The Instigator
dylancatlow
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
TSH
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

There should be a minimum amount of time voters must spend on a debate before voting on it (DDO)

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: 1/8/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 911 times Debate No: 29020
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)

 

dylancatlow

Pro

DDO= debate.org (this site)

No semantics. Accepting this debate means you accept my terms.
TSH

Con

The resolution is negated for the following reasons:
1. Troll debates: Sometimes, the contender ignores the resolution completely
2. Rule violations: Sometimes, rules violated in the first round of the debate determine the way voters ought vote
3. (Fast) Forfeits: Sometimes, the contender forfeits in the first round

Thus, there should not be a minimum amount of time voters must spend on a debate before voting on it.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 1
dylancatlow

Pro

I thank my opponent for taking the time to participate with my in this debate.



Opening Statement

I will start off by admitting to something of which I am not proud of: sometimes I vote on DDO debates without reading the entire debate. I'll skim through the opening statements, and get a gist of what each party is arguing, and place my vote even though I am in no place to do so. There is a very simple solution to this problem. Debate.org should implement an option when starting a debate to allow people to set a minimum amount of time someone must spend on their debate (hopefully reading it!) to be allowed to vote. This time could either be a fixed time or a time reflecting the word count in the debate. If this idea worked well enough, it could even replace the phone verification requires to vote because it would greatly hinder the style of 'vandal voters.' People should be required to READ the debate before voting because if he or she doesn't, their vote will too much reflect already held convictions pertaining to the topic at hand. Voters are supposed to vote based on the quality of the arguments of the parties, NOT if they agree with them.

Rebuttal

My opponent's arguments have a fatal flaw: they assume debates are equal and thus should be given equal priority when it comes to the accesibility and accuracy of the votes they get. This is not true.

1. Troll debates: Sometimes, the contender ignores the resolution completely

Why should debate.org put useless, 'offtopic' debates before high-quality, thoughtprovoking ones. Also, in cases such as troll debates, many votes are not needed like are needed in lengthy and high-quality debates because the winner is obvious.


2. Rule violations: Sometimes, rules violated in the first round of the debate determine the way voters ought vote.

Voters should still be required to read the debate before voting, otherwise, their vote is simply binary logic in action. Also, if the rule violtaion takes place so close to the beginning of the debate as you're suggesting is necessary as to make this time limit a nuisance, why do people even need to vote on it? It's a useless debate and should NOT be put before useful debates.


3. (Fast) Forfeits: Sometimes, the contender forfeits in the first round

In this case, the word count will most likely be quite low and the time required will not be high allowing at least one person to vote. Also, should debate.org value people's win/loss ratio over DEBATE. The ENTIRE POINT OF THIS WEBSITE. I think not.


All of the situations my opponent described above should not be dealth with in a way that makes for poor, unjustified voting in legitimate debates. Debates like the ones mentioned above should be dealt with by a 'report' feature in which a set of people simply remove these debates, not subject them to the resource-wasting process of user votes that should be allocated to legitimate debates.
TSH

Con

"I will start off by admitting to something of which I am not proud of: sometimes I vote on DDO debates without reading the entire debate. I'll skim through the opening statements, and get a gist of what each party is arguing, and place my vote even though I am in no place to do so. There is a very simple solution to this problem."

I have an even simpler solution that involves voting without reading the debate: counter vote bombing.

"Debate.org should implement an option when starting a debate to allow people to set a minimum amount of time someone must spend on their debate (hopefully reading it!) to be allowed to vote. This time could either be a fixed time or a time reflecting the word count in the debate."

The resolution is that there should be a minimum time voters must spend on a debate before voting on it, not that there should be an OPTION to set the minimum time voters must spend on a debate before voting on it. I am not opposed to making a minimum time optional; I am opposed to making it required.

1. Troll debates: Sometimes, the contender ignores the resolution completely

"Why should debate.org put useless, 'offtopic' debates before high-quality, thoughtprovoking ones. Also, in cases such as troll debates, many votes are not needed like are needed in lengthy and high-quality debates because the winner is obvious."

I concede that troll debates are unimportant and can be closed.

2. Rule violations: Sometimes, rules violated in the first round of the debate determine the way voters ought vote.

"Voters should still be required to read the debate before voting, otherwise, their vote is simply binary logic in action. Also, if the rule violtaion [sic] takes place so close to the beginning of the debate as you're suggesting is necessary as to make this time limit a nuisance, why do people even need to vote on it? It's a useless debate and should NOT be put before useful debates."

