The Instigator
000ike
Pro (for)
Winning
17 Points
The Contender
truthseeker613
Con (against)
Losing
16 Points

The DDO debating system is fair

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/10/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,165 times Debate No: 17852
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
Votes (7)

 

000ike

Pro

There are 2 other debates that Truthseeker has instigated on this topic. This one, he contends, such that the voting results can further shed light on the credibility of his claim.

FULL RESOLUTION: The debate system (of DDO) allowing the contender to have the last word, is fair.

Round 1: acceptance
Round 4: Rebuttals only (as usual)
truthseeker613

Con

sorry 4 taking so long. any way I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
000ike

Pro

My argument will be centered around 3 contentions.

Allowing the contender to speak last is fair because...:


C1. It allows both opponents the same amount of speech. (1)

1. In every conversation, every argument, every debate, and every moment of human interaction someone will always speak last, unless two people speak at the same time, then ending the conversation. On a turn based online debate, this logic is even greater observed. Since it is inevitable that one person will speak last, it becomes a question of who that will be. Both debaters should get the same amount of turns and speech (of course we all agree on that). So, the only way that is possible is if the contender speaks last. If the debate begins with the instigator, in order for both people to get equal chances to speak, it must end with the contender. No matter how many rounds there are, this law is true.

Therefore, it is an act of FAIRNESS to allow the contender to speak last, rather than the unfairness my opponent perceives.


C2. If a voter sides with whoever speaks last, then HE is unfair and not the system itself.

1. The system, again, allows both debators equal opportunities to speak. If a voter has a tendency to be more convinced by whomever he heard last, then that is his flaw. The debate system cannot be blamed for the wrong and unjust decisions of voters.

C3. There is usually nothing very convincing in final rounds

1. The final round is for refutation only. If the instigator's closing arguments were so weak that the contender could easily dismantle them and leave that lasting victory impression on the readers, then that is the fault of the instigator for being so inept. In any debate containing over 3 rounds, most powerful points would be exhausted by the final round. If someone withholds his powerful points until the final round, those points will be disregarded by fair voters and the person would lose conduct points. Basically, there is no advantage for speaking last unless an unfair voter, or unskilled instigator makes it an advantage. The system of debating in and of itself is fair. (2)

Sources

1. This debate itself.
2. Logical thinking.
truthseeker613

Con

Rebuttal section:

1) I agree that giving each side equal time is fair. However there is an unfair side to it. That makes it unfair. My opponents point seems to be that since there is no alternative it is fair. It seems his source is this debate itself. I disagree with this Logic" that since there is no alternative that makes it fair. Further more I question how my opponent concluded that there is no alternative. In fact I put up a thread in the forums and got some responses.

2)My opponents second point is that it is the voter not the system that is unfair. A system that leads to unfairness is unfair.

3) My opponents final point is that last rounds are for responses also. briefly, my response to this is even if that is the way it should be that is not the way it is. I would continue disputing but my evidence in the next section will speak for itself to refute all that my opponent is saying.

Evidence of advantage of having the last word:

1) reason/logic:
The contender has last word these are the words most fresh in the voter (and any readers) mind at the conclusion of reading the debate. In addition the instigator cannot respond to what was last said. the instigator may have a very good rebuttal or the contender may have made a mistake or inaccuracy and the instigator is powerless to respond to the contenders statement. This puts the instigator at a disadvantage.

2) statistical data:
1st I will present some interesting facts figures and observations based on what ddo calls "the top 10 debaters".

The "top" debater on ddo (i.e. most experienced ddo debater): In the past 9 debates has been contender every time winning 9 0ut of 9 that means in her past 9 debates she choose contender every time and won every time.
To contrast the debater in 2nd place bravely chooses the opposite side as instigator in 9 0f the past 9 debates. The results show, bec. of this (or I should say in spite of it) he has a winning percentile of 58% significantly lower than the 1st debater who has a winning percent of over 90. The difference in style are reflected in the win %.

