The Instigator
FBJames
Pro (for)
Losing
48 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)
Winning
51 Points

There is no way to make voting on this site fair.

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: 4/25/2008 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,682 times Debate No: 3782
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (29)

 

FBJames

Pro

So my opponent and I were talking about this 5 minutes ago and I decided to challenge her to a debate about it.

My argument is that voting on this site will never be fair and therefore there is a hardly a point to keep track of win ratios or number of votes or anything like that.

#1 People will too often vote based on the resolution alone and not read the actual debate

#2 People will down-vote other people that they don't like or don't agree with on the site

#3 People will make multiple accounts and vote for themselves

There is no way for my opponent to change or solve this so I'm pretty sure I will finally leave the 0.0% win ratio now :-P
Danielle

Con

James, you shouldn't say things like it "will 'never' be fair" while debating -- you cannot prove that it will NEVER be fair. Anyway I agree that all 3 of your points can and do occur; however, if I come up with a way to make voting on this site fair than you would have lost the debate.

Here's one idea: While registering for a Debate.org account, each individual should have to provide either a debit or credit card confirmation. This would eliminate the creation of multiple accounts by one person. If one chooses to use more than one card to sign up for 2-3 accounts (say one of their debit cards and one of their credit cards), not only would it be easier for the Webmaster to detect, but it might also be "fair" if each member has to pay $1 to join. If someone is willing to pay $1 for an extra vote, some may deem it okay because they're actually paying for something as frivolous as one lousy vote on Debate.org.

For those members under 18 or who do not have their own credit/debit card, obviously they can ask a parent or friend to borrow theirs for the one time usage/fee of $1. My younger brother and all of his friends aged 5 - 15 all use their parents' card to sign up for extra tools on the online game site Runescape, so obviously this is a practical idea that can and already is put into use on other sites. It's not an issue. Plus, that site charges $5 a month whereas this site can only have a tiny, one-time fee with the only purpose being making the voting more fair -- not making more money for the site.

However, assuming that there actually are 4,000+ members on this site, that would be $4,000+ more dollars that go towards the Debate.org team which may assist the owners in speeding up the new feature implementation. I s'pose that has nothing to do with the voting so I digress.

Now as far as my opponent's #1 and #2 problems, I have a few ideas. First, just as with the debate tournament on Facebook, perhaps people should have to provide at least a brief explanation explaining why they voted the way they did. There can be a necessary 25 character minimum while submitting a vote the same way there is a character minimum for debate rounds and comments. If people have shallow reasoning behind their vote, other members can either choose to ignore it, or do something more vindictive like shallowly vote against that particular individual. The choice is theirs and that makes it fair.

Second, if someone wants to vote solely based on the resolution, that's really di
I'll admit that these ideas aren't perfect, but they ARE fair. Even if it burdens a small minority, the fact that it might greatly benefit the majority of site participants AND the Debate.org team make it fair. Plus, I'm not arguing that people should vote Con based on my ideas themselves, but rather my perfomance in this debate coming up with ways to challenge Pro's reasoning.
Debate Round No. 1
FBJames

Pro

#3

a. Not everybody has the $ to pay debate.org
b. If you had to pay there would be less members who sign up

#1&2

a. You didn't solve the problem of unfair voting
Danielle

Con

#3

"Not everybody has the $ to pay debate.org"

I find it highly unlikely that people don't have $1 to spare according to my solution/idea. Even if they don't (then what are they doing online?), they can borrow it from their parents or friend along with a debit/credit card.

"If you had to pay there would be less members who sign up"

Not less MEMBERS, less ACCOUNTS. And not because of the money, but because of the verification.

# 1&2

"You didn't solve the problem of unfair voting"

My point is that people can vote any way they want (especially if they're paying for it)... that's what is FAIR. Plus, part of my idea calls for a way for voters to have to at least somewhat explain the reasoning behind their vote. Not to mention, even if people vote at random, they would probably only have 1 vote to throw away -- not multiple to use against others.
Debate Round No. 2
FBJames

Pro

FBJames forfeited this round.
Danielle

Con

Okay you conceded "in real life" but just to make it official, I will reiterate your main 3 points and the results of this debate:

#1 People will too often vote based on the resolution alone and not read the actual debate

-- I think that's kind of di
#2 People will down-vote other people that they don't like or don't agree with on the site

-- Again, I think that is one's right. It's di
#3 People will make multiple accounts and vote for themselves

-- My solution "solved or changed" this as your Round 1 asked your opponent to do. There are also other possible solutions but for the sake of brevity I will include only one. Anyway, like I've said, with my solution there won't be less MEMBERS joining but less ACCOUNTS which will be more fair in terms of voting.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by whiteflame 9 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: fire_wings// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision:

[*Reason for removal*] Vote placed outside of what is considered to be reasonable expectations for proper voting conduct. Contact head moderator Airmax1227 for details.
************************************************************************
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
I had mad a 2000 character critique on your system, "the-mad-ones", but it seems my computer doesn't like me, so I'll just give a brief synopsis.

