The Instigator
asiansarentnerdy
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Maikuru
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

The option to make the voting time "Indefinitely" in debates should not exist.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Maikuru
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/31/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,148 times Debate No: 8494
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)

 

asiansarentnerdy

Pro

I support the above resolution. Thank you to anyone who accepts this debate.

Basically, the option in debates here on Debate.org to make the voting period to last indefinitely is...stupid. What is the point of wasting all that effort, to not even conclude the winner of a debate? The default option on the voting period is to make it last "indefintiely", and I think that this a very stupid choice. That option should be remove. The whole point of creating a debate and using time and effort is to try to win. And if you make the voting period last indefinitely, then what's the point of even debating if you don't know the winner?
Maikuru

Con

Much thanks to Pro for starting this interesting topic. I enjoy topics about the site =D

I will argue that the indefinite voting period option for debates on DDO should exist. No clarifying definitions seem necessary so I will simply present my contentions and then move on to my rebuttals.

1. Allows for More Accurate Judging

By limiting a debate's voting period, you are essentially limiting the number of potential voters. Naturally, the more members that vote on a particular debate, the more likely the outcome will accurately reflect the quality of the arguments presented. By allowing for an indefinite voting period, one ensures that the debate's outcome is as accurate as possible.

2. A Defense against "Bombing"

An extension of their improved accuracy, indefinite voting periods work to correct vote bombing. This process, which involves members voting on multiple accounts or based on aspects other than the presented arguments, can quickly decide the outcome of debates with shorter voting periods. Extending this period allows for bombing to be corrected as future readers support the rightful winner.

3. An Incentive to Participate

The ability to actively participate in a debate encourages members to read, vote, and discuss the topic. Infinite voting periods allow for continuous input and interest from new members, keeping older topics fresh. Should all voting periods be finite, such input would likely be viewed as unnecessary and all debates would fade into the post-voting abyss.

::Rebuttals::

Pro argues that an indefinite voting period prevents winning. However, since outcomes are based on a point system, debates do not require set voting periods to determine a winner. An indefinite voting period simply limits the time frame for voting, which is not necessarily favorable. If a debater who is currently winning has the stronger arguments, their lead is essentially secured and a finite voting period is unnecessary. If their arguments are weaker, an indefinite voting period allows an unjustified win to be corrected. Should arguments be roughly equal on both sides, finite voting would capture only a snapshot of the potential outcome and limits future discussion, contemplation, and voting on the topic.

I'll stop there for now and hand the floor over to Pro.
Debate Round No. 1
asiansarentnerdy

Pro

Thank you to Con for accepting this debate. :)
I will respond to my opponent's arguments in the order of his case.

1. Actually, the negative effect that my opponent has presented in this case is wrong. In this case, and indefinite voting period would actually affect the outcome of the debate negatively. During the indefinite voting period, "vote-bombers" and other random people could come and randomly vote on whatever they feel like, giving less informed votes. However, usually the people that vote first in the debate usually read the whole entire thing, and then give a well informed vote. Leaving a debate out in the open for anyone to randomly come and vote makes the votes and consequently the debate inaccurate. The people who vote first are more interested in the debate itself; therefore, they will serve to give a better vote.

2. Usually vote bombing makes a debate so "un-balanced" that a few "good" votes can't undo the wrong. However, if you make the voting period shorter, than the chance of vote bombing also decreases as vote bombers don't have the chance to vote bomb the debate.

3. Like it or not, all debates soon fade into the post-voting abyss. There is a period of time when a debate is new and highly anticipated, soon, however, the demand for that and any other debate goes down. It's sort of like a fad; fresh for a few days then disapears the next. Any debate is like this, infinite voting period or not, so it's better to keep it in a shorter time period so you actually have a winner.

::Rebuttals::
A limited time period debate actually gets you a winner for the debate. Should all debates be infinite voting periods, there would be no reason to. Basically, all the good that my opponent has stated here goes directly to a debate with a limited amount of voting period time, with a little cherry on top, which is that you know the definite winner. And as I stated before, most "good" votes are made in the first period of the voting time.

I look forward to my opponent's response.
Maikuru

Con

Thankfully, my opponent has maintained the order of the arguments and rebuttals, making this an easy read for all.

1. Allows for More Accurate Judging

Pro claims that letting more people vote on debates decreases the accuracy of the voting. If this sounds illogical, that's because it is. Just as studies tend to increase in correctness as their sample size increases [1], so too would debates be judged more fairly if more members get the opportunity to vote. Indefinite voting periods allow for such opportunities, thus increasing the accuracy of judging.

