted.
Debate Round No. 1
9spaceking

Pro

It seems interesting that a debater like Uchi accepted this. Obviously he doesn't know RoyLatham much, because RoyLatham definitely deserves at least one free win.
This is the first time I'm using this style of debating, so it may be a bit strange to read this. I don't think anybody uses this strange style, lol.

INTRODUCTION TO ROYLATHAM

RoyLatham is a smart man, voted by most people as the smartest person on DDO. He participates in debates in virtually every topic imaginable (with the exception of gaming and fashion of course), and he has ended up in the Hall of Fame as a result of his deep thought in his comments, RFD's, and basically everything. But his awesomeness is still actually not the core of my argument for why RoyLatham should be awarded at least one free win.

INTRODUCTION TO OLD DEBATING
The times were very sad during the old days of DDO. In fact, just going back 5 years ago, a screenshot taken exactly 4 days before today (5 years ago, of course). As seen from http://web.archive.org..., DDO didn't have an opinion nor polls section. It had no nice front page with featured debates and all of that glory. My argument about how Roy deserves at least one free win involves a debate from 5 years ago.

*Drumroll please*

And the debate is....

*More drumroll please*


|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.debate.org...
That's right, folks, it's "The US is in need of reindustrialization." I will explain more thoroughly later why Roy deserved to win this.

INTRODUCTION TO THE MODERATORS
As far as we're concerned, there are only two active moderators on the site who seek to improve the site and try their best to do what's right.
There's the good old brony Ore Ele
Ore_Ele

And there's our excellently working Airmax1227
airmax1227

I have in fact long ago contacted them concerning this debate and the vote bomb. By ThejudgeisGod. Who gave all 7 points to himself. But he ff'd one round of the debate, so had it been fair voting from him, the score would have been 13:11. There is yet another votebomb (presumably from his friend) from The Categorial. If he had been voting fairly too, the score would have been 12:12, tied, assuming that their other points were rightfully and justifiably working. (And keep in mind that Roy was forgiveful and decided not to hog the conduct point to himself, which he could've easily justified because his opponent forfeited, making him the winner if we truly made the votes unbiased!!) Remember what I said about unfairness in the olden days? Yeah, judgeisgod is all about unfairness within this debate.

INTRODUCTION TO THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS DEBATE
The moderators obviously care about justice. In addition, as I stated, Roy is an important member who we must care about. In fact, during that time where I tried to do RoyLatham justice, I accidentally misinterpreted Airmax's position in a forum thread, and he replied

This shows that the moderators in fact really care about the debate I mentioned, it was just that they couldn't do anything about it and it would be awkward to do with all the coding needed, etc, etc. On such an old debate.
I shall repeat this in a different wording just in case it's too confusing: Now, why do the moderators not choose to change such an obvious votebomb? The debate is much too old. It's too arcane. The site has changed much. I agree. That is right. This debate was 5 years ago, which is really old, and as a result updating it would not exactly work out.
Therefore I contend an alternative solution

INTRODUCTION TO THE ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION/CONCLUSION TO MY CASE
Now, we know the moderators can easily manipulate the site. But I understand why they chose not to edit such a debate. Roy is famous, Roy is awesome, but the moderators just can't change such an old debate. As Airmax can verify, when I first asked him to delete Judgeisgod's votebomb for himself, he said he couldn't because the debate was too old and all that mumbo jumbo code stuff. Therefor we must do justice in a different way--we can let him gain a free win, and an elo addition too (with the substitution of his opponent's elo into the equation of course). Only by letting Roy gaining a free win can we be just, fair, and display what Debate.Org truly means and how much we care.

Onto you, Uchi.
UchihaMadara

Con

Thanks for the opening argument, 9space.
Since BOP is shared, I will only be using this round for my opening argument as well.
For my case, I am just going to be pointing out a few pertinent problems with Pro's proposal to award RoyLatham a free win.

1. A free win does not actually do justice

Pro seems to believe that by awarding Roy a free win, it will somehow make up for his unjust loss. However, the number on Roy's "debates lost" section of his profile will still read "15" regardless of whether or not he receives a free win. All that will happen with a free win is that his "debates won" number would go up from its current 221 to 222, his win ratio would go up from its current 93.64% to 93.67%, and his elo would go up from its current high 7700s range to the low 7800s range. The common characteristic between all of those changes is that they are virtually insignificant because of how high the original numbers were already. Such tiny changes to Roy's stats are going to do nothing to make up for the debate he lost. The issue at hand is not about the effect losing that debate had on his debate record, as Pro seems to believe, but that he unfairly lost that particular debate. The *only* way to properly remedy this is to alter the outcome of that specific debate itself; since that seems to be impossible, nothing can be done about it. Giving Roy a free win does not solve the problem at all; instead, it just creates more problems of its own....

