The Instigator
bsh1
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
Wylted
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points

Voting Reform

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 3 votes the winner is...
bsh1
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/16/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,102 times Debate No: 67169
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (20)
Votes (3)

 

bsh1

Pro

Preface

This is a debate over who should be eligible to vote in DDO Presidential elections. This debate has become necessary due to some controversies that came about after and during the recent election season.

A minimum ELO of 2,500 is needed to vote on this debate. Response times are 24 hours. Each side has 8,000 characters.

My Proposal

A voter should be eligible if they meet one of the following bullets:

- 1,000 posts
- 5 debates without any forfeits AND 100 posts
- 3 debates without any forfeits AND 50 polls that haven't been deleted by mods AND 100 posts
- 200 posts AND 50 polls that haven't been deleted by mods

Additionally, the following rules should be enforced:

- No contacting voters after they've voted in order to attempt to have them alter their vote
- If a voter asks explicitly not to be contacted further, all communication with them needs to cease

Wylted's Proposal

Wylted will advocate that the status quo should be maintained. A voter is eligibile if they meet one of the following criteria

- 500 posts
- 3 debates without any forfeits

Structure

R1. Acceptance
R2. Defending Our Plans/Proposals
R3. Rebuttals the Other Plan
R4. Defending Our Plans and Crystallization

Rules

1. No forfeits
2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate
3. No new arguments in the final round
4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
5. No trolling or semantics
6. We will split the BOP--Pro must advocate for his plan, Con must advocate for his plan
7. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss

Thanks...

...again to Wylted for this debate. I hope he accepts!
Wylted

Con

I accept. The additional set of rules listed aren't relevant to the debate but I'd definitely be willing to put my ideal against yours on how to prevent voter harassment in the future.

It's my belief that neither voting system mentioned is the best possible but that the status quo is superior.to the proposed alternative.

The purpose of this debate is to prevent DDO from making a mistake by excluding too many people and the wrong people from the presidential voting process.

I want that purpose kept in mind because it probably will affect the style of my writing.

Good luck BSH 1.
Debate Round No. 1
bsh1

Pro

Thanks to Wylted for taking me up on this important debate! The outcome of the voting reform process could have a variety of wide-ranging impacts on the health, direction, and tenor of DDO's politics and community affairs, and so it is important that this topic is discussed in our community.

In this debate I will examine the problems of the current voting system that necessitate change, and then I will discuss how my proposal effectively and efficiently addresses those problems. I will also discuss the BOP before I launch into those arguments. With that, let's launch into the debate!

BOP

Since Wylted has agreed to split the BOP, judges should approach this debate keeping in mind the question of "which system is better?" Whichever system is better is the one you should vote for. There should be no presumption in favor of the status quo.

PROBLEMS WITH THE STATUS QUO

There are five big issues that I see in the current voting system: (1) that people in the polls are largely disenfranchised, (2) that users who are barely part of the community are able to vote, (3) that users with no interactions in the forums can vote, (4) that users are often bombarded with unwanted communications from the candidates during the campaign process, and (5) that voters who have already voted are often pressured by various campaign teams to change their votes. I will now review each of these five points and explain why these are problems under the status quo.

(1) People in the Polls are Disenfranchised

Firstly, it is important to note that just because a user spends a lot of time in the polls section that does not mean that they are not good users who are invested in the site. Two particular users come to mind: PetersSmith and Bblackkbbirdd; both of these users attempted to cast votes or wanted to cast votes in the last election, but were barred from doing so because they did not meet the voting eligibility requirements. By all accounts these users were invested in the site, promoted exemplary polls, exhibited good conduct, and were all around benefits to the DDO community.

(2/3) Users who are barely part of the community are able to vote/Users with no interactions in the forums can vote

I just want to point out that 2 and 3 are different insofar as a user can be invested in the community without spending much time in the forums, but for the sake of saving valuable character space, I will be addressing these points together. The investment comments have more to do with (2), and the latter have more to do with (3), but I think they're all interrelated to some extent.

Let me construct a hypothetical to demonstrate my point. Let's say that user X has received a PM asking him to vote. User X has done 3, 1-round debates. Each of his rounds in all of his debates was one or two brief sentences. He has never posted in the forums, never created a poll, and has been on the site for a few weeks (let's specify and say 21 days). This user is eligible to vote.

