The Instigator
Robert_Weiler
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Mikal
Con (against)
Winning
28 Points

There should be a minimum ELO ranking for DDO voting priviledges.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 5 votes the winner is...
Mikal
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 8/20/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,437 times Debate No: 60676
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (20)
Votes (5)

 

Robert_Weiler

Pro

First round for acceptance only.Fair warning, there is a 72-hour per round time limit. I will probably use most of it because I have a lot of work obligations during the next two days.
Debate Round No. 1
Robert_Weiler

Pro

I first want to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. This should be interesting.

Voting on debates is one of the many interesting opportunities offered by DDO. However, people who are unable to effectively debate others, often lack the critical thinking skills to properly vote in a debate. For example, blackkid's vote in the debate Aerogant is very rude. Blackkid gave Con a full 7 point win, though Con conceded the resolution in the final Round.[1] Blackkid's ELO at the time of this argument is 2,198.[2]

I would propose that an ELO of 2,500 or greater should be required before DDO voting privileges are granted.

Sources
1. http://www.debate.org...
2. http://www.debate.org...
Mikal

Con

I am going to keep this simple as he made no actual arguments and just provided an example but I would like to review the underlying principle behind what he is actually saying. Pro is basically saying that *there should be* a minim elo requirement for people to vote. This could be any elo, but as we can clearly see in his round 1 he is proposing an minimum elo of 2,500

" I would propose that an ELO of 2,500 or greater should be required before DDO voting privileges are granted. "

Now the issue of this is that you are segregating stupid people, or people that just don't take the time to debate. So let's get down to some contentions


C1) Correlation between Elo and intelligence is false

My adversary is literally drawing a line from elo to intelligence. He is making the positive claim that only people with 2,500 or more are capable enough to place a valid vote on a debate. This is inherently false. A great deal of users just do not like to debate alot or just are forum users, so undermining their opinion and denying them the right to vote is detrimental to the site. You are restricting someone the right to offer their opinion based on one example he has given. Granted I am sure there are a great many other examples to back this up as well, but even then we cannot deny someone the right to cast their vote based on their activity level or site preference.

He is essentially undermining the principle of debate as well. In any debate the goal is persuade the voters to agree with you, and this is entirely subjective. Debate when judged lies within the mind of the person that is voting. This happens with formal judges( even if there is a criteria), audience wins, or just anyone judging in general. There is always a subjective factor in voting, even if we try to objective it is still opinionated and will always be opinionated. Denying someone their right to speak based on a false correlation between elo and intelligence is detrimental in general and also a horrible fallacy

Take a look at some amazing users with an elo below 2,500


(1) http://www.debate.org...

example of debate : http://www.debate.org...

(2) http://www.debate.org...

example of debate : http://www.debate.org...

(3) http://www.debate.org...

example of debate : http://www.debate.org...


Some of these debates like envisage only challenge elite members, so their elo is reflected as lower than what it actually should be. They could easily get a higher elo but because they chose to debate the best members on the site they get more loses and their record is not as sound as others. Members like pots have to FF due to real life situations and how busy their scheudle is.

This does not take away from their intelligence or is no way necessitates their inability to vote properly.



C2) Discrimination against stupid people

He is basically say if you can count to potato you should not be able to vote , undermine the principle and basis of debate while implementing segregation on the site.




Conclusion

I support people who can count to potato , so vote for me











Debate Round No. 2
Robert_Weiler

Pro



I agree with my opponent that there are many people on this site who can successfully count to potato.



However, that doesn't mean they should be voting.


Currently, DDO requires that a person complete three debates before they can vote. Forum users can not vote until they complete three debates. "People who don't like to debate," can not vote until they complete three debates. Are these examples of the segregation my opponent so dislikes? Why not require that they show some level of competence in these debates?

I draw no correlation between ELO and intelligence as my opponent alleges. However, a general correlation between ELO and debate skill cannot be denied. My opponent has pointed to some users who are arguably exceptions, without dissproving the general rule.

