The Instigator
Capitalistslave
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
HepEbolAids
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The voting phase is too heavily moderated on Debate.org and should not be moderated

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/18/2016 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 weeks ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 303 times Debate No: 97149
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (30)
Votes (0)

 

Capitalistslave

Pro

Just start your argument in the first round immediately.

I have recently had one of my votes taken off for various reasons. One reason it was taken down was because I stated in my reasons for voting the way I did was that one person used sources and the other didn't, so they had the better sources. Is that not true? The one who provided sources clearly has better sources than the one who didn't. That's just a stupid reason to take down a vote. The other reasons seemed to be more convincing, but still, why should votes be moderated to begin with?

If anything, the fact that votes are moderated discourages people from voting. Just look at how many debates are "tied" for me because no one voted: [1] 8/10 were never voted on, and it's true none of them were voted on if you click on the "tied" section, which will bring up this: [2], by clicking on each debate you will see that no one voted on them, and that's the only reason they are all tied.

I'm sure you also have plenty of debates that were not voted on if you check.

If votes weren't moderated to begin with, and you didn't have to provide reasons for your votes, there would be many more votes I imagine. Sure, you could argue that if we didn't have to provide reasons for voting and they weren't moderated, you would get people who "won" a debate because people have a bias or some other reason. However, I have more faith in people and think they would try to objectively look at the debate and vote honestly. Sometimes it just is not possible to state why someone had better arguments than another because it's just self-evident. People may not know how to articulate the reason why, and it's preventing those people from voting who are honest. So, while there may be some who are just biased and vote for no actual good reason, I would say they would be outnumbered by the people who are voting based on reasons, and that would still result in the person who should win winning the debate. That's all that is supposed to be accomplished through the voting anyways: to determine who won the debate. However, as it is now, pretty much just one person or two people decide who wins because that's all who is allowed to vote based on the moderation of votes. Wouldn't it be more reliable to have more people voting, instead of just getting the opinion of one or two people?

Sources:
[1] http://www.debate.org...
[2] http://www.debate.org...
HepEbolAids

Con

So you think that votes shouldn't be moderated because you get to many ties? You think that no moderators means less votes will be revoked? So you are blaming your tied debates on moderators revoking all your votes? You don't think that the lack of votes are just simply due to the debate just not being that engaging?

Do you know what a moderators job is? There job is to makes sure that a debate remains respectful, intelligent and to make sure the votes are fair. the debates aren't about them, they are not the star of the debate nor are they trying to be.

Btw "people who "won" a debate because people have a bias or some other reason." Do you know what sight you are on? It's a sight were you post your opinion and then discuss it with other people, when people click on your opinion, it's not because your opinion matters to them. people click on these opinions and debates because the topic interests them because they already have there own opinions. I'm not an artist, so do you think if I see a debate on digital vs canvass, that I would care at all about it? Of course not! People who vote on a debate ALWAYS have bios. If they didn't have Bios they wouldn't have taken the time out of there lives to vote on something as pointless as an online debate.

Debates are inherently bios. When you are debating a topic it is your job to defend that topic whether you are right or wrong. So when I come along and see a debate that interests me because I already have an opinion I'm going to vote for the opinion I went in with. This is because if you are winning or loosing, as long as there is someone supporting your opinion you will justify there loss and vote for what makes you right.

What your saying is that assuming that the only reason people don't vote on debates is because of the moderators, (and not just because your opinions don't matter to them.) That we would get people who win a debate based on bios. The reality of it is that people wouldn't JUST "win based on bios" the reality is that people would ONLY win based on bios, we need moderators because they act as the third part with no previous opinions. They take the votes into account but it is ultimately up to them just as it should be. they are the ones that you are truly trying to convince.

They are important because without a moderation the world would be ruled by the people with the popular opinions, not the people with the right opinion.
Debate Round No. 1
Capitalistslave

Pro

Yes, people do have biases, but a person can look at a debate in an unbiased manner.