Your idea sounds good, but I don't think it addresses the larges problem with the voting system. And that's that it is an ANONYMOUS voting system.

I think Rob1billion's idea here is the right way to go: http://www.debate.org...

Users should have to comment on why they voted the way they did with a minimum of 500 characters. Also, users will be able to criticize debaters who accept bogus votes. This also is sure way to determine who is voting on debates out of spite.

I think that your system gives these "qualified voters" too much power. People are going to be sucking up to qualified voters and there are naturally going to be a lot of favorites. I've seen it happen before on forums where users were granted the position of moderator. They quickly began to abuse their power and make the forum hell for the people they didn't like.
Posted by DrAlexander 9 years ago
DrAlexander
Illegitimate voting derives from two sources which relate to bias.

1. People vote on just the topic.
OR
2. People vote for the debater they like better.

Can anyone think of more?
Posted by sadolite 9 years ago
sadolite
I had a debate about global warming and my opponet forfited every single round and I still lost. Talk about biased and unfair. Has this happened to anyone else? You should have to make a short comment on your vote, even if it is to say your are compltely biased and nothing would influnce you no matter what the person said or how well they out debated their opponent. At least then you could eliminate the biased votes from the total votes.
Posted by numa 9 years ago
numa
pro could have easily won this debate, he just... didn't.
Posted by the-mad-ones 9 years ago
the-mad-ones
The market can decide what stupid debating is...that's the beauty of a reputation system.

My own personal opinion is that any arguments that don't meet a certain competitive standard reflect stupid debating. I hate hearing arguments such as 'If we outlaw guns, all hell will break loose.' There's no logic or proof behind statements such as that one.

But like I said, the market (i.e. debate.org members) would decide that. It's better to weed poor skill out rather than to drive greater skill away, especially when there's a correlation between poor skill and tendencies to single people out and multi-vote.
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
Exactly what is your criteria for "stupid debating."
Posted by the-mad-ones 9 years ago
the-mad-ones
Just as an idea...

Produce a reputation index/score for each user. Unless you have a certain score, you cannot vote.

Base this on 3 (or more) non-wins based criteria:

1) How many debates you have argued in;
2) How many debates you have Commented in;
3) Reputation among a minimum of 7 qualified debaters;

In order to be a qualified debater, you have to have a specific reputation score (let's say 6 out of 10, for example).

(1) and (2) would be worth 3.5 out of 10 apiece.
(3) would be worth 3/10.

(1) and (2) would be dependent on one of two things:
a) A standard rate of arguing/commenting;
b) A total number of arguments/comments;

Obviously, at the outset of this, the only way to achieve a score of 6/10 is to argue/comment. But after enough people achieve this, then people will begin qualifying off of votes of current qualified voters.

In addition, the reputation part of the score can be negative. So if you have 7/10 due to arguments/comments, but your rep among qualified debaters is terrible, then it would be possible for your final score to be 5/10.

Conclusion:
This would prevent multiple accounting and self-voting. In addition, it would provide a hurdle for people who are on the site for resolution-voting and stupid debating. They are still free to do it, but their votes don't count towards your win-loss (let's even say you could have a 'popular' vote tally and a 'qualified' vote tally, with qualified determining the winner).
It is likely that people who are more serious about quality debating would make the effort to achieve qualified debater status. In the end, it would improve the quality of your opponents (since you'd debate people with good reps over bad ones), and add to the overall fairness.
29 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
FBJamesDanielleTied
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 numa 8 years ago
numa
FBJamesDanielleTied
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
FBJamesDanielleTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Xera 9 years ago
Xera
FBJamesDanielleTied
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 Jamic 9 years ago
Jamic
FBJamesDanielleTied
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 DorothyDorothy 9 years ago
DorothyDorothy
FBJamesDanielleTied
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 HungryAssassin 9 years ago
HungryAssassin
FBJamesDanielleTied
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 GleefulJoker 9 years ago
GleefulJoker
FBJamesDanielleTied
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 Fantasticlover 9 years ago
Fantasticlover
FBJamesDanielleTied
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 JeffGordon 9 years ago
JeffGordon
FBJamesDanielleTied
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