The Instigator
CriticalThinkingMachine
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
baggins
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

The Voting System For Debate.org Has Many Avoidable Mistakes

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
baggins
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/13/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,745 times Debate No: 25123
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (2)

 

CriticalThinkingMachine

Pro

In this debate I am not arguing that the voting system for this website is simply flawed or contains unavoidable imperfections, but rather than it contains easily avoidable and significant errors that were caused by the conscious decisions on the part of the creator(s) of this website.

You may find this an odd statement to make. I have only been in one debate so far, and I am winning that debate, so why am I questioning the voting system, off of which I am winning. Well, I believe that the errors in the voting system did not affect my win (that I won despite the errors). In fact, I believe that I would have won by more if not for the errors in the voting system. I am not arguing that everything about the voting system is flawed, just a few things.

Here are the dimensions of the debate:
category miscellaneous
topic The voting system for debate.org has many avoidable mistakes
position (pro/for)
number of rounds 3
time to argue 72 hours (3 days)
voting period 72 hours (3 days)
argument max 8000 characters

The burden of proof is on me.

I would like to thank my opponent in advance and I look forward to a great debate.

baggins

Con

Thanks to CriticalThinkingMachine for initiating this debate.

It is clear that he has planned some special argument. I am waiting for them eagerly.
Debate Round No. 1
CriticalThinkingMachine

Pro

Thank you for responding so quickly. This is the first debate that I have started and I’m sure it will be a stimulating one.

There are seven mistakes/errors/issues that I have found in the voting system for this
very website. My first six issues have to do with the outcome of who is declared the winner, and the last one deals with logical issues involving time and voting.

1- The first two questions in the voting criteria do not have any points, so it does not matter how one answers them. It will have no effect on who is declared the winner. The first two questions are irrelevant.

2- The next two questions have points but are still irrelevant as to who won the debate, so there is no need for them to be there. I think that grammar and conduct is important, and so I think that debaters should be penalized in some way if they have poor grammar or poor conduct (perhaps by having it stated for them at the top of the debate when finished) but it has no relevance to who won the debate.

3- The question of having the most reliable sources is problematic. What if one debater does not use any sources? What if he does not need them? What if he uses pure logic to prove his contention? Suppose one debater uses unreliable source and the other debater does not use any sources (but needs to). Which is worse, using bad sources or using no sources (when they are needed)? What if one
debater uses reliable sources but they do not support his topic and the other debater uses no sources but proves his topic? How does a voter escape this dilemma? This question should be scrapped for these reasons. And how would a voter go about determining if the sources are reliable or not? This might be extremely time-consuming would involve in depth research beyond the debate itself.

The only relevant question in the criteria is the fifth one, which is “Who had the most convincing arguments”?

4- Under the voting criteria it says “reasons for your voting decision- required”. But this does not stop some voters for voting without providing reasons. Also, even when the voters do provide reasons, that does not mean the reasons will be good (read the reason provided from the guy who voted against me for my first debate to see what I mean). There is apparently no third party to enforce that voters
provide reasons for their votes and that their reasons are good, so lack of reasons or bad reasons can pass.

5- Voters are allowed to vote for themselves, but voters should either not be allowed to vote for themselves or should be forced to vote for themselves. Anything else results in unfairness or irrelevancy. Let me explain. There are several scenarios that can occur under the rule that voters may vote for themselves. 1- Both voters vote for themselves, in which case their votes cancel each other
out. 2- One voter votes for himself while the other does not, and this creates the win for the voter who voted for himself, in which case this is unfair. 3- One voter votes for himself while the other does not, and this does not affect the outcome of the debate, in which case the vote was pointless. So the
self-voting either is pointless or unfair. By the way, I would not fault a debater (debater 1) for voting for himself if his opponent (debater 2) voted for himself first and this vote was costing debater 1 the win. But the problem would not arise in the first place if voters were either forced to vote for themselves or denied the right to vote for themselves. The same problem obviously does not affect larger scale things like political voting.

6- One of the things an instigator of a debate must decide is how long they would like the voting period to be. When I went to start this debate, there was no option that says “the voting period will not end”. Yet when I stumbled across a debate entitled “Acronyms should have a period mark after each letter, instead of there just being the letters”, under the “cast my vote” box was a statement that said “the voting period for this debate does not end.” I have two complaints here. One, why was the instigator of this debate able to create an endless voting period but I was not (not that I want to, because I don’t and my next reason reveals why), and two, endless voting periods make voting pointless, because no one will ever officially be declared the winner.