There are several problems with this. Firstly, this user has not demonstrated any investment in the site. There are many temporary users of DDO, who flit in, do a few debates, and leave. They are not long-term users, and so have no stake in casting a wise, prudent vote for the site's long-term investment. This means that they will likely not care as much about casting a good vote if they choose to vote. Alternatively, they may stick around for awhile, but only be on the site in short bursts and leave for months on end. Here again, their frequent absence diminishes the stake they have in ensuring the best outcome. To me, the impacts of this are that they are more likely to vote for whoever asks them to vote (regardless of the quality of their positions), are more likely to not get informed about the issues before voting, and are thus more likely to cast careless or bad votes.

Secondly, even if this voter is invested for some reason, they are likely not well informed. This most recent election cycle, big issues that the candidates discussed included forum reorganization and revitalization, reducing flamewars in the forums, trials, and other issues outside of the debate section of the website. These are things that users who spend little or no time in the forums are not going to be informed about, so it will be hard for them to truly assess the importance of these issues to the welfare of the site as a whole. In fact, it is quite possible that they do not even know many areas of concern in their own section of the website due to the lack of effort they put into it. Finally, it is also possible that they do not even know what they are voting for. Of the voters I talked to when I campaigned, those who were not involved in the forums seemed more likely than other groups to conflate the position of mod and president.

It does not seem fair that two users who are aware of community issues should be denied the right to vote in the community's Presidential Elections simply because they frequent the polls section more than other sections of the site. In fact, the polls section as added to DDO after the eligibility requirements were created, so it seems logical to update those requirements to reflect such changes to the site.

Thirdly, it seems that X could very easily be a multi-account created in anticipation of the election. With voting requirements that are easy to meet, it also becomes easy to craft alts with the specific purpose in mind of casting illicit votes.

(4) Users are often bombarded with unwanted communications from the candidates during the campaign process

I experienced this problem firsthand when I was campaigning this election cycle. Several users clearly did not want to receive messages, and were irked that they would often find their inboxes filled to the brim with notifications and PMs from multiple people on both sides of the race. One user in particular, Beastt, noted that he was fed up of receiving these messages. Clearly, this can feel harassing to some users, which is not what DDO wants its users to be feeling.

(5) Voters who have already voted are often pressured by various campaign teams to change their votes

This issue sparked several debates in the forums, particularly after Mikal posted his thread accusing campaigners of harassing people to change their votes [http://www.debate.org...]. Wylted himself has admitted this is a problem--and it clearly is a threat to the integrity of DDO's electoral process (voter intimidation), but also to DDO's values and positive community atmosphere.

HOW MY PROPOSAL SOLVES

(1) My proposal solves for the disenfranchisement of poll-users

Under my system, Bblackkbbirdd would have been eligible to vote per the fourth bullet, having at least 200 posts and 50 polls, and could thus have cast ballots. PetersSmith would have been very close to being eligible (less than 40 comments away, which could have easily been made up before voting began). Another disqualified voter, Zyloarchy, would have been much closer to qualifying too. Ultimately, my system makes it much easier for these types of users to become qualified voters.

(2/3) My proposal solves for community involvement and forum use

By raising the bar on eligibility requirements, we can cut down on some of the members who are merely transient being able to vote. We can also make it harder to create alts simply to garner more votes. Moreover, by ensuring that everyone has to have at least 100 posts to vote, we ensure that voters have some exposure to the heart of the community and increase the chances of their being informed about other site issues.

(4/5) My proposal solves for harassment

My proposal mandates that if someone asks not to be PM'd further, campaigners must stop PMing them. A no-contact list could even be created to this end. Furthermore, my proposal explicitly bans contacting voters after they vote to lobby them to alter their votes.

Prefer my System. Over to Con...
Wylted

Con

I just want to bring one quick thing up that wasn't contested when I mentioned it in round 1. Remember this quote.

"This is a debate over who should be eligible to vote in DDO Presidential elections."

The voter harassment issues are for a different debate and I think those will be solved through a way more simple and easily enforceable method of just only allowing 1 vote and no unvotes or change of votes.