2. His opponent would have to suffer a 'free loss'

Naturally, if Roy were to receive a 'free win', then whoever his opponent is would be receiving a 'free loss', which is completely unjustifiable. By definition, a *free* win would entail that, theoretically, Roy could simply forfeit every round and still win; his opponent would have an exactly 0% chance of winning no matter how well he does or how poorly Roy does. This is blatantly unfair to his opponent, and represents a fundamental flaw with the entire idea of a 'free win'.

3. Everyone has a few "unjust" losses

Almost all the active debaters on the site have at least one loss they would consider to be unjust. I, UchihaMadara, personally think that the majority of the votes against me on my debate with lannan13 regarding the Military Draft are worthy of deletion. Bluesteel lost his debate with Innomen by a single point, mostly many of the votes against him were votebombs with no RFDs whatsoever (allowed under ancient DDO voting). Popculturepooka lost his debate with Sargon only because the notoriously-biased atheist voter Sagey voted against him for reasons largely unrelated to the actual content of the debate. If DDO's moderation were to award RoyLatham a free win, in the interest of member equality, they would be obligated to allow *everyone* who believes they have lost a debate because of vote bombs to appeal for the same to be done for them; this would not only be hugely inconvenient for the mods, but if we take into account the complication detailed in point 2, it becomes entirely unfeasible.

4. 'Free wins' are meaningless

The significance of winning a debate is that the victorious side was able to use their debating skills to present a more convincing case to the voters. By handing out a win for free (which, by definition, entails a lack of labor or effort) the "win" completely loses its significance because there was no skill involved in achieving it at all. Awarding 'free wins' is the equivalent of giving out medals made of styrofoam at the Olympics for participation-- it makes the medals basically worthless and is just overall a nonsensical idea.

"

In conclusion, we see that awarding RoyLatham a free win does not solve the problem at hand at all, that doing so would come with a number of complications, and that the concept of a 'free win' itself is fundamentally flawed.
The resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 2
9spaceking

Pro

My opponent's arguments are very interesting.
Let's see what he says.
1. Free win doesn't do justice?
Then we can delete this old debate and add the free win. Now he has 14 losses and 222 wins, and bigger change of win ratio, and elo would raise pretty much due to his new win and delete of loss.

2. Opponent suffering a "Free loss".
We can have his opponent be the same exact guy who gave him the unfair loss. Therefore Roy will recieve justice becuase he got back at him with his "unfair win". One unfair win deserves the punishment of another unfair win. Only then it will be fair.

3. Everyone has few "unjust" losses?
Sure, why not? If you lose unfairly, complain, and if the moderators truly believe so, they can change the debate around so that in fact you did win that debate fairly rather than those unfair votebombs. Unless it is this situation, in which the standards of debating were different at that time than at now, so the vote cannot be deleted--but nothing suggests that the debate cannot be deleted and a new debate be created to set Roy as the default winner against thejudgeisgod.

4. "Free wins" being meaningless.
Incorrect. These medals aren't worthless. You see, you had to have skill in the original debate to begin with so that the moderators be convinced that, indeed, the votes against you were all biased and that you really, truly, in the heart of the debate, definitely, 100-percent truthfully, won. Take the Olympics example. Let's say the contest is gymnastics. You do a bunch of amazing, impressive, right-on, unique, awesome tricks, but no matter what, the judges only give you zeroes and one's. Then, some random amateur just walks up and doesn't even do any tricks but the judges give him 10's, 10's, 10's all around, one judge even cries and gives him a 12. In this case you obviously lost. You unfairly lost. Now, you had good skill in the first, and people noticed. They called it unfair, and the Olympics manager finally agrees under pressure of suing and stress, and agrees to give you the win. See? Although all it took was some persuation for the "Free win", you had to originally, not freely, using your amazing skills, to actually become the obvious winner within the debate in order for people to agree that the judges were unfair to you and that you deserved to win in the original competition.

I've rebutted my opponent's contentions. Back to you, Uchi.
UchihaMadara

Con

Argh, I don't have much time.
I'll offer one quick rebuttal to Pro's case:

There is no reason to believe that the debate which Pro has cited was actually unfairly lost. Based on the comments section of the debate, it is apparent that Roy had full knowledge of what the voting system was like, including the fact that his opponent was capable of awarding all 7 points to himself. Just like how murder during a war cannot be judged as harshly as murder during peace time, a vote bomb during a time when voting standards were virtually non-existent cannot be judged as harshly as a vote bomb nowadays, at a time when there are very high expectations for vote quality. In other words, Judgeisgod's vote is not necessarily unfair because it was simply conforming to the voting standards at the time; Roy could have chosen to do the same for himself, but he chose not to, for whatever reason. Roy's loss was a result of his own free choice, and thus he must bear the consequences. The fact that such a loss would be considered unfair by today's voting standards is irrelevant.

