The Instigator
kvaughan
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
Stoogy
Con (against)
Losing
12 Points

Voting on debate.org should be significantly overhauled

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: 1/5/2008 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,575 times Debate No: 1386
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (11)

 

kvaughan

Pro

I've argued this before and it turned into a discourse on which plan was best. I am looking for someone to actually attempt to defend the premise that the current voting system is fine.

The voting system on debate.org is largely unfair to the debaters because anyone can vote without proving any justification for their decision despite the arguments or hard work of the debaters.

My primary source of evidence is a test debate I set up here: http://www.debate.org...

In this debate, I was pro (Nazis are evil) my opponent was con (Nazis were not evil). I led my debate with a short sentence or two saying Nazis are bad, a block of text from an award winning paper for most pretentious of the year and then a paragraph that explicitly said "If you read this far, vote con (not for me) in this debate". The rest of the time I quoted Wikipedia r encyclopedia dramatica about the Nazis and thus stated random facts with no arguments. At the time of writing, I won the debate 7 to 5, meaning that more than half of the people voting did not read any significant amount of the debate.

Of those who actually read it, it's not clear that they would have adjudicated fairly had I not told them explicitly to vote against me. Judging a debate requires a set of skills to allow one to suspend confirmation bias and objectively consider arguments. Most people do not have this, so the voting should be overhauled.
Stoogy

Con

well, first off, i dont think that voter justification is needed because we can assume that the voter identifies more closely with the arguments of the debater he/she voted for. to add that option could create a regurgitation of information, or-for the keyboard happy- countless paragraphs of why so and so agrees with so-so. when we vote for a winner we already make a point of where we stand and why, any additional information from voters can be provided in the comment boxes which is what i sometimes do.

as far as your experiment goes, you have no way to prove, or have not proven, how many people read how far, yet voted for you anyways. i denote that it may be too ambitious to rule out someone saw the message but voted against nazis not being evil because they wanted to stay in tune with their own ethics. i think our current voting system is fine because its simple and to the point.

maybe next time you can request that voters leave a reason, because even if it is mandatory whose to say someone will insert real reasons of substance.
Debate Round No. 1
kvaughan

Pro

Let's talk about my 'experiment' first. As I mentioned, I did not make a single argument the entire debate and explicitly told voters not to vote for me. In judging a debate, you are voting for WHO won the debate as denoted by the question asked on a finished debate (review the one I linked if you doubt this). I CLEARLY did not win that debate even if my position was correct because I DID NOT DEBATE.

Sure, maybe someone read where I told them to vote against me and voted for me anyways, but pardon me for thinking that to be highly unlikely. And, even if they did, they would have voted for me with little or no reason.

Additionally, please note that I explicitly said that I am not advocating a specific plan (although I have ideas) I am just advocating that SOMETHING needs to be done. You have not really defended that nothing needs to be done, but have spent most of your time attacking arguments that I didn't make.
Stoogy

Con

just because you find that possibility "highly unlikely" doesnt make it true. thats just personal opinion, and you have no way to back it up, like i have no way of proving it true, but it is, nevertheless, a possibility.

i said that i agreed with the current voting system.there will be arguments that make no sense and people will vote soley based on pro and con ( besides, do i not have the right to agree with ones position, but disagree with their reasons???), and there will be some like the ones ive read in which both sides argue with passion and i cast my vote on who i believed made the most sense. we may not have the perfect system, but we try to chose the best that goes along with our original intentions (and in this case it is the best debator). and if you disagree with the system i would highly recommend your 'suggestions'.

as far as attacking arguments you didnt make, first off, i dont even think you've been 100% clear. i wasnt sure if you wanted voting gone, changed, or was just whining for the sake of time. but i refuted the argument that the system is largely unfair to voters without justification. i would hope that people read the arguments, but its like i said, there will always be exceptions.
Debate Round No. 2
kvaughan

Pro

In this round my opponent has groped vainly in search of an argument, misrepresented my views and generally refused to even argue that position I defined as CON ground in my opening statement.