FACTORS NOT CONSIDERED

The only factor considered in my opponent's plan is how to make the most informed decision as to who the president is, and I'll undermine a lot of those premises for why his system achieves that in the next round. For now, I just want to say there are other things that need to be factored into this.

One factor to consider is how the systems affect Juggle's (Owners of debate.org) bottom line. So I'll explain how this system does that. The reason this is important is because the more profitable this website is to Juggle the more they can allocate resources to it and make this place a better experience for all of us.

THE STICKY FACTOR

There are exceptions to every rule, but do me a favor and look around at the users who have stuck around for a while and those that are here for 6 months and move on. I don't think my opponent will contest this but the users that stick around are the ones who interact a ton, especially in the forum.

The first thought that might come to your mind when hearing this is "Duh that's why they should be the only ones to vote" "They are the only ones to reap the reward or suffer the punishment of electing a bad/good president"

It misses the point to say that though. It's in the site's best interest to encourage more members to become more engaged. Having a big sticky factor will increase regular users to the site which in turn creates a bigger user base with more fresh blood. This bigger user base increases profitability and in turn increases the amount of resources that can be allocated to this site.

HOW IT INCREASES STICKY FACTOR

I kinda went into why sticky factor is important without showing why my system increases sticky factor more but it was important to discuss things in this particular order.

Not requiring forum posts give presidential candidates a bigger pool of potential voters to interact with. It's way easier to contact a voter while the voting is occurring than to do it a little before hand. Let me give you the 2 alternate scenarios for drumming up votes.

Wylted's scenario, during the voting stage:

PM to Noob: Hi I don't know if you realize this but my friend Mikal is running for site president and looking to make some great improvements to the site, do you mind voting for him in the following thread by bolding his name......?

BSH1's scenario taing place prior to the election:

PM to Noob: Hi I don't know if you realize this but my friend Mikal is running for site president and looking to make some great improvements to the site, do you mind making 100 forum posts and voting for him by bolding his name in a few weeks when the presidential voting thread is up?

Believe it or not that first PM is going to get that noob to make his first forum post a lot better than the second one. Once that forum post is out the noob has already stuck his toe in the water and is more likely to engage in the forums more.

Here is just a fraction of the people who got more involved with the forums after the previous election. Many of these people's first post was a vote for Mikal or Bladerunner.

The voice of Truth: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Independent: http://www.debate.org...

SeBuk: http://www.debate.org...

Zyloarchy: http://www.debate.org...

Geographia: http://www.debate.org...

Kawai Krazy: http://www.debate.org...

Kyle The Heretic: http://www.debate.org...

Tabula Rasa: http://www.debate.org...

Valkrin: http://www.debate.org...

This guy got attatched so fast after the election that he even created a thread to announce a temporary departure something typically reserved for senior members.

That's a list of people who wouldn't be participating at all or as much in the forums without being reached out to. This is a list of people who wouldn't be participating as much if it weren't for this election and the current voting rules (with possibly a couple of exceptions).

MORE EFFORT

During a close and heated election like the one that just occurred, there is going to be a tremendous effort to recruit qualified voters, more so than a few weeks before the election under my opponent's plan. Late in the voting when bladerunner was close but still behind there was a furious effort by his supporters to reach out to new voters. This type of effort is simply not going to take place prior to an election and outside of the heat of battle and if it did the turnout wouldn't be the same which would considerably effect sticky factor.

If we reach out in future campaigns it will be even better. In this election Bladerunner's team was taken off guard by the dramatic amount of new barely qualified voters entering the pool and when his most loyal supporters caught onto the strategy Mikal's side was using, several of them adopted it. Unfortunately you'd have several members of their team contact the same person and it would annoy them pretty bad negatively affecting the voter turnout for them.

They actually could've employed the same strategy late if they were more organized about it and won despite a later start with it.

In future elections, voter recruitment will be more organized and less frantic for both sides, which will present a friendlier more warming outreach to people who rarely or never participate in the forums. The recruitment may start earlier by building friendly relationships with new users prior to requesting their vote. This friendliness will lead to experienced members (most likely recruiters), having more mentor relationships with new people, thus being able to show them the ropes.