Also, who are the moderators to determine who is right? What gives the moderator the unbiased nature you claim they have? Why should votes be moderated by a single individual? Is it not the case that it is less likely for many to be wrong than it is for one to be wrong? So why should one person be in charge of determining what is a good vote and what is not?
HepEbolAids

Con

Yes, people can look at a debate in an unbiased manor, we do it all the time in court rooms because we select a jury's but you know what the difference is between a jury and a debate audience? A court jury is called to serve. the audience of a debate only listen because they already have i bios opinion.

People come to this website to express there options. there for, you will find that there are very few people here who are willing to listen to your opinion, who didn't already agree with it. In fact, when ever i start a debate or accept on, i consistently find that the people commenting are more bios, and more aggressive than the person I'm actually suppose to be debating with.

moderators are essential in the same way that judges are essential in a court room. No they arn't all perfect, and yes they are subject to bios in the same way you and i are. however a moderator has a job, and we are her because we want to be. yes there is some corruption in the system but corruption is unavoidable yes you can take one or even 100 situations were someone has abused they power but think of it this way. if corruption is unavoidable then do you give it to one man or do you give it to everyone, in many ways having a representative of any sort is a way of controlling corruption. how ever you slice it, having a corrupt leader is always better than having a corrupted people.

but back to the complaint you made, moderators don't take your votes away, i mean they might ounce in a while but it isn't a substantial amount because the core of the problem when it comes to the number of votes you get, is that people don't care about what you and me have to say unless they agree or disagree. you don't get votes, and others don't get many votes because people just don't care enough about what you are saying, to draw an opinion.
Debate Round No. 2
30 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 week ago
whiteflame
Well, the confusion appears to have been my fault, as I posted the wrong name here in the comments. It is your vote, so I apologize for that, though I think I've already been quite clear on what each piece of your RFD failed to do to meet the standards.

As for there being no point in voting, I disagree. You're required to provide a solid reason why each side should win each category. That doesn't dictate who should win, it just means you have to do more work the more points you award. If you honestly think that the standards somehow slate you into a given decision on every single debate, I'd like to see how you came to that conclusion.
Posted by TheShaun 1 week ago
TheShaun
@whiteflame Well then I guess there's no point in voting at all since the "standards" are so specific that they basically already dictate who can win each category. If people have to vote the way the standards dictate, then we might as well just let the standards do the voting for us.

And how stupid do you have to be to not realize I'm referring to this debate? You even posted the removal of my vote here in the comments. Forget it, I don't care what excuse you have. Reply if you want, I won't be back to see it cause that level of ignorance from a staff member is intolerable.
Posted by whiteflame 1 week ago
whiteflame
3) There is a character limit, you're correct. I cannot increase that limit as I have no capacity to modify the coding of this site, and many people would agree that they would like to have a larger space to post RFDs. That much is out of our control. However, I happen to know that the amount of detail that's required can fit into the 1000 character space on practically any debate, particularly if you choose to award fewer points. If you choose to award all 7, then you have to explain all 7. If you choose to award just 3, that's all you ever have to explain. Beyond that, you have the capacity to post extensions on your RFDs here in the comments or on a separate page and post a link here.
Posted by whiteflame 1 week ago
whiteflame
1) The rule itself may be set based on a subjective standard of explanation, but my enforcement of it is not subjective. Again, you're welcome to view the standards poorly, as many have before you, but I am only enforcing that standard. There may be instances where subjectivity is involved in making a decision about a given vote, but I don't believe that was the case here. The voter left out a portion of what is required under the current standards. I enforced the standards based on what was objectively true about the vote. I'm not sure which vote of yours you are referring to, and perhaps that's a discussion for another time outside of the comments section of this debate, but for this vote on this debate, it did not meet the standards.

