The Instigator
bburli
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
Juris_Naturalis
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

There should be no restrictions on opponents (with respect to ranking) on debate.org

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 4 votes the winner is...
Juris_Naturalis
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/12/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 785 times Debate No: 34724
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (4)

 

bburli

Pro

On debate.org, I found certain debates which I could not contend because I did not satisfy the ranking of the instigator or because I have participated in less number of debates. This is not fair. New comers obviously have a lower ranking and would have participated in less number of debates. However, instigator should not enforce these criteria for a contender to accept a debate.

Arguments:
1. It is wrong to assume that ranking and number of debates indicate the quality of arguments that a contender can make.
2. It discourages an open environment where anyone can challenge anyone's thoughts and thus limits points from where learning can happen.
3. Too many restrictions, such as above ones, allow certain people to change debate.org from public debate site to a place of personal discourse.
4. It diminishes trust among st the debating community.

A debate must be a fair and open exchange of thoughts, views and ideas that are credible in their substance and meaningful in reason. If such a requirement is enforced by instigators then it would dictate superiority. This is not acceptable.
Juris_Naturalis

Con

I'll just go off your points one by one.

1. That is an opinion that you can't prove. Debating is just like any other activity, the more you practice and participate, the better you will be. What if someone wants to debate a fairly sophisticated topic against a skilled debater so they can push themselves to be better? Odds are, a more experienced and higher ranking debater will challenge you more and help you become better yourself.

2. Again, this is an opinion. The odds are, if someone bars you from a debate because of rank, there's probably 10 other people you could debate the same subject with. It's like the saying "don't hate the sport because of the player". Or however that goes. Just because one person bars you, it doesn't deprive you of your chance to learn, he's probably just seeking a more experienced/skilled opponent because there's more satisfaction of winning if you're opponent is just as skilled as you are are, if not better.

3. Like I said in my second statement, it doesn't become private because one guy doesn't want to debate you. Everybody would have to set this criteria in order for it to become "private" as you say.

4. Another opinion. I would like to ask, how does that work?

I'm afraid that's not really how the debate section of DDO really works. It's a challenge. And the instigator does have the right to choose (to an extent) who he/she wishes to debate. Maybe you should challenge the person to a debate if that's how you feel, or maybe try the Opinion/Forum section of DDO. Those seem to work more like how you think a debate should operate.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 1
bburli

Pro

Broadly speaking there are two things that Con's argument boils down to and let me address them.

1. Firstly Con contends that, if an instigator does impose some rules for acceptance of challenge it is not the end of road for the contender and the contender is free to, either invite the instigator to a debate or check out an alternative debater. Alternatives for a contender is not the point of my arguments at all. I am objecting to imposing of conditions by instigator. A newbie contender may - and can - learn a lot from an experienced debater and, I fail to understand why an instigator should block him? If the instigator wants to really debate a topic with experienced debaters then, as Con said, the instigator himself can challenge a particular experienced debater to a challenge. Why expose a topic in open and pose restrictions on acceptance? I simply don't understand that. The example is the movie Moneyball, where a team - which seemingly was an underdog - defeated the best ones! It happens in the world of games all the time. Debating is no different. Just because someone is experienced, it does not mean they get the prerogative of not getting challenged.

2. This trend or phenomenon reduces the trust among debating community in an indirect way. If an instigator puts quite a few conditions and prerequisites to debate, How can I be sure that the instigator wants to debate at all? It is probable that no debater might be able to meet those conditions at all! A few such unacceptable challenges, and as a new user I will loose interest in the debate.org altogether. It increases my suspicion about debating topics and debaters. Does the instigator really wants to debate honestly? or is this just another way of getting your thoughts ac cross by using these conditions? After all, the creator of the debate can always post the opening arguments! The website has no negative points or a down-vote equivalent for unaccepted challenges. So an unchallenged debate might well be considered as a won debate. The website with such debates looses credibility.