#3: an impressive 94% win rate, 4 out of the past 5 debates was contender.

#4: a moderate 80% and likewise has been contender 3 of last 5.

#5: (in my opinion the best debater on ddo) has an impressive 94% win rate and 4 of past 5 he was contender.

#6: similar to #4.

#7: 88.4% contender 4 of 5.

#8: similar to #2, 53% win rate and majority of past 5 have been instigator.

#9: 88.9%, majority contender.

finally, #10, like #4 and #6.

There is a clear correlation between these debating styles and their win %. I know this isn't the most perfect data proof but hey, I'm just starting. I shall attempt to compute more sound statistical proof.

In analysis of the section of debates entitled "recently ended":
of the 19 debates that were voted on, in a whopping 15 of them contender was winning.
or looking at the score discrepancy instigator totaled 50 while contender totaled 181.
I find these #'s quite significant.

I would continue with states but I think the following quote from Ore_Ele, is all I need:
"Historically, the Contender wins 65.4% of all debates. Given that this applies to 12,500 debates, that is hard to say that there is no correlation. We also see this trend leaning more and more towards the Contender, with the last 5,000 debates favoring them 68.9%."

The #'s speak for themselves. vote pro.
Debate Round No. 2
000ike

Pro

Rebuttals

1. One of my biggest arguments was that voters would be the unfair ones for voting based on who they heard last, and not the debate system. So, my opponent could conjure up all the effects of having the last word, but if he does not properly negate this statement, then the resolution is disproved.

My opponent conveniently brushed over this point with:
"My opponents second point is that it is the voter not the system that is unfair. A system that leads to unfairness is unfair."

Basically, what my opponent did was repeat his resolution as a method of refutation. Therefore, my point and my reasoniing still stands unnegated, that voters would be unfair for being swayed so easily by external factors, and not the system.


2. "The contender has last word these are the words most fresh in the voter (and any readers) mind at the conclusion of reading the debate. In addition the instigator cannot respond to what was last said. the instigator may have a very good rebuttal or the contender may have made a mistake or inaccuracy and the instigator is powerless to respond to the contenders statement. This puts the instigator at a disadvantage."

Again my opponent has neglected to address another one of my major points in the second round. "there is no advantage for speaking last unless an unfair voter, or unskilled instigator makes it an advantage. The system of debating in and of itself is fair."He mentions that the last word is fresh in the mind of the voter. It is the voter's responsibility to vote fairly. If he really does not remember, as you say, the instigators previous arguments, then he should re-read it.



3. Now notice how my opponent conveniently replied to one of my arguments without refuting it.

"I agree that giving each side equal time is fair. However there is an unfair side to it. That makes it unfair. My opponents point seems to be that since there is no alternative it is fair. It seems his source is this debate itself. I disagree with this Logic" that since there is no alternative that makes it fair. Further more I question how my opponent concluded that there is no alternative. In fact I put up a thread in the forums and got some responses."

In a turn based online debate, and in any conversation for that matter, someone must speak last, unless both people speak at the same time....but that isn't possible when typing. My opponent has yet to provide a circumstance under which no one spoke last, and I truly doubt he can. When typing, someone will inevitably get the last word. The only obligation of the system is to allow everyone equal speech opportunities. Since the current DDO systems allows everyone to speak equally, it is fair.

Faulty Statistics

1. "The "top" debater on ddo (i.e. most experienced ddo debater): In the past 9 debates has been contender every time winning 9 0ut of 9 that means in her past 9 debates she choose contender every time and won every time."

This can easily be explained, as there are strong variables that lead to this result. Members contend on debate resolutions that have intrinsique fallacies or simply weak supporting arguments. Or, they contend because they simply know that they have more powerful points. This makes for an easy win for many contenders. This, again, falls under the fault of the instigator for being so inept, and not some unfairness from the system. Here are a few examples of contended arguments with obvious faulty resoluions. (1)(2)(3)

2. "an impressive 94% win rate, 4 out of the past 5 debates was contender."