7- Even after the voting period has ended and either the instigator or the contender has been declared the winner, the section under the debaters may still say “winning” or “losing”. It uses the present tense, but if the voting period has already ended, and one debater has been declared the winner, how can a debater still be in the process of winning or losing? This goes the other way too. When the voting period is still going on, and one side is winning while the other side is losing, the “debate statistics” on the profile pages of the debaters will add a number both to the “won” section for the winning side and to the “lost” section for the loser, even before they have actually won.

In conclusion, it is clear that the voting system for this website has several issues. I am eagerly awaiting baggins’ response to my contentions. I hope that his old age and long flight from Middle Earth to India do not hinder his debating abilities.


baggins

Con


Debate.org (DDO) relies on review by other debaters to decide which of the side has won the debate. The DDO community takes the integrity of voting system very seriously. Comments, criticism and suggestions are always welcomed for further improvement of the system. This is not a cliché. In past, the members have suggested many changes to the voting system. These suggestions have been incorporated to improve the system.


The resolution for the debate is,


The Voting System For Debate.org Has Many Avoidable Mistakes


This has been elaborated by my esteemed opponent in R1:


… it contains easily avoidable and significant errors that were caused by the conscious decisions on the part of the creator(s) of this website.


To win this debate my opponent needs to show



  1. DDO voting system contains significant errors.

  2. The errors are caused by conscious decision of creator(s)


Let us look into the errors pointed by Criticalthinkingmachine and see if any of them fulfill the criteria presented by him.


1. Who did you agree with before/after the debate: This is not irrelevant. It allows voters to specify their own positions. For example I am a strong theist. If there is a debate on religion where atheist has clearly won (because theist debater has not been that good), then it present a dilemma for me. However in DDO voting system, I can vote all points for the deserving side while specifying my own position through first two points. The first two points also provide a useful feedback to the debaters.


2. Who had better conduct / spelling and grammar: Pro feels that these factors should not contribute to debates. However in opinion of most debaters, these factors should also be considered. This encourages good conduct, spelling and grammar. Reading a debate is much more enjoyable when opponents have invested some effort in it. My opponent admits there has to be some way of penalizing poor conduct, spelling or grammar. A point each dedicated for these is the best penalty as well as incentive.


3. Who had better sources: In a formal debate, presenting arguments with proper evidence and sources requires lots of effort. It is essential that some weight is given to it. In debates where sources are not needed; or in debates where both sides have presented good sources, this point can be left as a tie. In cases where one side has made the required effort, it is essential that they should be rewarded.


In case, my opponent feels strongly about this issue, he can provide an overall vote based on arguments only. As long as the reason for voting is clearly specified, no one would object to that.


4. Reason for voting: In case a person votes with obviously fake reasons, this community takes the issue very seriously. In the language of DDO, such votes are known as vote-bombs. Once the issue is raised by debaters, warning is issued to the concerned user. Members help in ‘countering’ such votes. In case a dubious voter votes on multiple debates, her account is banned. As a further precaution, new debaters are not allowed to vote until they complete a definite number of debates.


There is a related problem of users voting by submitting poorly written RFDs. There is no direct solution for this problem, since it is possible that a particular voter may not be as intelligent as the debaters. It is not feasible to stop someone for voting as a result of ‘lack of intelligence’. However this is not an ‘avoidable error’ due to ‘conscious decisions on the part of the creator(s)’. In fact if my opponent has any suggestions as to how this problem can be avoided, I am sure all of us would like to hear it.


5. Debaters voting on their own debates: This is not allowed. Earlier this was possible, however this facility has been blocked as per suggestions by users of this site.


6. Indefinite voting period: This was allowed earlier. However it is no longer allowed. My opponent has referred to a debate without providing the link. He was apparently referring to this debate [2]. It can be seen that the debate is at least two years old.


7. Won vs. Winning / Lost vs. Losing: This is not a significant issue.


Thanks to Criticalthinkingmachine for concern for my health and age. It is well established that middle earth is same as the current earth, which is now passing through the fifth age (or the Age of Lesser Humans).


Waiting eagerly for rebuttals by my esteemed opponent.