I have presented evidence indicating that more than 1/2 of the 'voters' on this website do not even read past the opening statement, indicating that voting is largely pointless are solely indicative of what position one takes on the topic. My opponent's argument was that maybe when people read where I explicitly told them to vote against me they voted FOR me instead because it agreed with "their own ethics". I don't need to argue this, I can leave it for the reader to decide how plausible this is.

Now, I'll refer the reader (the 5 of you who actually read the debates) back to my opening statement where I said "I am looking for someone to actually attempt to defend the premise that the current voting system is fine." My opponent has failed in every single round to do this. She has critiqued alternative suggestions that I never made and eloquently explained her own mechanism for adjudication (which consists of a well-thought out paradigm of 'sense making' and 'stance on topic'). Since she has not argued what I asked the con to argue, she cannot win this debate.

This defect in the voting system is not to be taken lightly. If there is a point to voting in any sense, it can only be reached when people read the friggin' debate and adjudicate based on who was the superior debater. The current system is ridiculous and the option for an alternative should, at a minimum, be available.
Stoogy

Con

i would like to congradulate my opponents conniving linguistics designed to twist my intentions and argument. you asked someone to defend the premise that our current voting system is fine, and blantantly ignored my first argument that attempted to do such that as well as my second one in which i specifically stated that it is fine and although it is not the perfect system is the best one designed for its orginal intentions.

you my friend, i feel, have not even been completely clear. your main piece of evidence is personal experiment in which you claim proves that more than half the people on this website do not read the debates. "1/2" you say? do you honestly believe that more than "1/2" of debate.org subscribers actually participated in your little experiment? ill leave it for the readers to decide how pausible this is.

the problem is not that i did not present an argument or defend it, the problem is you have so crudely disregarded everything ive said because you are so blindly consumed with your idea that our current voting system is frivelous, that even if i could have presented a brilliant, flawless argument,you would have still dismissed it because you are convinced of your own vain righteousness.

as far as critiqued alternative suggestions that you never made i do admit that i assumed you wanted justification mandatory, but that is all. no need to take that minor mistake and run with it. you did, however, state that voting is unfair to debaters without justification, and i argued against that.

i think it could be possible that you are upset with the people that dont read arguments because you are possibly one of those people and therefore assume everyone else is. i really dont know.

for the THIRD TIME the current voting system is fine. and if you continue to argue that it is not, please present evidence with more authority than your side project experiment. also, be more specific when you claim that the voting system needs to be "overhauled" because i wasnt sure if you wanted it removed or changed or what. instead of using linguistics to attack me, you should have used them to be more clear in your own argument.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Stoogy 9 years ago
Stoogy
wait. im not 100% sure what he wants ><, ><
Posted by Stoogy 9 years ago
Stoogy
haha. i meant to say DOESNT WANT VOTING GONE
typo ><
Posted by dalzuga 9 years ago
dalzuga
I don't think he means that voting should be gone.
Posted by Stoogy 9 years ago
Stoogy
oh. i see that he wants voting gone. i thought he wanted it mandatory that people leave reasons. ><
but i still dont think it needs to be overhauled. when you lose it can encourage to provide stronger arguments.
Posted by Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
I Affirm. This comment is now over 25 characters.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
kvaughanStoogyTied
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 AMBagoli 9 years ago
AMBagoli
kvaughanStoogyTied
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 kenito001 9 years ago
kenito001
kvaughanStoogyTied
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 solo 9 years ago
solo
kvaughanStoogyTied
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 Kierkegaard 9 years ago
Kierkegaard
kvaughanStoogyTied
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 volleynolley 9 years ago
volleynolley
kvaughanStoogyTied
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 PreacherFred 9 years ago
PreacherFred
kvaughanStoogyTied
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 Thoreau 9 years ago
Thoreau
kvaughanStoogyTied
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 Miserlou 9 years ago
Miserlou
kvaughanStoogyTied
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 kvaughan 9 years ago
kvaughan
kvaughanStoogyTied
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