My opponent did not provide a source to this statistic, so I can only treat it as a mere assertion. Ore_Ele, A member who has received a spreadsheet of every debate on DDO, has a different statistic "Historically, the Contender wins 65.4% of all debates. Given that this applies to 12,500+ debates, that is hard to say that there is no correlation. We also see this trend leaning more and more towards the Contender, with the last 5,000 debates favoring them 68.9%." (4) Now I have this quote here to nullify my opponents previous statistic, even though this new statistic still favors my opponent....at face value.

(4) Ore_Ele went on to explain that the reason for his statistic was probably not because of a tendancy to side with contenders but rather because of the inexperienced newcomers that instigate debates. DDO gets a healthy influx of newcomers (5) and many of them start debates that sets them up to lose. With Ore_Ele's statistic being inclusive of those erroneous newcomer-instigated debates, that could easily explain the shft in contenders winning. So this particular statistic is not a viable source of evidense against this so-called unfairness.

3. Same above refutation applies to the remainder of con's "statistics"


In Conclusion

My opponent has yet to actually refute that someone MUST speak last. Until he can negate it, the statement stands. Since someone has to speak last, it MUST be the contender (if both people are getting equal speech). That is the fair action. If a tendancy exists in certain voters to side with who they heard last, than that is their own personal weakness. Maybe they should look over the instigators arguments again very quickly. The decision of the voter is the voter's responsibility. If he is convinced by who's voice he heard last, then HE is unfair, and we cannot blame the system. Therefore, the DDO debate system is fair.

Sources

1. http://www.debate.org...
2. http://www.debate.org...
3. http://www.debate.org...
4. http://www.debate.org...
5. http://www.debate.org...


So, in my opponent's OWN EXACT words,...."The #'s speak for themselves. vote pro"
truthseeker613

Con

Rebuttal:
1) Regarding my opponents point that it is the voter not the system which is unfair. I maintain a system which leads to unfairness is unfair. Consider the following extreme example: consider a court system in which the jury is told that if they acquit the defendant they will be awarded a million $. would you say that the system is fair its just the jury which is unfair, obviously no.
One more example to be shore my point gets across. Consider that it has been shown that a blue court room results in the jury being more sympathetic to one side. For the court room to be painted blue would be considered unfair not merely the jury, for being affected by the color blue.

2)same as above.

3)My opponent seems not to understand my point here, I will attempt to clarify. There are 2 points here:

a) The fact that there is no alternative does not make it fair. I think this is obvious, I see no way to make this point more clear.

b)even if there is no way to make it that no, one side goes last it is possible to make other changes to counter the last word advantage. The following is a sample listing of suggestions proposed:
b1)The following was from CD-Host in forums:
"Its interesting I was thinking about asymmetric debate systems this morning myself. Yes I would agree that last word means a lot.

For example when I used to debate it was
AC1 NC1 AC2 NC2 NR1 AR1 NR2 AR2. What I was thinking of for DDO was 4 round structure

Rules & topic(con) AC1 NR1 AC2 NC1 AR1 NC2 AR2
with an asymmetric win criteria. Negative wins on either a strictly better counter case or a successful rebuttal. (i.e. affirmative plan is bad or negative has a better plan).

The following idea was from F-16_Fighting_Falcon:

What if the debate follows a formula really closely by keeping each round for specific purposes? Both get equal opportunity. The only risk is that it might possibly feel disjointed for the voters?

The following from Ore_Ele:
Or just having (if R1 is for acceptance and not arguing).

IR2 (instigator R2) be X characters (could be 2,000 or 4,000 or 8,000 or whatever they set it to.
CR2 (contender R2) be 2*X characters.
IR3 be 2*X characters.
CR3 be 2*X characters.
IR4 be 2*X characters.
CR4 be X characters.

That way, the contender has the room to address the Instigators arguments and make their own, and both sides get a grand total of 5*X character space to write in.