References


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


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


Debate Round No. 2
CriticalThinkingMachine

Pro

1

Con has misunderstood my view and argued beside the point. I never said that the first two questions are irrelevant in themselves. I think they are both very relevant and interesting in themselves. I agree with Con that they allow voters to specify their views and provide useful feedback for the debaters. This does not matter. My argument was that they are irrelevant to the voting system. They have no bearing on who wins or loses. Con has not addressed this point. I never said that they should not be asked or answered, only that they should not be placed, so to speak, “on all fours” with the other questions. Do presidential ballets contain questions like “Who did you agree with before/after the campaign”? No. That question is important and so it is asked on news shows and polls, but it is kept separate from the actual voting questions, as it should be.

Also, there is nothing to prevent voters from lying about with whom they agreed/disagreed before/after the debate.

I’m glad Con is a strong theist. I am a strong theist myself.

2

Con has misstated my views. I never said that these factors should not contribute to debates. I definitely think they should, and I completely agree that reading a debate is much more enjoyable when the when opponents have invested effort in it. What I said is that they should not contribute to the voting system of the debate (they should not affect who is declared the winner of the debate. Just because I believe that these factors should not affect one part of a debate (the voting part) does not mean that I believe that they should not affect other parts (such as the arguments). I therefore agree with most voters. (Con used an appeal to popularity here “…in the opinion of most voters…”. This is fallacious, but I won’t push it because, as I just explained, he is only using this fallacy against something I never said.) My point about the irrelevancy of conduct, spelling and grammar to voting remains without a response.

The number of points (or lack thereof) for each question appear in parenthesis next to the questions in the voting section but not on an actual page of a debate.Why the inconsistency?
Con offers no argument for his belief that the best way to penalize voters for bad grammar/conduct is in the voting. He just asserts it. Again, grammar has nothing to do with proving an opponent wrong, so it should not be a factor in the voting.

3

The importance of reliable, necessary and relevant sources can be incorporated into the most convincing argument question, and voting tie is a superficial way to solve the solution.

4

Con’s says that inappropriate reasons given for votes are being combated. I gladly concede to this, however, see my response to #6.

Con brings up the issue of poorly written reasons by people lacking intelligence and says that this problem is not directly avoidable or solvable, and asks if I have a solution to it. But I did not bring up this issue, HE DID! (again he argues against something I never said). I do not have to come up with a solution because I do not believe it really has a solution. I agree with Con that it may indeed be an unavoidable problem.

Con says that as a precaution, new debaters are not allowed to vote unless they complete a definite number of (the FAQ said three) debates. How this prevents “vote-bombs” is still a mystery. It seems discriminatory in that it assumes that new voters will be bad voters. The FAQ section said that is ensures that each vote belongs to a single individual. The logic here is also a mystery to me.

I tested out the claim that you must have partaken in three debates in order to vote, and it is true, but noticed another mistake in the process. On a debate page itself, one’s vote is simply asked for, regardless of whether he has partaken in three hundred debates, three debates, or no debates. It is only when one actually fills out the criteria, provides a reason and clicks “cast my vote” does it tell you that you must complete 3 debates (if you have not already done so.) Why isn’t there something that simply says something like "You do not yet qualify to vote” for unqualified voters on the debate page
itself, instead of the words “vote here” which may lead voters on and falsely imply that they can vote when they cannot?

5

Con says that this used to be true, but that it no longer is. I gladly concede to this point, however, see my response to #6.

Con mentions that this change was made due to suggestions by users of the site. I guess I’m not the only one who believes that this was a foolish move by the creators of the website.

6

Con’s response to this is the same as the one above, that it used to be true but no longer is. I gladly concede to this as well; however I would like to note a few things:

Referring to 4,5,and 6: There is nothing on the site explaining that people used to be able to vote for themselves but no longer can due to suggestions from voters. It just says that debaters cannot vote for themselves, so if a member finds that he cannot vote for himself but that others (in the past have) this will understandably strike him as an inconsistency. The same is true of indefinite voting periods. The site simply says that instigators get to choose the voting period, and it gives them several finite options, but never explains that the reason why debaters may find indefinite voting periods on some debates is because of a discontinued rule. As for the combating of nappropriate voting reasons (or inappropriate arguments in debates for that matter) I can find nothing on the site that explains what happens to a debater if he does not comply with the conduct rules, only the implication that he should comply with the code of conduct. I’m not denying it, I just wish there was some concrete evidence to support it. It seems that the real way that one knows the information that Con knows is by being experienced on the site. This is unfair. The information should be public and for all to see. Without this information, one cannot be faulted for being puzzled and seeing these features as mistakes.

The fact that the website waits for people to make complaints about features before fixing them is irresponsible. It can and should anticipate that certain features will cause problems and create the website so that it is free of them in the first place.

