The Instigator
Kleptin
Pro (for)
Winning
74 Points
The Contender
jester108
Con (against)
Losing
28 Points

The current method of determining debate winners is extremely flawed.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/17/2008 Category: Education
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,625 times Debate No: 1895
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (27)

 

Kleptin

Pro

The current method of determining the winner of a debate is essentially a popularity contest. Though we are supposed to be neutral in voting for a winner, focusing on the validity and strength of the arguments, this probably is not the case.

Voting is anonymous and done only through the press of a button, but each vote is as important as the arguments presented.

I believe that a more efficient way is to mandate that each vote come with a suitable response as to why a person has chosen to vote for that particular side, visible to both candidates, and that only registered members of debate.org can vote. This will limit the number of people voting purely to support friends, and votes by people who don't know how to debate.
jester108

Con

i disagree with you because i would have to say that the voting needs to stay private and that you do not need to post a reason with your vote on why you voted for that person. i feel that way because when you debate it is in the hands of the judges or in this case the people who choose to vote on this debate. you said that people who didn't know how to debate should not be able to vote, well if they dont know how to debate how does that make a difference. debate is all about convincing the judges.....at least as i have been led to believe so what is the difference if the judge or as i stated earlier the people who choose to vote on this debate know how to debate or not convince them not to vote
Debate Round No. 1
Kleptin

Pro

I understand your point, but the judges really aren't supposed to be there to be "won over". It isn't about who has the most compelling, dramatic, or popularly accepted stance. The judge should only be there to catch errors in logic.

Debate used to be a tool to discover truth, not a competition in which the best speaker wins. I think we've all lost sight of why debate is important and got caught up with the "WIN! WIN!" mentality.

Ideally, the winner of a debate should not be a person. It should be the arguments. The winner should be the one whose arguments are the most valid. If a person loses, he/she must have lost because there were logical fallacies in his/her argument. In such a situation, it should be impossible for that person to win because the conclusion is arrived at through improper means, rendering the entire argument void.

There should be no need for anonymity because the comments that people leave should explain why they voted for this person or that person, and that reason should be objective.

"I voted for Pro because Con's argument in the second section was circular, making the proof invalid"

How can there be any hurt feelings from that?

Allow me to explain why I feel the comment/vote issue is important.

I myself understand how nice it feels to have a high win/lose ratio, but at the end of the day, what matters isn't the declared winner, but WHY the win occurred.

If I lose and see a whole bunch of comments telling me where my weak points are, I can breathe a sigh of relief and correct myself.

If I lose and see a whole bunch of comments that are meaningless, I'll know that I was beaten in a popularity contest and that my argument was actually valid.

But if I lose and see absolutely nothing, I'd be left dazed and confused.
jester108

Con

actually the judges are ther to be won over. if u want to debate somthing you have to have judges.......
Debate Round No. 2
Kleptin

Pro

That's not true at all. It is a widespread, incorrect belief that debate requires a judge. Debate only requires judges when one or both participants have no idea what they are doing.

Debate is supposed to be a tool to uncover truth. It's supposed to be an exchange of arguments in order to validate or falsify a belief. Two people state their arguments, and try to find error in what they believe. It was never meant to be a competition, but a method of self-check.

With all this focus on competitions and winning, this is commonly forgotten. And now, the obsession with winning a debate has completely clouded over the true essence of debating: to test and strengthen one's beliefs.

As I have said before, judges should only be part of a debate in order to catch logical fallacies and error in argument, not to pick a winner. The winner of a debate should always be apparent based on whose arguments remain standing after the smoke clears.

In addition, judges are not supposed to be biased. All judges rule for a particular reason. Right now, there are many good arguments and participants who are treated unfairly because of this "voting" system.

"An argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people"), in logic, is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges that "If many believe so, it is so." In ethics this argument is stated, "If many find it acceptable, it is acceptable.""

This logical fallacy is the basis for the voting system. Is this not ironic that a site seeking ti improve debate is in and of itself logically flawed?