"Some of these debates[sic] like envisage only challenge elite members, so their elo is reflected as lower than what it actually should be. They could easily get a higher elo but because they chose to debate the best members on the site they get more loses[sic] and their record is not as sound as others. Members like pots have to FF due to real life situations and how busy their scheudle[sic] is."



Envisage's case is a good example of the need for some tweaking in the ELO system. Furthermore, my opponent acknlowledges that Envisage could easily raise their ELO ranking by winning some debates against opponents closer to their ranking. People who consistently forfeit fail to show the debating skill required for ranking. Consistent forfeits should lower your ELO, and your access to site features. I am not saying he does not possess highly developed debating skills, he clearly does based on his debate with you. However he failed to consistently show those skills.

Discrimination against stupid people

Disrimination against stupid people is not a bad thing. I don't let stupid people work on my car.


I don't let stupid people watch my kids.



I think this is reasonable.

Again, ELO does not equal intelligence. However people with no skill should not be judging the skills of others. Also the skill should be proven first. Under my proposition, at the time of this writing, I would not be allowed to vote. I can appreciate that I would have to earn my stripes before handing them ouot to others.
Mikal

Con

C1) Counting to potato and segregation

" Currently, DDO requires that a person complete three debates before they can vote. Forum users can not vote until they complete three debates. "People who don't like to debate," can not vote until they complete three debates. Are these examples of the segregation my opponent so dislikes? Why not require that they show some level of competence in these debates? "

This is a fallacy and my adversary is failing to draw the line between what is segregation of potato heads and segregation of inactivity. DDO currently restricts you from voting if you do not finish 3 debates. You do not have to win the debates, nor do you have to even try. You just have to show you are committed enough to the site to do 3 debates. This is quite different than telling people they cannot vote unless they are able to win a few in a row. Some people genuinely can count to potato, and are not capable enough to do 3 debates. Some people will do those 3 debates and then stick to the forums. Others just do those 3 debates and vote. No where in any of this are we segregation stupid people from voting. Under my adversaries plan, hes is requiring someone to be able to win debates, to vote. This undermines the ethics and principle of debate even if it is a desirable outcome. Sure people with higher elo generally cast better votes, but you cannot take away someones right to vote because you want people stupid people not to be able to vote. He sincerely hates potato heads.



Literally this blasphemy he is preaching supports discrimination of retards all over the world. Retards of the world unite and stand in opposition of this tyranny my adversary is advocating for.




Literally black people, remember this



then remember when you fought back



Don't let this guy do this and fight against oppression.

C2) Correlation between elo and debate skillMy adversary says he draws no correlation between elo and intelligence but then requests that only competent people be able to vote on debates because of their elo

*cough* *hypocrite* *cough*

"I refer you back to his quote" Are these examples of the segregation my opponent so dislikes? Why not require that they show some level of competence in these debates? "

He literally is correlating someones ability to vote (which is their thoughts) with their elo. This is directly assuming that intelligence or the ability to vote should be determined by elo. Then he states that elo and debate skill and a general correlation cannot be denied. This guy plays call of duty. He is that motherfuker that sites there and plays all day and prestige 89 times, then resets his stats to prestige 100 more times to claim he is the best. Just because you debate alot and pick up some wins in the process does not make you skilled. Get off that call of duty hype train.






C3) Forcing people to debate


He then goes on to say envisage could easily raise his elo cap, so he should raise his elo cap in order to vote

Like really man, you are dancing in circles saying the same illogical sht. Come at me in call of duty and ill show you a level 1 can smite your 99th level prestige



C4) New voting system

The change he is advocating for is already in place. In stead of generalizing this to all debates, why not just do the common sense thing, and set your criteria on the voting aspect of the debate to 2,500Hes advocating for a change that is already there



Conclusion

just no
Debate Round No. 3
Robert_Weiler

Pro



My opponent correctly points out that restrictions on the ELO of voters is a current option when creating a debate.



However, I am arguing that it should be mandatory.

The option can only be exorcised by those creating the debate. The challenged participant has no choice, and may fall victim to retards.

I wish to thank my opponent for an interesting and fun debate.



Mikal

Con

My adversary has not upheld the BOP

I have shown there are viable reasons not to require an elot voting min req, and even have shown the fact there is already a voting choice where you can pick the elo and min req that you want for a debate

His BOP was to show why one should be mandatory which I refuted properly.