The fact that these features were changed does not support the present aspect of my contention, so I must ultimately drop them, but Con’s responses to the previous two issues actually support my larger point. It supports my belief that they were mistakes (otherwise why would voters complain) and it supports my belief that and that they were avoidable (otherwise how could they be changed).
My timing was just off.

7

I’ll admit that this last mistake is not as significant as the others, but I reject Con’s unsupported claim that it is simply not a significant issue.

If my debate statistics say that I won a debate (because I have the most points so far in the voting period) and then things change (and my opponent starts getting more points than I), then the debate statistics will have to take the point away, add it to my losses, and it will mean that a falsehood had been displayed earlier. Bottom line: Honesty is important, and winners should not be declared winners unless they are actually the winners. We all know from sports that one team may be doing horribly at
first and then pull off a miracle at the end (the most recent example would be the
St. Louis cardinals being 10.5 down against the wild card and then winning the world series in 2011.) It ain’t over till it’s
over! The debate statistics chart should keep its pants on until things are actually finished.

Issue #7 deals with the logic of time, and how what is true at one time is not necessarily true at another time. If Con does not see the significance of this, then he should drop his response to five and six.

Thanks for debating.

baggins

Con


Thanks to CriticalThinkingMachine for his arguments.


To win this debate Pro had to show that the DDO voting system contains many easily avoidable and significant errors that were caused by the conscious decisions on the part of the creator(s) of this website. It shall be apparent to voters that my esteemed opponent has failed in fulfilling his burden.


1. Who did you agree with before/after the debate: Pro concedes that he has no problem with these questions per se. He also admits that these questions are beneficial. However he argues that before/after questions are not asked in presidential elections. Voting in election is different from voting at DDO. One of the important purposes of DDO voting system is to provide feedback to the debaters, which makes these questions important. Important questions cannot be considered as irrelevant.


2. Who had better conduct / spelling and grammar: Pro admits that spelling, grammar and conduct are important in debate and should contribute to the debate. However he insists that these should not contribute to ‘voting system’. He fails to explain in what way these factors should contribute to evaluation of debate. It is clear that including these factors in voting provides incentives to debaters to maintain high standards. I am not saying that this is the best way possible. However Con has not presented any better way, which means this cannot be considered as an error on part of creators of debate.


Pro says, “The number of points (or lack thereof) for each question appear in parenthesis next to the questions in the voting section but not on an actual page of a debate.Why the inconsistency?”. I cannot respond to this since I could not understand the objection.


3. Who had better sources: Pro argues that sources can be incorporated into arguments themselves. That is a matter of personal opinion. Keeping points for sources separate emphasizes its importance. This cannot be considered as an error.


I also pointed out that my esteemed opponent is free to provide overall votes based on arguments. He did not respond to this point.


4. Reason for voting: Pro concedes that inappropriate votes are being combated. However he is unable to understand the rationale behind 3 debate requirement before voting. The measure is intended to hinder and expose mischievous trolls intent on breaking our voting system. Users have to take part in three debates before they can start voting. This requires some patience. Most trolls don’t have patience. On other hand for serious debaters (like my opponent, I hope), this is not a serious issue since they complete the three debates soon enough.


My opponent wants to know why the voting system waits for a ineligible voter to cast his vote before informing them. I agree that it would be desirable to inform the voters beforehand. However this is clearly not significant issue as it has no bearing on integrity of voting system. In any case, this issue ceases to exist for sincere debaters once they complete 3 debates.


5 & 6. Self Vote and Indefinite voting period: Pro has conceded these points.


7. Won vs. Winning / Lost vs. Losing: My esteemed opponent escalates an obviously insignificant issue into a question of ‘falsehood’, ‘honesty’ and ‘logic of time’ (sic). After the debate is over and the winner has been declared, the section under the debaters still says ‘winning’ and ‘losing’ rather that ‘won’ and ‘lost’ respectively (for example [1]). However in the centre of the page, the winner of page is clearly displayed. Thus there is no chance of any confusion. This is clearly a trivial issue which does not merit attention. Similarly in statistics of individual debaters, it includes the trends from current debates into debates which have been ‘won’ or ‘lost’. This makes a difference of barely one or two debates for any debaters. This issue too is clearly insignicant.


As an aside from the debate, CriticalThinkingMachine complains that some of his arguments have been defeated since he did not know about history of site and consequently his timing was off. I sympathize with him. On other hand, new debaters are unlikely to face issues like indefinite voting period since this is a feature of old debates only. This clearly shows that my esteemed opponent is not like a typical newbie on this site. He clearly explores, investigates and questions whatever he encounters. He should consider visiting DDO forums (specially the debate forum http://www.debate.org...) where such queries will be immediately answered by our experience members.