This would obviously be adjusted to fit the number of rounds (be they 3 rounds, 2 rounds, 5 rounds, etc). There could also be a field that allows R1 to be acceptance (so this character count method applies only to rounds 2 and on) that is only 1,000 or 2,000 characters max (plenty for rules, definition, etc.

statistics:

My opponent makes the following points:

1)unfairness in voter not system.

2)Not quoting source.

3)other factors that explain the statistics.

My responses are as follows:

1)Already dealt with.

2)I am sorry, I thought my source was obvious. For your convenience I will provide a link http://www.debate.org......
to verify, simply click on each name, and from that page you can access all their debates.

3)(1st as an aside I am appalled at the conduct in the debate quoted in source #1. Taking advantage of some kid from India's lack of perfect English is wrong and a practice that should be stooped on ddo, it is unwelcoming and unfair send the guy a message, help him, as you commendably did in #2, but at the very least don't take advantage.)

My response to this is
1)With such a large gap of nearly twice as many contenders to instigators winning can hardly be blamed on these factors alone. In addition there are some minor factors which would cause instigator to win these include a)more research time. b)instigator more frequently has BoP. Despite these reasons, Contender wins nearly twice as often that can hardly be explained by my opponents reason alone.

2)Lastly since I have countered on the reason front, that there is a last word factor, and the statistical evidence points to a contender advantage, it would seem reasonable that it is indeed this "last word factor" which is contributing to that large imbalance, even if it is not the sole reason.

Argument:

I would like to provide some cases that imply last word advantage:
http://www.debate.org...
I am focusing on the voting section. note those who voted in my favor where 2 of the senior, well known and well respected debaters on ddo, cliff. stamp and Roy lathem. Both of them voted in my favor and gave detailed reasons for doing so. Despite this I lost the debate bec. some kids couldn't keep the entirety of the debate in their mind and where swayed by "the last word".

http://www.debate.org...
my opponent did not even debate much (instead just harped on definitions) till the final round after which I could not respond.

http://www.debate.org...
see comments after debate where it is clear the damage of not having last word.

http://www.debate.org...
Note in round 4 my entire last argument was completely dropped. Not a word. I pointed this out in the debate itself in round 5. yet none of the voters realized this glaring drop. The only plausible explanation is they forgot and were swayed by the power of "the last word".
Debate Round No. 3
000ike

Pro

This is the last round, and as usual, there can only be rebuttals. So I will not introduce any new points, only refute my opponent's.

Counter Rebuttals


1. The Voter who sides with whomever he heard last is unfair, not the system.

My opponent repeated the same statement from the last round, "I maintain a system which leads to unfairness is unfair." He has still made no substantial or logical opposition to my conclusion. He proceeded to provide two impertinent examples that showed and demonstrated nothing. If a court room is painted blue, (example 2) and the jury voted with that influence, then the jury is unfair. The duty of a voter is to look at the facts from an unbiased point of view, resist outside influence, and vote on whomever has proved to be correct. This is a VOTER'S responsibility. Should he fail to achieve that mindset and allow himself to be influenced by frivolous factors like last word, and a blue courtroom, then he and he alone is unfair.

Readers, my opponent is blaming inanimate factors rather than the people subjecting themselves to their influence. Imagine a chair, neatly tucked under a desk, where it should be, stubbing your toe on it, and blaming the chair. That, in effect, is what my opponent is doing.



2. Someone will inevitably speak last, so it must be the contender

This was my opponent's reply to this contention:

"even if there is no way to make it that no, one side goes last it is possible to make other changes to counter the last word advantage. The following is a sample listing of suggestions proposed:
b1)The following was from CD-Host in forums:"

I am arguing that the last word is not an advantage by nature. It is only an advantage if an inept instigator or unfair voter MAKES it an advantage. Note that this is my THIRD TIME saying this...once in each round.

My opponent has deviated from the subject of this debate. He proceeds to provide examples on how to offset the last word advantage, as if we have both reached consensus that an intrinsique advantage (brought on by DDO's system) exists in the first place.

