The Instigator
Smooosh
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
Mharman
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

We need judges!!!!!

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Smooosh
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/1/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 565 times Debate No: 100437
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (5)
Votes (4)

 

Smooosh

Pro

I love DDO. I think it has the best format for online debate. But, one thing that might enhance this site, is more efficient judging. I'm not sure about the feasibility of doing this, but I think designated judges should be appointed. Not a permanent post, but every so often, eligible members should be picked for a week long term of judging, kind of like jury duty. All other members who are eligible to vote will still retain their normal voting priveleges, but the designated judges would only vote on arguments. It is far more satisfying to have someone vote on your debate and give critical insite into why your argument did, or didn't sway thier oppinion.
Mharman

Con

What we already have is better system for this. The Instigator can choose to have judges for their debate, and nominate the judges. Also, this would also be a huge gateway for vote-bombing; a return of the Wild West Voting days. Finally, do you know how many people complain about jury duty?
Debate Round No. 1
Smooosh

Pro

My proposal does not change the system in place, it's just anot extension of the already existing system. I personally don't know enough people on this site to ask to make a judgment on my arguments. I fail to see how this would be a gateway for vote bombing, I think my opponent is scraping the bottom of the barrel on that claim.
Mharman

Con

Voting privileges are something that many on this site have to enjoy. Taking them away in place of this would make many upset, and forcing certain users each week to vote on every debate for a week blocks up time users could using playing Mafia, or debating other users. The point is to make voting a freedom thing. Taking voting away just like that may cause many to leave the site, and if it doesn't, they still will have lost their freedom to vote! Also, this could be a gateway, where judges abuse their voting. Like I said, we already have a judge option for this. If you don't know enough people on this site, then go meet some! If you really can't get anyone to be a judge on your debates, let the public be the judge! Letting the public be the judge is what made this website so free! And your quote, "It is far more satisfying to have someone vote on your debate and give critical insite into why your argument did, or didn't sway thier oppinion.", well, I have something for that as well. The public does that when voting! And finally, let the individual decide on how his/her debate is to be voted on! It's his/her debate, after all!

Here's a hole in this idea:

What if the judges aren't online/account_deactivated? What if they refuse?

Yes, this is a problem with judge voting debates on this site as well, but in this forced-judge system, that problem will be more widespread across the website.

And finally you still haven't addressed this point.

Do you know how many people complain about jury duty?
Debate Round No. 2
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Amarandum// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Con (S&G, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Judges are rarely going to be impartial. I agree that we need a better system to cast votes, but judges aren't the way to go. Maybe we require each member to vote on at least one debate every ten days? It seems that there has to be a better way than anonymous judges no one can talk to or reason with.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn"t explain S&G. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to assess specific arguments made by both debaters to make a decision. The voter appears to simply make their own views apparent without assessing any points made in the debate.
************************************************************************
Posted by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
Disclaimer: IMO, a wholly valid vote could go either way on this.

---RFD (1 of 1)---
S&G: I suggest using spell check (it's not good, but not ruining arguments either).

Arguments: Pro's case was very much incomplete, it did not list the number of votes an appointed member would be expected to make, how the selection process would work, etc. Con could have leveraged this for a swift victory, but he went for an easy one without building a real case via a blatant strawman; he pretended that rather than saying "All other members who are eligible to vote will still retain their normal voting priveleges, but the designated judges would only vote on arguments." pro must have said something about removing voting privileges from all other members, as exemplified: "Taking voting away just like that may cause many to leave the site, and if it doesn't, they still will have lost their freedom to vote!" It's a nice pathos appeal to the lowest denominator ('Ragnar deleted my freedom of speech' type idjits), but it left the thrust of pro's case untouched, along with the clear benefit offered "It is far more satisfying to have someone vote on your debate and give critical insite into why your argument did, or didn't sway thier oppinion." The letting the public be the judge suggestion from con, was refutted with the fact that this idea outright spelled out that no one is cut off from voting.

The jury duty question lacked the intended impact, as it was obviously meant to be a back and forth to prove a point, but was simply repeated and left dangling at the end of the debate with no answer implied by either side.

In the end we were left to judge this (no pun intended) via if the idea had more merits or costs. The only costs are things being the same as they currently are, with the intended benefit (if it would work or not is anyone's guess) of more feedback on arguments made. So yeah, pro wins.
Posted by CosmoJarvis 1 year ago
CosmoJarvis
Hey, I can be a judge if you want :^)
#Cosmo4Judge
Posted by paintballvet18 1 year ago
paintballvet18
Just report the votes. The mod team will just delete them.
Posted by LD_and_Congress_Debater 1 year ago
LD_and_Congress_Debater
One of the flaws on this website is that people can vote if they feel like it, meaning that someone can vote just because they agree with a certain side without even looking at the argument; they can be very bias towards one side of the argument without even reading the debate.

Example: Someone could have horrible grammar, not know what they are doing, etc. but still win because they have a side that the majority of people agree with.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Yraelz 1 year ago
Yraelz
SmoooshMharmanTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I've voting for Pro or Con on a resolution that says, "we need more judges!!!" I find myself unsure of how either side of the discussion interacts with the resolution. Tie.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
SmoooshMharmanTied
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: RFD in comments...
Vote Placed by paintballvet18 1 year ago
paintballvet18
SmoooshMharmanTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Voting privileges are oft abused by many. (Ie madness, masterful...)
Vote Placed by Hayd 1 year ago
Hayd
SmoooshMharmanTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm not sure how to vote on this, it seems less a debate and more of a discussion and brainstorming session to fixing the issue on the site. If you guys are actually interested in this issue make a thread about it in the forums.