This new engagement is certain to create a bunch of new friendships and participation in the site significantly affecting the sticky factor and emotional attachment to the site. This bigger more engaged user base is good for Juggle's pocket books and likely to lead to more resources being dedicated to the site.

PRESIDENT IS JUST A TITLE

Before my opponent starts discussing the importance of the presidency let me address just how relative the presidency is in the words of some people who've been around debate.org a while.

Quotes by Danielle:

"The president (as far as I know) has little to no actual function. They don't have mod powers or do anything that a regular member cannot do."

"While I understand the utility of having a member representative speak to Juggle on the community's behalf, any member(s) can do that if/when necessary. Similarly any member can implement every single initiative that both candidates have promised. If they truly care about the quality of the site and not a meaningless title, they shouldn't need to win the election in order to be active and quality members."
http://www.debate.org...

Quote by YYW:

"Juggle is a corporation, and what interests them is making money. .......... Juggle, as a corporation, does not allocate resources based on who they like or don't like -and there is ample evidence to support that. Juggle allocates resources based on what it perceives is in its interest " http://www.debate.org...

I agree with all these statements and believe that the presidency isn't important because of who's in office but because the process it's self brings DDO to life and it really brings us together in so many ways, particularly people who before the election didn't get to interact with us asmuch
Debate Round No. 2
bsh1

Pro

Thanks again to Wylted. First, I will address the topicality issue, and then I will rebut the remainder of Con's plan text.

TOPICALITY

Con says that one line he excerpted from my premise can somehow be contorted to suggest that voter harassment issues are not topical to this debate. I have myriad problems with this analysis, and will be offering three objections. Frankly, I am disappointed that Con did not ask for clarification on this matter before the debate began.

Sure, this debate is about who is eligible to vote in DDO Presidential Elections, but it is ALSO about broader questions of voting reform, including rules against harassment. Con seems to believe that the line he is quoting says that this debate is "only" about eligibility requirements, but nowhere did I specify that this debate was solely about that issue. So, it is disingenuous to claim that this single line somehow precludes a discussion of anti-harassment provisos.

Moreover, context clues in my OP strongly suggested that I had intended (and I truly did intend) for voting harassment issues to be topical. For instance, the title of this debate is not "Voter Eligibility Requirements," but rather it is "Voting Reform." Another example evidencing this fact is that I specifically included voting harassment related reforms as part of my proposal in the OP. This is a debate pitting two proposals against each other, and so that fact that this issue is found in the proposals indicates that it was meant to be debated.

Finally, this line was placed under the debate's "Preface." A preface is an introductory statement, usually used to describe why I am having the debate and/or to engage in some niceties with my opponent. The actually rules and content are to follow. So, Con is extrapolating this rule from a part of the OP that was not meant to generate rules.

CON's CASE

Con says that mine plan fails to consider various issues, whereas his does. I will address my plan and whatever supposed shortcomings it has next round, as this round is reserved to rebut Con's case.

The Sticky Factor

I am going to lump Con's "Sticky Factor," "Increasing the Sticky Factor," and "More Effort" headings together under this argument, as they all touch on a core theme of getting new members to linger on the site.

The question of the sticky factor comes down to whether Con's plan is actually going to increase that factor in some significant way. Let's compare two worlds: one in which my plan used, and one in which Con's plan is used. In my world, votes are more informed and more conscientious. In Con's world, he gets one or two voters to "stick." In this case, Con's benefits don't seem to outweigh, because the benefits of one or two new users can be counterbalanced by broader increase in the quality, legitimacy, and fairness of the process on my side of the aisle.

So, will Con's plan actually significantly increase the number of members who get glued to the site? The answer is, no. And there are four good reasons to believe that the answer is "no."

1. Voting isn't meaningful or long-lasting engagement. Making One forum post in an election thread is not going to get you hooked on the site, nor is it necessarily even going to make you feel engaged. Let's say I am a noob. I get a PM asking me to vote, in fact, I get several PMs asking me to vote. The person asking me seems friendly and outgoing, and talks to me for awhile, and so I feel like there is no harm in voting. I go on to the forums just to vote. The problem is that I am not given a reason to return to post again. Elections are transient, once they pass, my reason for posting disappears, and so I am left unhooked. Alternatively, I might just vote in order to stop the barrage of PMs flooding my inbox--that kind of annoyance-motivated voting isn't going to get me engaged in the forums. It is more likely to just turn me off of the site in general.