I've more than addressed your concerns, but I do not feel that you have been giving me the same amount of respect. Your last response was a single statement and did not address any of my prior points.
jester108

Con

if we are talking about debate there is judges so they can a. judge and b. judge.............................................................
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by I-am-a-panda 7 years ago
I-am-a-panda
"there is judges" - LOL
Posted by SweetBags 8 years ago
SweetBags
cons case had little logic, and what logic he did have was not presented well. con also did a poor job of rebutting pro (his 2nd and 3rd rounds were both one line). because of that im voting PRO.
Posted by Cobjob 9 years ago
Cobjob
I judge a little in the flesh world. In college, judges should be more technically minded, but in high school it is a lot more emotional appeal. It is up to the debater to appeal to the judges.

"I voted for Pro because Con's argument in the second section was circular, making the proof invalid"
Something like this could not be voted on unless the pro pointed it out and Con had an opportunity to recant.
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
In my post before my previous post, I meant to say "Im NOT sure why half of the people thought otherwise."
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
To play devil's advocate though, I believe the pro's method (in determining what is considered a suitable response) can easily be abused by power-hungry moderaters (or rather moderaters who wish to throw their weight around and you who's boss).

It is a pity that the moderation is typically the downfall of an Internet forum as the site administration is usually forced to promote one of the forum's members (who they hardly know anything about) to being a moderater.

In this case, if a moderater happens to be a buddy of certain debaters on this site, the mod may just delete comments regardless of whether or not they are actually suitable.
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
I too get annoyed when my opposition clearly has a weak case and yet I'm losing (in terms of votes) without so much as a justification in the comment section.

In this debate, the con just seemed to give up in round 2. That alone is justification enough to vote for pro. I'm sure why half of the people thought otherwise.
Posted by Kleptin 9 years ago
Kleptin
*if a person includes an explanation for his/her vote.
Posted by Kleptin 9 years ago
Kleptin
@mmadderom

What I meant by "The judge should only be there to catch error in logic" is this:

In a debate, there are two people arguing. Both people should be good enough to know when and if they have a fallacious argument. Whether or not an argument commits a logical fallacy is, in and of itself, objective, capable of being determined by true-false logic tests.

So in effect, you are wrong when you say that logic is relative. It is absolutely not. Logic is objective. How else can we arrive at a conclusion on whether things are true or false?

I'd like some better input on how my arguments were "silly". You can say they were wrong, you can say they were right, you can say that I possibly missed an important detail. But to say they were "silly" is clearly biased and unnecessarily insulting.

Your comment about voters is classified as a "straw man fallacy". I mentioned nothing about voting outside this site, so the fact that you would bring up voting at an election is the clear definition of "straw man fallacy" which is a logical conclusion brought forth by a constructed misinterpretation of an opponent's argument and attack of said misinterpretation.

It's not necessarily the popularity of the person. It can also be the popularity of the stance. People may vote simply after looking at the titles, the positions, and possible a few lines of the first argument. This is obviously not the case.
Posted by Miserlou 9 years ago
Miserlou
The results of this debate are a perfect case example of what Pro is talking about. I'm sorry, but Con hardly debated at all. Just look at the last round! He didn't address anything that Pro brought up, just said the same thing he had said in Round 2. Yet, Con is winning because don't think the voting system is flawed.
Posted by mmadderom 9 years ago
mmadderom
You lost me here:

"The judge should only be there to catch errors in logic."

What is logical to you isn't necessarily logical to me. "Judging" anything is subjective no matter how objective the voter believes they are being.

Most of the rest of your arguments are silly as well. Do you want voters in an election to have to give reasons for their vote, as well?

Being a more eloquent writer doesn't make you better at arguing your position. For that reason and all of the previously mentioned reasons I'm voting con on this one.

And just know it's NOT a popularity contest as I don't know either of you. It's simply a matter of Jester making a better argument even it's not stated as well or with as many words. In this case, less is more.
27 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by BLAHthedebator 2 years ago
BLAHthedebator
Kleptinjester108Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by republicofdhar 2 years ago
republicofdhar
Kleptinjester108Tied
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 
Vote Placed by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
Kleptinjester108Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
Kleptinjester108Tied
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 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
Kleptinjester108Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by Robert_Santurri 8 years ago
Robert_Santurri
Kleptinjester108Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
Kleptinjester108Tied
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 
Vote Placed by SweetBags 8 years ago
SweetBags
Kleptinjester108Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by YummyYummCupcake 9 years ago
YummyYummCupcake
Kleptinjester108Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Derrida 9 years ago
Derrida
Kleptinjester108Tied
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