I agree DDO debate is a challenge. In fact every debate is. But the point is any challenge should be open for contention. These are issues that we discussing. Important ones that impact each one of us. This is an open community. A forum, opinion portal is for knowledge sharing. Not for arguments. So it is improper to even compare those with debate portal.
Juris_Naturalis

Con

1.You claim that a newcomer to DDO can learn from an experienced debater. While that may be true in some cases, in other cases, having the more skilled opponent win can damage the self-esteem of the new debater. There are also cases in which newcomers may be very incompetent or oblivious to how a debate works. I'm not saying this happens every time with a newcomer, but they're still possibilities. You also have to remember that the instigator has the right according to DDO to set these restrictions if he feels there may be a problem with the aforementioned problems, or he just simply wants a skilled opponent. You have no way of knowing how skilled a "freshman" is on DDO. You don't know how mature they are, you don't know how well they can put together an articulate argument which will challenge your own. True, an instigator can challenge another debater directly, but then he/she has to go about finding the opponent they think will challenge their skill best. It's so much simpler to set the criteria you wish your opponent to have. Also, just because it happened in Moneyball, which is a movie subject to the opinion of the director, doesn't mean it can happen in real life here on DDO. Again, you give no examples of how underdog teams in real life sports have overcome a seemingly superior team, so until sources are cited, it's an opinion.

2. Why would you assume he/she wouldn't want to debate? Just because they set the bar above you and me, doesn't mean they don't want to debate. Is it probable that no debater will accept? You tell me. How many members of DDO are there? I don't know, but there are 11,153 debaters on the Leader boards(as of June 15 9:46) (1.), so odds are at least one of them will fit the criteria, if not more. And not all debates have these criteria you mention. You can search debates that don't have the criteria. And how does an instigator make an argument for his case if he set's restrictions on another debater? How can you tell if they're honest people just by the restrictions? Please cite something to back up this claim. To your claim about the unchallenged debate, if no one accepts, no one can vote on it, therefore, it cannot be won. The challenge will simply expire and no points for winning will be given, therefore DDO loses no creditibility as a debating site.

You're confusing me. You just agree with me in saying that a debate is a challenge, but then you say it should be open for contention. Kind of defeats the purpose.

"This is an open community. A forum, opinion portal is for knowledge sharing."

Opinion until proven with cited fact.

"Not for arguments. So it is improper to even compare those with debate portal."

And I'm sorry, but what is a debate, but a civil and sophisticated argument?

1.http://www.debate.org...
Debate Round No. 2
bburli

Pro

Throughout the arguments in the previous round, Pro did little more than demanding for proof. Demand for proof, is indeed a scientific way of proceeding in a discussion, but it has been over-done. For instance, Why do I have to publish proof that a forum is for knowledge sharing and not a place for "advancing for or against a proposition" (definition of debate)? Should I cite meanings of commonly accepted words and their meanings too via sources that link to dictionaries? But since it has been asked: It is not my opinion that forums are for knowledge sharing but the very meaning of the word. I would like to question Pro to come up with a forum link where debates are on about a topic? No user of a forum takes a for or against stand on anything. It is only about what they know and how they share it with the forum. It is unfortunate that I have to explain things so rudimentary in nature.

Another thing one would expect every debater to know and understand is that when you are entering a debate, you are certainly putting self-esteem at stake. I enter a debate, knowing only very well, that one way or another my self-esteem will be hurt, whatever the outcome. It is true that one would not know how articulate a newbie is. But then, one would never know that unless the newbie is given a chance. This, denying a chance to someone on non-topical reasons, is at the core of this debate. What right does an instigator have to denying an opportunity to anyone? The whole ranking system does not make sense in the context of debate. Just imagine, if common people would never be allowed to debate with or ask questions to our leaders/politicians because of they are high in ranking or order! What would be the state of a country? Anarchy would prevail.

I would have, in the first place, not created this debate if I found enough debates to challenge. At any point in time I could find no more than 10-15 debates that were in challenge period. You can try it out yourself and truthfully state what you find. Among those 10-15 odd debates there are debates that set prerequisites and conditions that can hardly be met by newcomers. On an average, I have always found not more than 6 debates that could be challenged. Are you trying to tell me that DDO is not a site for newbies as there are criteria to be met for a debate? How will a newbie ever get better opportunities to engage in conversations that are helpful for development of his/her own thought process? After all, this is the purpose of debating and DDO. So it is not about eleven thousand odd debaters who can debate. It is about those some handful of newcomers who can debate. In the real world I cannot debate with the President of United States or the President of IMF, but here in the online world, I would want to. That's the opportunity that I am speaking of. By setting restrictions, that very specialty of this online world of debating is getting killed. If you really want to have a ranking system then, when an expert wins a debate with newcomer he/she can take the same debate to the next level of expertise instead of stamping entry restrictions on the very first proposal.