With that in mind, I will disregard his examples and all pertaining to it, and continue proving that an inherent advantage does not exist.



3. My opponent responded to my explanation for his statistics with this:

"With such a large gap of nearly twice as many contenders to instigators winning can hardly be blamed on these factors alone. In addition there are some minor factors which would cause instigator to win these include a)more research time. b)instigator more frequently has BoP. Despite these reasons, Contender wins nearly twice as often that can hardly be explained by my opponents reason alone."

Now, I mentioned before that Ore_Ele is a member who has received a spreadsheet of ALL debates ever made on this website. This is his explanation for Con's statistics:

"The likely reasons are because...
1) Instigators are often new members that will not finish their debates (they can also accept debates and never finish them, but it is more likely they'll start one).
2) Instigators often start with their arguments in R1, so the potential Contenders will not accept unless they are confident that they'll win because their opponent has revieled their hand.
3) Contenders are more likely to find and exploit semantic arguments to get a technical win." (1)

I find that on the matter of credentials, Ore_Ele's word heavily outweighs my opponent's, given that he has been on the website for a longer amount of time than my opponent (2), and has seen the spreadsheet of every debate, lending him the basis and experience to make such explanations. This is a "my word versus his word" situation since neither of us have a database of statistics to refer to. So I suggest readers follow my word given the greater credibility of my source.

With that said, the refutation stands that my opponent offered faulty and deceptive statistics.



4. Conduct

As we recall, I said that many newcomers instigate debates with faulty resolutions, hence making contenders appear to win more often. I provided examples to support this. This was one of those examples. Read its resolution: http://www.debate.org...

This is my opponents reply to my source:

"1st as an aside I am appalled at the conduct in the debate quoted in source #1. Taking advantage of some kid from India's lack of perfect English is wrong and a practice that should be stooped on ddo, it is unwelcoming and unfair send the guy a message, help him, as you commendably did in #2, but at the very least don't take advantage."

Con's fallacious attempt to incriminate a worthy example goes without merit. It was a faulty resolution, so I used it as an example to show the prevalence of new-comer based faulty resolutions. I'm not sure if this is an attempt to gain the conduct point, but regardless, this accusation is vacuous and devoid of reason.



5. My opponent's last few examples

Readers, notice that my opponent's last 3 examples were debates that HE lost. He tried to use those debates to show the contender "advantage."

1. Being that those debates include my opponent, truthseeker, of course he would feel that he should have won them.

2. If you skim through those debates he provided, you will find that truthseeker's opponents provided superior arguments, hence justly lending them victory.

3. These debate examples are without warrant.


In Conclusion

Back to relevance. Last word advantage does not exist unless an unskilled debator or unfair voter MAKES it an advantage.

A voter can be influenced by anything, if he allows it. He could be influenced by whoever spoke first. He could be influenced by who ever wrote more. He could be influenced by whoever took the position of con, and vice versa. He could be influenced by his own stance on the debate topic. This does not mean that the system must infinitely contort itself to counter these obstacles of judgement. It is the voter that must get past such distractions and vote fairly. If he cannot do that, then he is unfair and to blame. The system did not create the unfairness, the voter did.

The debate system of DDO, in its allowing the contender to speak last (since SOMEONE must inevitably speak last, and both debators need equal speech), is fair.


Vote Pro. Thank you.

Sources

1. http://www.debate.org...
2.http://www.debate.org...






truthseeker613

Con

Rebuttal to rebuttal:

1)who is unfair:

I maintain that the system is unfair. As I said before a system that leads to unfairness is unfair. I provided 2 comparative examples, my opponent only responded to one of them, the 2nd one. (1st was not responded to.)
My opponent explains why the voter is unfair in that example. That doesn't preclude the system from also being unfair.

My opponent keeps harping on the fact that it is the voters fault. This does not negate my statement that the system is unfair. They are non-contradictory statements. My opponent has not negated my claim that the system is unfair.