Pro's second claim that only members who vote early actually read the arguments is an unsubstantiated assumption. One may postpone voting due to time constraints or may search through older debates out of interest for a particular topic. Ironically, it is placing time restrictions on debates that encourage blind-voting, as members hurry to participate while they still can.

2. A Defense against "Bombing"

My opponent suggests shorter time periods prevent vote bombing more so than longer ones. However, given that most bombing occurs shortly after a debate ends (especially since one culprit is usually one of the debaters using multiple accounts), time restraints work only to lessen the likelihood that the situation will be corrected. Swaying votes over to the rightful winner takes time and a large audience, both of which are restricted by Pro's proposition.

3. An Incentive to Participate

My opponent is correct in stating that all debates eventually lose their popularity with time. Please note, though, that he does not deny that indefinite voting periods do much to maintain such popularity for far longer than would normally be the case. By allowing new members to participate and continue the discussion, indefinite voting periods benefit the debaters, readers, and the community atmosphere of the site at large.

::Rebuttals::

My opponent only somewhat addressed my rebuttal of his original argument, so I will reiterate. Wins granted by limited voting periods may actually do more harm than good; by capturing only a snapshot of potential voting, limited voting periods reduce community input and increase the likelihood of unjustified wins. Given that debates with indefinite voting periods already provide wins in the form of point totals, Pro's proposal is simply unnecessary.

That's all for now and I eagerly await R3.

::References::

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
asiansarentnerdy

Pro

To sum it all up, the indefinite option in debates should not exist primarily because the whole point of the debates is to determine a winner, and with the option, you can't determine a winner of a debate. What other point of debating is there if you don't know the winner? Just look past all the other reasons and think of the most primary reason why we debate. To win. What other reason is there? So, the option to make to vioting period shouldn't be allowed. Vote Pro.
Maikuru

Con

I thank Pro for a solid debate on an interesting topic.

Unfortunately, my opponent has not addressed any of my contentions or rebuttals in his final round. As such, I will use this time to summarize my arguments and expose the weaknesses in Pro's case.

1. Allows for More Accurate Judging

By permitting more members to participate in the judging, indefinite voting periods ensure outcomes correctly reflect the quality of the arguments. My opponent would ask us to ignore this point in favor of more definitive wins, but fails to explain why his position should be preferred over fairness and accuracy. By choosing quantity of victories over quality of judging, he devalues the very wins he encourages.

2. A Defense against "Bombing"

Until some form of voter accountability is enacted, our only defense against vote bombing is for unbiased members to cast their votes fairly. This is a process that takes time and a sizable audience, both of which are limited by shorter voting periods. My opponent offers no reasonable defense to this point and it stands as a mark against his position.

3. An Incentive to Participate

The ability to vote on a debate acts as considerable motivation for members to read it and participate. By limiting voting periods, this incentive is reduced and community participation lessens. Once again, Pro offers no rebuttal and this argument stands.

::Rebuttals::

My opponent has focused his efforts throughout this debate on a single issue: winning. However, debates with indefinite voting periods face no real issue with outcomes, as debaters, readers, and the DDO record system already recognize point leaders as winners. Pro has invented a non-issue and would sacrifice accuracy, fairness, and participation to resolve it.

::Conclusion::

Pro has explained his dislike for indefinite voting periods but failed to show why they shouldn't exist. In fact, for debaters seeking fair judging, an honest outcome, and outside input, indefinite voting periods are actually the preferred option. For these reasons, I strongly urge a Con vote!

Thanks again to my opponent and thanks for reading =D
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Rob1Billion 7 years ago
Rob1Billion
I personally am never taking another NON infinite-time debate. It's too easy for voting to be abused in the short-run. Besides, all those old debates of mine are going to be brought back into the light when we finally get to see who voted and how, and it will be interesting to see if people don't all of a sudden change their votes!
Posted by Maikuru 8 years ago
Maikuru
No worries, thanks for a fun debate =D
Posted by asiansarentnerdy 8 years ago
asiansarentnerdy
Ohh sorry about the last round Maikuru...
The time to post the argument was running out and I couldn't think of anything to write..o-o
Posted by Brock_Meyer 8 years ago
Brock_Meyer
C: Tie
S & G: Tie
S: Tie
A: Con: Pro made no arguments in the last round.
Posted by FlashFire 8 years ago
FlashFire
I think Con's got this all figured out. I think Pro's argument at the end was just lazy and untrue, but I can't really debate for Con so I won't give my reasons.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 8 years ago
Maikuru
asiansarentnerdyMaikuruTied
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 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
asiansarentnerdyMaikuruTied
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 
Vote Placed by Brock_Meyer 8 years ago
Brock_Meyer
asiansarentnerdyMaikuruTied
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