The voting phase is too heavily moderated on Debate.org and should not be moderated
Debate Rounds (2)
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:  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: , 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?
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.
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?
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.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.