If Con takes the time to put together a superb argument, then just because Pro ignores the resolution or violates one of the rules is not a reason to ignore Con's argument or close the debate. Instead, it is important for people to vote for Con so that Con's effort can be rewarded with a win.

3. (Fast) Forfeits: Sometimes, the contender forfeits in the first round

"In this case, the word count will most likely be quite low and the time required will not be high allowing at least one person to vote. Also, should debate.org value people's win/loss ratio over DEBATE. The ENTIRE POINT OF THIS WEBSITE. I think not."

How does not setting a minimum amount of time voters must spend on a debate before voting on it devalue a debate where one side forfeits?

"All of the situations my opponent described above should not be dealth [sic] with in a way that makes for poor, unjustified voting in legitimate debates. Debates like the ones mentioned above should be dealt with by a 'report' feature in which a set of people simply remove these debates, not subject them to the resource-wasting process of user votes that should be allocated to legitimate debates."

This is unrelated to the resolution. Regardless of whether or not troll debates, etc are allowed or reported, there is no reason not to make setting a minimum amount of time voters must spend on a debate before voting on it optional. Indeed, not setting a limit makes it is easier for people to counter obvious vote bombs without having to read the debate.

Since there is at least one legitimate reason for not setting a time requirement before voting (counter votes), vote Con.
Debate Round No. 2
dylancatlow

Pro

I have an even simpler solution that involves voting without reading the debate: counter vote bombing.

This assumes that all illegitimate votes are vote bombs. It's not necessarily easy to tell from a vote if the voter read the debate, or more realistically, the whole thing (which is important especially when it comes to voting accurately on all the secions)

If Con takes the time to put together a superb argument, then just because Pro ignores the resolution or violates one of the rules is not a reason to ignore Con's argument or close the debate. Instead, it is important for people to vote for Con so that Con's effort can be rewarded with a win.

If Con takes the time to put together a superb argument, and pro ignores the resolution, Con should take his argument elsewhere and start a new debate. People should not be rewarded for winning a debate for technicalities such as those you described. These kinds of debates should in NO way hinder valid, legitimate debates. They should be dealt in ways other than counting them as wins, such as voiding them.


How does not setting a minimum amount of time voters must spend on a debate before voting on it devalue a debate where one side forfeits?

I never said it did. The debate you describe has nothing of value, and therefore, should not be given priority of legitimate debates.


This is unrelated to the resolution. Regardless of whether or not troll debates, etc are allowed or reported, there is no reason not to make setting a minimum amount of time voters must spend on a debate before voting on it optional. Indeed, not setting a limit makes it is easier for people to counter obvious vote bombs without having to read the debate.


Why should people get to counter vote bomb without reading the debate? Voters have the obligation to read the debate before they vote, no matter what. Sometimes people counter vote a legitimate vote just beacause the point value is high.



Since there is at least one legitimate reason for not setting a time requirement before voting (counter votes), vote Con.


This is a non sequitur. There are always Pros and Cons to every proposed idea, and arguing an idea has a con does not mean it's not a justified resolution. Just because you pointed out times where this proposal could fall short does not mean you showed these negatives outweigh the positives of implementing this system. I say higher quality, more accurate and more honest voting is much more important than preserving the accessibility of voting on illegitimate debates.




Also, I could not find "make the option of" into this debate's title. Despite this, the title is defendable for a very valid reason:
-The title does not imply that I am arguing for debate.org forcing this idea upon everyone without an option JUST as much as it says that I support this as an option when one makes a debate.
TSH

Con

TSH forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
actually I can only read parts.
Posted by dylancatlow 3 years ago
dylancatlow
At the time he read it, it was written in english. Some glitch turned it into Greek lol
Posted by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
surprisingly I can actually read it, regardless of the fact that it's in greek and I don't know greek.
Posted by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
my god, how can con READ THAT
Posted by dylancatlow 4 years ago
dylancatlow
Is anyone else seeing that my first argument is written in greek? That isn't right.
Posted by dylancatlow 4 years ago
dylancatlow
Also, philo, unless people can instantly read a debate, my resolution is valid for the thing you described.
Posted by dylancatlow 4 years ago
dylancatlow
Typos:
1) Also, I could not find

Find should be 'fit'

Sorry for any confusion!
Posted by dylancatlow 4 years ago
dylancatlow
Philochristos, yes, that's what I'm arguing.
Posted by Chuz-Life 4 years ago
Chuz-Life
Support!
Posted by philochristos 4 years ago
philochristos
You should be more specific because by "minimum amount of time," you could just mean "the time necessary to read the whole debate," which is a no-brainer.
No votes have been placed for this debate.