In the meantime, the resolution has been negated.


References


[1] http://www.debate.org...


Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by baggins 4 years ago
baggins
@ CriticalThinkingMachine

Thanks.

There is one major problem with the current voting system which you did not bring up. That is lack of quality voters. I hope you will agree from MIG's analysis that he did read complete debate - even if he did not agree with you. This means that his vote is perfectly legitimate. However it feels bad when you lose a debate due to a single voter (even if the vote is authentic). It would have been nice had 10 people voted on the debate. We would have easily accepted the result, whatever they were. If you have any suggestion in this regard, the community would really welcome it.

I know the voting system has many problem. As part of this debate it was my task to show that each of the problem you presented was either insignificant or unavoidable. I did my best to do that. After that it was up to voters to judge who did a better job. It is rare that a serious debate has a clear objective winner.

Hope you enjoy yourself at DDO.
Posted by baggins 4 years ago
baggins
@ CriticalThinkingMachine

Thanks.

There is one major problem with the current voting system which you did not bring up. That is lack of quality voters. I hope you will agree from MIG's analysis that he did read complete debate - even if he did not agree with you. This means that his vote is perfectly legitimate. However it feels bad when you lose a debate due to a single voter (even if the vote is authentic). It would have been nice had 10 people voted on the debate. We would have easily accepted the result, whatever they were. If you have any suggestion in this regard, the community would really welcome it.

I know the voting system has many problem. As part of this debate it was my task to show that each of the problem you presented was either insignificant or unavoidable. I did my best to do that. After that it was up to voters to judge who did a better job. It is rare that a serious debate has a clear objective winner.

Hope you enjoy yourself at DDO.
Posted by CriticalThinkingMachine 4 years ago
CriticalThinkingMachine
Congratulations to baggins for an excellent win. I appreciate you debating with me. (I was afraid no one would take this debate). I hope you enjoyed it as much as I did. I appreciate your sympathy, and I also appreciate your closing suggestion. I actually have already visited DDO. I have also already spoken with a friend of mine who is a very experienced debater on the site. He agrees with me about the errors I have pointed out (and pointed out ones that I was unaware of) and informed me that other members have issues with the site too are working to urge the creators of the site to make changes. This makes me feel a little better. I know I'm not alone in my complaints.

Please accept my friend request.
Posted by CriticalThinkingMachine 4 years ago
CriticalThinkingMachine
POST-DEBATE RAP-UP

1 I did not concede this point, because I never held it to begin with. Con misstated my views and he did it again this round. I said VERY CLEARLY that these questions are important and irrelevant. I only claimed that they should not be part of the voting system. Con still has not addressed this point, nor did he address my point that voters can simply lie about this.

2 I did not have room to fit my argument for better ways to incorporate grammar/conduct I did not even have room to fit an intro and conclusion. I had less than 10 characters left at the end of my post. Yet another problem with the site: too short argument max! I did not have room to elaborate my second point either.

3 I did not have room to support this point.

4 The reason you give for the 3 debate minimum for voting that trolls are impatient (to get through 3 debates) is a personal opinion about the mental state of some people and not a very impressive reason for the site's 3 debate minimum in order to vote.

5-6 I conceded my 5th and 6th arguments for round two. However, I brought up additional problems in round three entailed by the falsity of my original problems (I made no rule against this in round 1). I felt that these were actually my strongest points in the debate. I am disappointed that Con did not address them, or even mention them, so I take it that he concedes them.

7 We'll agree to disagree about what counts as significant. I think anything resulting from a conscious choice of a human is significant, but maybe I'm just too enthusiastic about free will. The fact that there is no confusion on the debate page about who is the winner is irrelevant and I never argued that there was confusion. And I still cannot understand why the site feels that they have to jump the gun in the declaration of the winner.

This debate unfortunately only got two votes, and I do not believe either of the voters gave appropriate reasons for their votes.
Posted by CriticalThinkingMachine 4 years ago
CriticalThinkingMachine
contination of response to man-is-good...

I assume you meant "Sources to Con..." Anyway, most of my points did not require verification. They were not empirical claims, but logical ones. But anyway, the one point where I needed verification I provided it by naming the debate to which I was referring. Con did not have sources for all of his empirical claims but knew some of them from personal experience. I made the point (in #6) that the website should state and explain them publicly. Con did not address this point.