2)?

My opponent states some one will have to go last there for the system is not unfair.

I understood his point to be that it is inevitable, and there for not unfair.

Apparently this is not his point, I am at loss to understand how else the fact that some one must go last makes it that the system is fair. It has not been mentioned by anyone else on any of the forums or other debates on this topic.

3)Alternative explanations:

My opponent provides alternate explanations for the statistics, from Ore_Ele a much more experienced and informed member of ddo.

1)I am afraid my opponent did not respond to my reply. My statement and Ore_Ele's statements do not contradict one another. He did not say these are the only reason and I did not say this is the only reason. We each gave reasons. For a large gap in winning %.

(One reason he probably didn't mention it was bec. I had already mentioned it in that thread.)

2)Further evidence that Ore_Ele does not disagree with my reasoning is:
http://www.debate.org...
note his comment, implying he does not think I really am wrong, but just taking the debate as a challenge, to see if he can beat me anyway.

3) even if he does disagree with me that is a weak argument. It would be like me bringing the fact that in my thread 5 ddo members agreed with me. Including a 41 yr. old (older than Ore_Ele). and Mongeese (a member of ddo for 2 years, double that of Ore_Ele, as well as a member of ddo top 10, with over double the # of debates.).[1]

4)I just realized that Ore_Ele clearly doesn't disagree with me, as evidenced by his suggestion of how to fix the problem:
Here was Ore_Ele's suggestion [2]

"Or just having (if R1 is for acceptance and not arguing).

IR2 (instigator R2) be X characters (could be 2,000 or 4,000 or 8,000 or whatever they set it to.
CR2 (contender R2) be 2*X characters.
IR3 be 2*X characters.
CR3 be 2*X characters.
IR4 be 2*X characters.
CR4 be X characters.

That way, the contender has the room to address the Instigators arguments and make their own, and both sides get a grand total of 5*X character space to write in.

This would obviously be adjusted to fit the number of rounds (be they 3 rounds, 2 rounds, 5 rounds, etc). There could also be a field that allows R1 to be acceptance (so this character count method applies only to rounds 2 and on) that is only 1,000 or 2,000 characters max (plenty for rules, definition, etc)."

It is clear from his suggestion that he agrees (at least partially) with me as his solution pertains to my reasons and not his. I think this closes this argument, and in fact turns it around.

4)conduct:

In direct response to this, the ans. is, no, this was not intended to be part of the debate, Points for conduct should not be taken from my opponent. (it was a different debate and therefore not relevant to his conduct in this debate.) The validity of the example he was trying to bring was valid as far as that point was concerned.

The following is an unessential part of the debate, it can be skipped by those who understood the previous statement:
(I am afraid there was a misunderstanding on the part of my opponent. I did not intend this as part of the debate, as evidence by:
a) parentheses, (which my opponent left out his quotation of me.).
b)prefacing with the words "as an aside.
c)not numbering it, "1)", as I did for the rest of my arguments.
d)Writing it, before writing, "my response is...".
I am sorry if it was misunderstood I was merely venting my feelings about an injustice unrelated to this debate. It should have no bearings on this debate. Just to further show I was not attempting to gain conduct points I'll mention:
a)it wasn't in this debate so how could I get conduct points for it.
b) I purposely did not point out that it was my opponent who did the taking advantage as apposed to my follow up statement were I praised an action I did mention my opponent. I am sorry for the mis-communication I hope it has all been cleared up.)

5)response to my cases:

My opponent makes the following objections:

1)I am biased since they were my own debate.

And there for what. I made points in were the last word lead to an unfair advantage. The fact that these are my debates does not address my point. To address the point it would have to be shown that there were other reasons for the results or at least show that this was not necessary the reason.

2)The contenders arguments were better.