2. There is no empirical evidence to suggest that Wylted's hypothesis is correct. Wylted lists 8 members who he believes got "stuck" on the site as a result of the election. At this point, it seems important to define what a "noob" is. For simplicities sake, let's say it is any member who does not meet the criteria listed in my plan, since I believe that the members who would be eligible to vote in my world have enough investment (on balance) in the site to be able to vote. Of the people Con listed, 3 are not noobs by this definition (Atheist, Seb, Valkrin) and would have been able to vote in either system; another 2 (Kawaii and Geo) were already "stuck" on the site before the election (Kawaii via debates and Geo via mafia); and, of the other 1, there is little evidence to suggest the election helped them get "stuck," since most of Zylo's post predate his vote. As for Tabularasa, TVOT, and Kyle, I cannot find a record of there votes either on this tally just hours before the voting closed [http://www.debate.org...] or by scrolling through the records of their posts on their profiles.

3. Campaigning isn't mentoring. Wylted seems to assert that campaigners will develop friendships with those the reach out too, but I feel this is not the case far more often than it is. It seems the campaigning is a blitz efforts that ends after the election closes (so links are not kept up or fostered), and that not all campaigners seek to cultivate personal connections, but rather to inform, propagandize, or convince in other ways.

4. Lack of uniqueness mitigates Con's impacts. Moreover, insofar as Wylted seems to agree that users like Atheist and SebUk are noobs in need of being "stuck", a lot of Wylted's arguments are non-unique, as those types of users can be "hooked" under either system.

Just a Title

The President does have importance in the community. This importance can be divided into two broad categories: (1) community leader, and (2) community advocate.

Regarding (1), the President is often leading the charge--if not the driving force behind--programs that impact the whole community. For example, Bladerunner's Religion Forum Ambassador Program, or Mikal's New Member Outreach Initiative. In both cases, the Presidents have used their positions to lobby for, organize, and help to implement community-centered programs. Moreover, the President is often a point of contact for members in need of help or assistance, and is often a useful focal point when organizing things like tournaments, which require publicity and legitimacy if they are to work effectively. Presidential backing can certainly help make a tournament more successful that it would have otherwise been, because the President has a unique platform from which to operate. So, the President does have an important role as a community leader on DDO.

Regarding (2), the President is the site's liaison with Juggle. Sure, individual members could contact Juggle if they had something they want to push for, but it is much easier for Juggle to have a single point of contact who they can work with over the long-term, and with whom they can develop a working relationship. Similarly, it is easier for members to express concerns to a President who is actively on the site (and so they know the President more than they could some faceless Juggle employee). And, while Juggle may have a strong profit-motive, they are not necessary as tuned in to site issues as a actual users. If they wanted to make updates to improve the usability of the site for advertising purposes, for instance, the site President can become a valuable font of information for them to reference.

Ultimately then, while the President may not have as much power or authority as a Juggle employee or a moderator (inserting here a shout-out to the Airmax = Blade conspiracy), it is not accurate or fair to say, as Wylted has, that "the presidency isn't important." It is, for all the reasons I just mentioned.

Thanks again to Con. I turn the floor back over to him...
Wylted

Con

Real life stuff going on so I will end up having to defend on the strength of my counter rebuttals. One thing I want to comment on is the difference between the polls/opinions section and the forum/debate section of the site,

DDO is like 2 sites rolled into one. It's clearly got a separate demographic that doesn't care about the other portion of this site. There is some crossover but it's extremely minimal. Allowing polls/opinions to vote in the presidential debate would be lilowing any random site to do it.
Debate Round No. 3
bsh1

Pro

Thanks to Wylted. I appreciate that he posted rather than simply waited for time to expire, and so I thank him for that. I will just briefly discuss his R3 comments at this time.

Firstly, it is important to note that, while he can defend his own case in R4, he cannot rebut my case at all in R4, since that would not give me any chance to defend myself and my arguments, and it would breach the agreed upon structure for this debate. So, besides my argument about the polls, all of my case is dropped and can be extended.