That is all.
Back to Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
9spaceking

Pro

LAST ROUND.
I think of it a bit unfair that Uchi has only bought this new argument up now. Nevertheless, I will rebut and conclude.
Now, my opponent focuses on how "the voting standards of the time" was conformed by JudgisGod. But there have actually been people who graciously GAVE ALL 7 POINTS TO THEIR OPPONENT. In fact, within this debate: http://www.debate.org...
Kleptin gave ALL 7 POINTS TO HIS OPPONENT.

Another example is Kleptin giving another 7 points all to his opponent within this debate: http://www.debate.org...

Yet again, Kleptin very generously gives all 7 points to his enemy in this debate: http://www.debate.org...
As we can clearly see from these debates, some people are actually very fair, just, or generous. Kleptin's votes for his opponents show that in fact Judgeisgod's 7-point vote for himself was mean and not necessarily the true outcome. Roy was being just and fair and didn't even choose to give conduct point to himself, which he could have easily justified. I'm not sure why Roy didn't choose to ask the moderators to remove the bombs and win the debate while it was still new and fresh, but now, we can redo him justice. I have found Roy's unfair loss--based on today's standards--and therefore, with new foundings, I have proved in round 2 already that at the very least Roy deserves the conduct points, and if everyone gave him at least conduct point, he would have won.

IN CONCLUISION
RoyLatham is a man of political fairness and justice as we can see from his debates and his blogs. He is a very smart, and generous man. He made it to the Hall of Fame, and yet--I believe he still has one unjustified, unfair lost. This lost, based on the very unfair voting system during the old ages, combined with the voters' bias, give sufficient reason why we should now change that loss to a win, or delete that debate and make a new one in which Roy wins. My previous arguments remain unrefuted.

It is resolved: RoyLatham is amazing and deserves a free win. Give that trophy to Roy, moderators!
VOTE ME.
UchihaMadara

Con

Thanks 9space.
It has been an enjoyable debate :)

Before I start, I'd just like to say that Pro's claim that my rebuttal last round was somehow an "unfairly-introduced new argument" is wholly unwarranted... it was a rebuttal, placed in the rebuttals round just like it should be; it's not a new argument. He even concedes that it was a "false accusation" in the comments section of the debate.

I'll start by briefly defending my rebuttal from last round.

Pro attempts to prove that the voting standards of the time did not condone Judgeisgod' self-voting by citing the generous voting habits of a single user... this is a blatant fallacy of induction. Kleptin's actions do not determine what the voting standards were any more than my own actions do now. The fact is that voting standards at the time of the debate allowed for RFD-less votebombs and self-voting, and Judgeisgod took full advantage of both of those allowances. Roy had every right to do so too, as well as every reason to believe that his opponent would do so, but he didn't, and as a result, he lost the debate. The fact that we now consider the loss unjust is irrelevant. The winner of the debate is not obvious, as both sides put forth substantial effort into their cases, and all of the votes were of average quality in the context, so Pro cannot objectively claim that Roy should have won. He has not proven that Roy's loss in that debate was necessarily unjust in the first place, and with that revelation, his entire case falls apart.

Moving onto defending my opening arguments...

1. Pro concedes that merely handing Roy a free win would not do justice. Instead, he proposes the contingent measure of also deleting the original debate along with that. However, doing so is impossible due to the mods' policy on debate deletion; the mods can only delete debates if they have the permission of both debaters or if the debate is clearly spam. Far from being "spam", the debate is actually reasonably well-done, with both debaters having put decent amounts of effort into it, so the mods have no right to delete it without obtaining the permission of both debaters. And seeing that Judgeisgod hasn't been online for quite a while at this point, we have no way of knowing whether or not he would agree to it. The debate cannot be justly deleted. Thus, Pro's contingent measure cannot be carried out, and Pro has already conceded that only awarding Roy a free win doesn't really serve justice. This is more or less a concession of the entire debate; if the proposed motion does not solve the problem it is meant to address, then there is no reason to execute it!