Good attempt but he got quick scoped
Debate Round No. 4
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by kasmic 2 years ago
kasmic
This is amusing. Pro is arguing for a restriction on voting unless you have an elo 2500 or greater. Pro's elo is lower than 2500 and yet has voted more than thirty times. lol!
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Actually there is a user named black kid, I'm sure it wasn't meant as racist.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
VOTE SNOBBERY:

ThatChristianGuy
"CUS I'M A REETARD WHO CAN COUNT TO POTATO AND I WANT TOO VOAT ON DEEBATS. Jking, I vote for con because there are people who aren't retards with a low ELO."
Since the debaters had humor the humor is fine. However, you risk seeming to vote only for your bias when you merely list a moral principle, without even citing something con said about that (quoting the debaters is the most easy way to meet your RFD BoP).

pensfan
"good points and sources."
Simply a failed RFD. It's a fill in the blanks RFD with the blanks not filled in. No better than just saying "haha BOP!" or "I like cheese." First on argument you should name even one contention that your chosen debater came ahead on, and sources were 2v4 of basically the same thing as each other, rather pointless to award.

No refinement suggestions for the remaining votes.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
wow those last to votes are enough to make me reconsider my vote. They are both under 2500 ELO with some extremely retarded votes
Posted by Robert_Weiler 2 years ago
Robert_Weiler
@9spaceking To be fair, I would never have just come out and challenged Mikal. It was an open challenge, Mikal was nominated as a judge, but said that he would like to debate instead. I, foolish man that I am, agreed. I am now working on a strong argument for the next round. Simple arguments or assertions won't help me much against a debater of Mikal's caliber.
Posted by Robert_Weiler 2 years ago
Robert_Weiler
Yeah, apparently it is still asking all the nominees. Some are still accepting. It is now set to open voting.
Posted by ArcTImes 2 years ago
ArcTImes
It's asking me to accept or decline judge nomination lol.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
O HO HO no way bro
Robert only won 7 debates and he's challenging Mikal...
Hes gonna get crushed so bad he won't know what's coming
Posted by Robert_Weiler 2 years ago
Robert_Weiler
I believe that did it.
Posted by Robert_Weiler 2 years ago
Robert_Weiler
Probably because you accepted the nomination before I changed it. Let me see if I can change it from an open challenge to challenging you specifically.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
Robert_WeilerMikal
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: (1/0), conduct to pro, everything else tied. ... This was oddly a really fun read. A bit tricky, it wasn't until R2 that pro suggested a voting floor of 2500, which was not a part of the resolution (a failed contention, does not assure a failed resolution). Pro would have been a slam dunk had he merely pointed out that taking part in three debates gives an ELO rating. There was a good amount of trolling, yet the debate remained plenty serious as well. By a trolling standard pro made me laugh a lot more, yet by a serious standard he did not personally affirm the resolution more so than con disaffirmed it. One thing I can say is con's straw person and ad hominem attacks about potato heads and pro being anti-black failed to make me laugh while hurting conduct. I admit I don't play call of duty so that entire argument line (prestige 100 vs other numbers) was entirely lost on me.
Vote Placed by ThatChristianGuy 2 years ago
ThatChristianGuy
Robert_WeilerMikal
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: CUS I'M A REETARD WHO CAN COUNT TO POTATO AND I WANT TOO VOAT ON DEEBATS. Jking, I vote for con because there are people who aren't retards with a low ELO.
Vote Placed by pensfan 2 years ago
pensfan
Robert_WeilerMikal
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: good points and sources.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
Robert_WeilerMikal
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: con already showed there are limitations to who can vote. Plus, high elo does not mean good votes. No point needing a min. elo ranking for voting privileges.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Robert_WeilerMikal
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Pro just didn't do enough to uphold the resolution. It was difficult to discern a single premise, but was entertaining none the less. On an unrelated note, I can name about 5 people off the top of my head with ELO's above 3,000 who are just as crappy at voting as any example pro could give. I won't be naming them, because of the site conduct policy.