My opponent did not provide any details regarding this so the best I can do is say no they weren't. I made specific points about why the debates were unfairly affected by the last word. My opponent did not respond to those points at all. (I think the most powerful point was made in case #4. http://www.debate.org... . Were the final argument of round 4 was dropped and repeated in round 5 and again drooped. This was forgotten by the voters by the end of the debate. ((I am willing to debate anyone that I should have won that debate, and would appreciate voters setting things strait over there.)))

3)These debate warrants are without warrant.

My opponent did not explain himself (unless he means the previous 2 points which I addressed.) So I maintain:
They were with warrant.

summary:

I maintained that there is an imperfection in the debate system.

I gave a 3 part argument:

1)reason.

2)cases.

3)statistics.

my opponent brought a # of arguments to which I have responded above.

I thank my opponent for a well fought debate. It was truly enlightening.

(I hope my point is acknowledged, and the imbalance is resolved to bring greater accuracy, and integrity to the debate system.)

Thank you all, Vote con.

[1]http://www.debate.org...
[2] http://www.debate.org...
Debate Round No. 4
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Man-is-good 6 years ago
Man-is-good
I meant 'having the final word is NOT a sign of fairness'.
Posted by Man-is-good 6 years ago
Man-is-good
Let's hope this is proof for truthseeker that having the final word is a sign of unfairness....
Posted by 000ike 6 years ago
000ike
Sure, so long as you don't introduce any new points.
Posted by truthseeker613 6 years ago
truthseeker613
you wrote round 4 is only 4 rebutals. Does that exclude sumaries?
Posted by truthseeker613 6 years ago
truthseeker613
you wrote round 4 is rebutals only. what abought summary.
Posted by truthseeker613 6 years ago
truthseeker613
sorry my links don't work I'll redo them next round.
Posted by jm_notguilty 6 years ago
jm_notguilty
I lol'd at ike's last statement.
Posted by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
lol, he just copied his round from my debate with him.
Posted by 000ike 6 years ago
000ike
Well, it may not, but at least I have one other source, and i'll have more legitimate sources later.
Posted by mongeese 6 years ago
mongeese
I don't think "logical thinking" qualifies as a source.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Andromeda_Z 5 years ago
Andromeda_Z
000iketruthseeker613Tied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter
Vote Placed by bozotheclown 5 years ago
bozotheclown
000iketruthseeker613Tied
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: 000ike never answered the question as to whether or not it was fair.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 6 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
000iketruthseeker613Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Core of the debate was system vs voters and Con proves that in this case, an unfair system is what is leading to unfair voters. Pro's argument about ineptitude of debaters was not developed enough. He doesn't show how it is fair that it is the fault of the instigator if he didn't provide good last round args. If the contender doesn't provide good last round args which can't be easily refuted, shouldn't he face the same penalty? Con loses Conduct for disparaging the "kids" who voted against him.
Vote Placed by thett3 6 years ago
thett3
000iketruthseeker613Tied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pros C3 nailed it. I would be willing to bet that in a 4 rond debate the vast vast vast majority of people have already made their decision.
Vote Placed by mongeese 6 years ago
mongeese
000iketruthseeker613Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: I thought Con's analogy with the courtroom with blue walls was rather appropriate. A system that leads to unfair voters can indeed be considered an unfair system. He also correctly identified the "last word" bonus.
Vote Placed by Double_R 6 years ago
Double_R
000iketruthseeker613Tied
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: This whole debate came down to the System vs. Voter argument for which Pro presented a strong case but Con adequately refuted it. Con presented examples of how certain elements can alter the eventual results for which Pro had no rebuttal other then repeating his original statement. As Cons examples showed; it is human nature to consider the last word so while the voter is to blame, the system still plays a role in giving an advantage to the instigator, making it unfair.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 6 years ago
Man-is-good
000iketruthseeker613Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con loses points for argumentation due to his many mistakes in argumentation (making impertinent cases, not giving reliable statistics, not directly addressing Pro's points and contentions) and especially grammar and spelling (Pro was marginally better in spelling and grammar). Con also loses points for conduct as well, since he decided to rant about his losses ('Despite this...swayed by the final word'). Sorry, Con.