Bottom line: I love debating, and the website should be eradicated of foolish features that distract from that enjoyable and ancient artform.
Posted by CriticalThinkingMachine 4 years ago
CriticalThinkingMachine
Response to man-is-good's "reason" for his vote:

As I made clear, I was wrong about three of my points (4,5,6) However, Con only refuted these mistakes by bringing up other mistakes in their place. I made three forceful points about this in #6, non of which Con addressed.

How does the fact that the voting system complements and offers a critique of the debate refute my point of the irrelevance of conduct and grammar to the voting system. It doesn't. My point was never that the voting system does not critique the debate (because it does) but that it contains superfluous features. Con still did not addressed this.

You complain that I offer only a personal opinion with regards to sources and arguments. I'm sorry. I did not have room to fit my argument for this. (Yet another problem with the site, too small argument max's!) I had less than ten characters left at the end of my post. And Con did not address my point about the superficiality of this solution to the dilemmas I pointed out. He also misstated my first argument again and never addressed what I actually said.

"…which was shown by Con to be nothing more..."

Con's assertion that most trolls don't have patience [to go 3 debates] is a personal opinion and is a pretty lame reason for the requirement.

"Much of his complaint can be resolved with an inquiry in the forums…"

That's part of my point! I would be finding these things out accidentally from the members of the site, (from personal experience) instead of from official statements from the creators of the site. This is irresponsible and an avoidable mistake. Con also did not even mention the forums in his post for round 2. That would have been helpful. The forums only back me up too. Those posting are members like me who see the errors with the site. My complaints are not resolved by the forums, they are backed up!

"Sources to Pro for backing up his claim, as opposed to Pro's unverified points."
Posted by Man-is-good 4 years ago
Man-is-good
Read from top to bottom.
Posted by Man-is-good 4 years ago
Man-is-good
Explicated RFD: Now, as to the debate itself...

Pro's performance was obstructed by his sabbatical off the site, as demonstrated in some of the obsolete complaints of the voting system that have long been fixed, and his failure to demonstrate, as by his own statement, these were "easily avoidable and significant errors that were caused by the conscious decisions on the part of the creator(s) of the site" or any significant alternatives that was curtailed by such decisions (Indeed, Pro's arguments consist mainly of rather weak points about the errors of the voting system, which were not tied, at all, to the incipience of the voting system or the administrators...)

The arguments were, for the most part, not hard to refute, and Con, even with his concise responses, dispelled them; Pro unfortunately wished to elongate the debate by insisting that despite agreeing that conduct and spelling and grammar are instrumental to a debate, they are somehow not germane to the voting system (an odd objecting, since the voting system complements and offers a critique of the debate) and despite criticizing Con for making categorical and "unjustified" statements, offers only a personal opinion in regards to the integration of sources and arguments...Some of the other points of the rebuttal ranged from the conspicuously silly--does the question detract from the system while providing general feedback on how convincing a debate was (particularly)--to the mildly interesting. The only point worthy of consideration was in regards to the 3-debates prerequisite, which was shown by Con to be nothing more than a misapprehension as well as a severely-pandered complaint: much of his complaint can be resolved with an inquiry in the forums, and should not be continued to be exerted as a serious offense of the site.

While I may have my biases as a voter, Pro provided no mechanism to demonstrate the conscious aspect of these "errors' and failed to show that his provided errors were actually
Posted by Man-is-good 4 years ago
Man-is-good
...compelling for consideration.

Sources to Pro for backing up his claims, as opposed to Pro's unverified points.
Posted by Man-is-good 4 years ago
Man-is-good
RFD: Countering davidaylorjr, who does not demonstrate an ostensible understanding of the debate in his RFD. His RFD demonstrates nothing except for the use of personal experience as a base of agreement and does not involve in any critical interpretation of the arguments provided--and his final statement is confusing. "I don't think who you agree with before should be for points, but the point of a debate is to convince, so after the debate should count for points" is...not very pertinent as neither debater actually made that point in its entirety.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 4 years ago
Man-is-good
CriticalThinkingMachinebagginsTied
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: See vote in comments.
Vote Placed by davidtaylorjr 4 years ago
davidtaylorjr
CriticalThinkingMachinebagginsTied
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: I believe in the arguments for pro as they are arguments I have given myself with elected officers behind the scenes. I don't think who you agree with before should be for points, but the point of a debate is to convince, so after the debate should count for points.