Secondly, Con asserts that "DDO is like 2 sites rolled into one. It's clearly got a separate demographic that doesn't care about the other portion of this site...Allowing polls/opinions to vote in the presidential debate would be lilowing [sic] any random site to do it." I have several comments to make about this:

(a) Con's own logic defeats him. Con's whole argument is that campaigns are a way of getting people involved in the whole community. Using that logic, we should be reaching out to people in the polls section in order to get them to vote and to help integrate them with the rest of the site.

(b) I am not allowing any random person to vote. Notice, that while polls are part of the eligibility requirements, every voter needs to have posted in the forums and/or done debaters before they can vote. So, I am not suggesting that users who hide out solely in the polls section be made eligible, but rather that users who spend a lot of time there, but who are also active in other areas of the site also be allowed to vote. Consider also that very few users you frequent the polls would be enfranchised under my system--only 70 poll users have 50+ polls according to the leaderboard, so it is still a relatively high threshold for these poll users to meet. So again, it isn't like I am opening voting up to everyone who frequents the polls section.

What I am doing is enfranchising (or at least making it easier to enfranchise) good users, who spend a lot of time in the polls, but who also have engaged in some basic interactions in other portions of the site. Con writes, "There is some crossover but it's extremely minimal." My goal is to capture that crossed-over population and work to allow them to vote, rather than excluding many of them (like PetersSmith) who ought to have been able to vote.

(c) Con's arguments turn back on him. Con says: "[the polls section has] clearly got a separate demographic that doesn't care about the other portion of this site." Why is that true of the polls section, and not, for example, of the debate section? Clearly, there are some members who just debate who really don't care about the welfare of the site as a whole, so why is Con so concerned about making sure they remain enfranchised but then says we shouldn't enfranchise those people in the polls section? Really, that just seems like a barefaced contradiction.

With that, I am going to remind voters that Con has dropped pretty much my entire case. I would ask that they please extend it, and that they would please VOTE PRO. Thank you!
Wylted

Con

Sorry BSH1, I just don't feel like debating this. I think the polls section and opinions section should be able to participate in elections, but the forum posts shouldn't be required.

I know for a fact more people are involved in the forums now as a result of the last election.

I've also made at least 6 new friends who talk to me regularly through PM now, some of them about deeply personal stuff.

Once again sorry about wasting your time. I shouldn't have accepted if it's not the debate I wanted.

I can put together good arguments but I just lack the focus required for it at the moment.

I'm actually going to stop doing so many debates and just focus on ones I give a crap about engaging in. You'll likely see me have a few in the voting period with this same message from me here shortly.
Debate Round No. 4
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
I'll make sure it does before voting ends. It doesn't require a read to get a vote so it shouldn't be a problem.
Posted by bsh1 2 years ago
bsh1
Hopefully this gets a vote or two.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
last minute please?
Posted by bsh1 2 years ago
bsh1
It's okay.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
I apologize for that round
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Not a problem. I have no choice because of the timing of it as well.
Posted by bsh1 2 years ago
bsh1
I would also ask you to wait until the last minute to post for this debate, too, Wylted.
Posted by bsh1 2 years ago
bsh1
@Debate - Definitely. Will do :)
Posted by debatability 2 years ago
debatability
pm me when this is in the voting period. im very interested in voting
Posted by bsh1 2 years ago
bsh1
OMG...this is embarrassing...

"It does not seem fair that two users who are aware of community issues should be denied the right to vote in the community's Presidential Elections simply because they frequent the polls section more than other sections of the site. In fact, the polls section as added to DDO after the eligibility requirements were created, so it seems logical to update those requirements to reflect such changes to the site."

This paragraph should be under (1), not under (2/3)...
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by BLAHthedebator 2 years ago
BLAHthedebator
bsh1WyltedTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Con graciously conceded and apologized for wasting pro's time, thus I give conduct to con and arguments to pro.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
bsh1WyltedTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con gracefully conceded the debate in the final round. Thus, Pro rightfully wins the debate.
Vote Placed by YYW 2 years ago
YYW
bsh1WyltedTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: A gracious concession by Wylted.