2. Pro proposes that to 'fix' the problem of free losses, Judgeisgod could be the opponent in Roy's free win debate. However, in order to justify this, he characterizes Judgeisgod as having committed some sort of misdeed that is deserving of the punishment of a free loss. This is a completely baseless claim; he has not demonstrated that Judgeisgod's vote was wrong (in context) or that any malicious intentions were involved, and as I mentioned before, what he did was not at all an uncommon practice at the time (Roy did it too, just with less points). More importantly, Judgeisgod is no longer active (and no sign of returning any time soon...), so he can't accept any debates-- this makes it literally impossible for him to be Roy's opponent in his free win debate. Pro's solution to the problem of free losses is entirely unsound.

3. Pro misses the point of my argument about the moderators being obligated to offer the same service to every other member who feels they have unfairly lost a debate due to the lax nature of ancient DDO voting standards. He totally ignores how immensely inconvenient it would be for the moderators to have to review the inevitably large number of cases that would be presented to them upon enacting such a policy. For each case, they would have to read over the debate to see if the outcome was just, read over the votes and weigh them against the voting standards of the time, and get in contact with the unfair winner (even if they are long gone from the site), The inevitable practical consequences of carrying out Pro's proposal render the proposal as a whole to be unfeasible.

4. I concede this argument. However, I will point out that Pro's response relies on the assumptions that the initial loss was actually objectively unfair (refuted by my rebuttal) and that awarding a free win is a sound means for compensation (refuted by all three of my other arguments).

In conclusion, Pro has not been able to demonstrate that Roy's original loss was necessarily unfair, which is what he needed to do to even begin to affirm the resolution. Moreover, awarding free wins is a terrible way of compensating for unfair losses because, objectively, they don't actually make up for anything, and they involve massive complications such as the injustice of awarding someone a 'free loss' and the moderators' obligation to extend the same service to all members.

The resolution is negated.

Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 4
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
well I really did want Roy to win that debate tho.
Posted by UchihaMadara 2 years ago
UchihaMadara
haha I wouldn't be so quick to declare that. it was a far-fetched resolution to begin with :P
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
dang, looks like I lose again. It seems that Uchi truly is the superior debater. *bows
Posted by ESocialBookworm 2 years ago
ESocialBookworm
If I don't vote on this in 5 days, spam my PMS with it.
Posted by ESocialBookworm 2 years ago
ESocialBookworm
pm me to vote on this after pls
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
okay, whatever. In debates you can make false accusations to exploit the opponent's case. The accusations may not always work, anyways.
Posted by UchihaMadara 2 years ago
UchihaMadara
it's not a new argument...

round 2 was for opening arguments, where i objected to the general idea of giving him a free win... round 3 was for rebuttals, where i objected to the specifics of your case.
Posted by Malacoda 2 years ago
Malacoda
Yeah, that's why I didn't elaborate too much. Maybe after the debate is over.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
ah, then let Uchi prove it.
Posted by Malacoda 2 years ago
Malacoda
I don't think I buy your argument 9space. I don't think there is enough evidence to prove that the votes were actually vote bombs.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
9spacekingUchihaMadaraTied
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: Conduct - Tie. Both had proper conduct throughout. S&G - Tie. Both had proper spelling and grammar throughout. Sources - Tie. Neither utilized sources as a means for strengthening their case. Arguments - Con. Pro needed to show reasonable justification for awarding Roy a free win. He was unable to do so. As Con pointed out, Pro gave no justification for the Mods to now have the additional burden of correcting debates that were subject and accepted the previous voting standards. Con also showed how we have no reason to believe that Roys opponent is even active enough to come back for a free loss. There are simply too many holes in Pro's case and Con was able to effectively punch holes in almost all of them. If Pro was able to overcome just a few more challenges, it'd be a different story, but as it stands - Pro was only able to make Con concede one line of argumentation while failing to overcome the other three or four raised by Con. This ballot leans toward Con.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
9spacekingUchihaMadaraTied
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: The debate really comes down to two basic questions: is there a substantial benefit to Roy resulting from this, and is that benefit worth the probable harms? Con tells me that the benefit is insubstantial, and I'm inclined to agree, especially since Pro's response is to pursue some impossible modes of action and punish a debater arbitrarily. Con also tells me that this is going to be a big problem for moderators, who would have to field a tremendous number of requests to repeat this action. I buy these rebuttals, and as such, any small benefit Pro garners is significantly outdistanced by the harm. Ergo, I vote Con.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
9spacekingUchihaMadaraTied
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 showed that without contingencies that Pro couldn't properly defend, the motion couldn't carry. I also thought Con's argument about voting "at the time" was pretty compelling, at least as regards to the motion. A fun debate to read, but arguments to Con. All other categories seemed equal enough, though Pro should cool it on the accusations. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.