2) You're welcome to contact airmax1227 any time you wish. He's the head moderator. But this isn't about my ability to understand the reasoning you gave in your vote, nor is it about anyone's capacity to understand your reasoning. Again, I'm unclear what vote you're talking about, but if it did not meet the standards, then it doesn't matter how well it is generally understood what you meant to say. With regards to me deciding to remove your vote on the basis that I disagreed with your choice, again, I'm unclear what debate you're talking about, but I generally don't even look at the topic of the debate I'm moderating. Meeting the standards doesn't require that you share my viewpoint, and frankly, I'm not even sure we disagree on the debate in question. But generally, I think you're presenting a false dichotomy. I can be enforcing the standards normally and have removed your vote with full knowledge of what you meant without bias. It doesn't seem like you'd be willing to accept that, but I can't for the life of me understand why.
Posted by TheShaun 1 week ago
TheShaun
@whiteflame For starters, your opinion that it wasn't explained enough is subjective. To YOU it might not be enough information to understand my reasoning, but there are people who can understand. That's why it's subjective. Your opinion that I didn't give an in depth enough explanation is YOUR OWN SUBJECTIVE OPINION. So, your statement "these are not subjective opinions I'm imposing on this vote" is a lie. Secondly, if you couldn't understand my reasoning with the given information, then I would like to speak to whoever is in charge of you. But since someone thought you was intelligent enough to be given your moderator position, I suspect you actually did understand the reasoning for each of my choices, but just didn't personally agree with my reasons or choices. So which is it? Did you understand my explanations and were being bias, or did you NOT understand them and I need to speak to your supervisor?

On a side note, it's funny that you wanted it explained in farther detail when you know there's a character limit that prevents going very far into detail. Make the character limit larger and I will happily go into farther detail.
Posted by whiteflame 1 week ago
whiteflame
Alright, I was going to stay out of this, but I feel the need to clarify something. TheShaun, if there are votes up that are not moderated, it's because people don't report them. We do not select the votes we moderate, the community does. If you believe that this vote should have remained up, you're welcome to explain why, but these are not subjective opinions I'm imposing on this vote. They're standards that are applied to every vote on the site. You don't have to agree with those standards, and you're welcome to voice your disapproval, but making out as though I'm purposely seeking out votes to remove based on whatever criteria I feel like employing at the moment is just factually inaccurate.
Posted by TheShaun 1 week ago
TheShaun
The moderators just proved they moderate too heavily. They even removed votes from this debate that were more in depth and specific than oh so many that they simply ignore. Then they gave subjective opinions for their reasoning. The moderators have proven the Pro correct for him.
Posted by HepEbolAids 1 week ago
HepEbolAids
Except it doesn't, in the argument we agreed that bias opinions would be a problem if moderators didn't moderate. therefor while they still do exist there job is to eliminate opinions they feel are bias. since i just got done proving it was bias, the removal of it was completely justified.
Posted by Capitalistslave 2 weeks ago
Capitalistslave
@HepEbolAids: I told you the vote would be removed. This just further proves my point.
Posted by whiteflame 2 weeks ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Philosophy123// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: Conduct- Pro was civil. Con was a little rude in his opening argument. Grammar- Pro made 1 mistake that I noticed. Con made many mistakes. Arguments- Pro's argument more closely matched what I have personally observed myself. Con's argument was a little shaky on it's logic at times. Sources- Pro provided sources from this site(this website is reliable, right?), Con did not provide any.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Conduct is insufficiently explained. The voter is required to specifically show where a conduct violation occurred in the debate. Being rude may be sufficient reason, but the voter must be clear where that rudeness occurred and why it was rude. (2) S&G is insufficiently explained. The voter is required to show how a given side's argument was difficult to understand as a result of how it was written. Making more mistakes is not sufficient reason to award this point. (3) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to specifically assess points made by both debaters. Merely stating his own views of each sides' general grasp of the facts doesn't suffice.
***********************************************************************
No votes have been placed for this debate.