Why do you need any other source ? I am a newcomer and so far it is my experience that I find the site very frustrating as there so less number of debates to challenge. I would like to ask why my experience/feedback, and not opinion, is not a credible source in itself? It is a fact that I have found very less debates to challenge and I am searching for them at least 10 times a day. Please avoid confusing yourself. It is not good for a debater.

Finally about the underdogs bashing the superior teams, here are some sources:
http://greatist.com...
http://espn.go.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...(term)#Sports

Sports is only one field; this phenomenon is highly prevalent (Check out the wikipedia link above for more). It is unfortunate that demand for proof, even for glaringly obvious things, has become a fad.

Summarily, in an environment that encouraged open discussion and putting forth of arguments to understand each other's point of views, imposing restrictions on involving in a discussion reduces the likeness of a productive discussion.
Instigators with such a provision have a undue advantage of having a secure place and depend on their past performances instead of their current skill. Thus far, there has been no strong and compelling evidence or reasoning put forth by the contender to dismantle this established fact and so my assertion, and the arguments backing them, stand affirmed.
Juris_Naturalis

Con

Yes, I have demanded proof, because otherwise, half of Pro's arguments would be opinion. Yes, definitions in the starting round would have been appropriate considering it is a courtesy done by most instigators and eliminates confusion. When it comes to forums, that's just how you see it. I see it as a debate with the ability to express yourself in a manner more sophisticated than just pro/con. Merriam Webster's definition for "Forum" is below.

Definition of FORUM

1
a : the marketplace or public place of an ancient Roman city forming the center of judicial and public business
b : a public meeting place for open discussion
c : a medium (as a newspaper or online service) of open discussion or expression of ideas.

Nowhere does it say anything about sharing knowledge.

You asked for a forum of a debate. http://www.debate.org.... That's just one.

Putting your self-esteem at stake, I'm afraid, is something I don't think anyone but you does. If the debate is kept civil, which is is more times than not, your self esteem wouldn't even be a factor. If that newbie wants a chance at a debate, all he has to do is go over to the debates tab, click the arrow, and click "challenge period". There's plenty of debates to be accepted by newbies. Having one debater block you isn't the end of the world. No, we wouldn't be in anarchy, just slightly annoyed. After all, we still vote. Your personal experience is just that, a personal experience.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by bburli 3 years ago
bburli
Congratulations Juris_Naturalis!
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by rross 3 years ago
rross
bburliJuris_NaturalisTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro has a good point that it's good to debate with experienced debaters when you're new. When I started, I was completely thrashed by experienced debaters straight off, and I learned a lot from that. However, I agree with Con's argument that it's like any competitive situation, it's more fun if it's a close game, and people should be able to debate with whoever they want. If it wasn't possible to put restrictions on a debate, experienced debaters would just put up a forum thread and pick opponents that way. Con's argument that there are plenty of other people to debate with is convincing too.
Vote Placed by Guy_D 3 years ago
Guy_D
bburliJuris_NaturalisTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Remember, everyone was a newbie at one time. They waited their turn, so can you.
Vote Placed by someone123456789 3 years ago
someone123456789
bburliJuris_NaturalisTied
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:25 
Reasons for voting decision: better grammer and conduct
Vote Placed by orangemayhem 3 years ago
orangemayhem
bburliJuris_NaturalisTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: I thought this debate was well-fought by Con, and I found myself agreeing with his key point: that Pro's arguments were too baseless and subjective to be properly counted for the debate. That point, in my opinion, swung the debate to Con (though Pro raised decent points) so arguments to Con. Conduct to Con, I thought that Pro became quite rude and condescending in R3. S/G was even with few glaring errors. I gave sources to Con on the grounds that, although they were fewer in number, they were more effective in promoting Con's side of the argument. Pro shouldn't be disheartened though. It was Pro's use of reductio ad absurdum and his failure to back up his points with examples which allowed Con to scoop the win.