You should not be allowed to vote on a debate that you participated in.
Debate Rounds (3)
Observation 2: In no way will the participate be allowed to vote or influence voters with propaganda, just factual information.
I will now begin.
Contention 1: Participants being allowed to vote retains the possibility of biased decisions. The entire debate outcome is therefore jeprodized and subject to pointless arguementations; it means nothing if there is no truth in a vote. I do not believe that every case is unbiased, and if there is just one biased case, then I have proven my point.
Contention 2: Judging is perceptive. Of course the Aff/Neg is usually going to believe that they have won. Allowing them to vote will open up the possibilty of biased votes. Besides, I don't have a texting plan, so I can't couter act a biased vote by being able to vote myself.
I will rest my arguement. I will try to finish this debate as fast as possible.
I will refer to James as Pro, since that's the side he's arguing.
Definitions (my own)
Debater - one who participates as either Pro or Con in a debate
User - one who has signed up for DDO (Debate.org)
Observation 1: All debaters on DDO are users as well.
Observation 2: Users have the right to vote.
I'll start with the Pro Case. My case is pretty much what I say to rebut his. Rather than being redundant and posting it once under Con Case, then again under my rebuttal, I will just post it as a rebuttal.
The burden of proof is on the claimant. If either of us makes a claim, we have to prove that claim.
-I will not contend that the DDO voting system is biased. Unfortunately, any voting system, regardless of who votes, retains biased decisions. We don't scrap voting systems because of this. Take the U.S. electorate as an example. I'm pretty sure Barack Obama and John McCain voted for themselves. That doesn't make the election a farce. It simply allows people to express their views. Ultimately, the debaters are users, and have the right to vote.
-How so? The only difference between a world where debaters and users vote and a world where only the users vote is two votes. Where do these pointless argumentations come from, and what are they? I don't see how debaters voting/not voting creates pointless argumentation in their debates.
-The outcome of a debate will not be jeopardized as a result of debaters voting. There are three scenarios in which debaters vote: one debater votes, both favor one side, or each votes for a different side.
-If only one debater votes, then whatever outcome would have been 'jeopardized' could be normalized if the other debater voted. It does not matter what side debaters vote for - so long as both of them vote. Because voting periods are generally lengthy enough to allow for both debaters to vote, I don't see a one-vote dilemma occurring.
-If both debaters favor one side, they have obviously come to an agreement, or one debater has bowed down to another. I see no problem here - this promotes good sportsmanship. If a debater loses and votes for the other side, he/she is being responsible.
-Debaters both favoring their own side or the other side is no problem. First, the votes 'nullify' each other. If each side grants themselves +4, there is no net difference. The only problem is with vote-bombers, but that is not a problem with letting 'debaters' vote - it is a problem with letting 'people' vote.
-Define 'truth in vote'. How does debaters voting nullify a truthful vote?
-No. There will always be negatives, but saying that just because there is 'one' negative something should be scrapped is foolish. Your contention would have weight if the negatives outweigh the positives.
-If both sides have made valid arguments this will definitely be true. Allowing debaters who are going to vote for themselves will not create a biased vote, as their two biases will cancel each other out.
-This is irrelevant. You can counteract a biased vote by voting on the website instead of a phone. Besides, if you can post an argument from a phone/device, I'm pretty sure you can vote from the phone/device.
My argument can be neatly summarized as follows: Debaters are users, and ultimately should have the right to vote on all debates. All voters bring some bias into an issue (as is evident in the Religion category), but the voting system balances itself out on a whole.
James.ticknor forfeited this round.
It seems Pro has forfeited his last round - so I will briefly reiterate.
1) Debaters are users and therefore have the right to vote
2) If both debaters vote, there is no problem. In fact, letting both debaters vote can allow for them to grow as debaters and people in learning to accept defeat and vote for opponents.
3) Biased voting can always occur, but if debaters vote, this bias is limited to two votes.
Alright, let's hope Pro returns next round! Until then (and hopefully even after that) - Vote Con!
You say, "Unfortunately, any voting system, regardless of who votes, retains biased decisions. We don't scrap voting systems because of this"
I say: If we eliminate votes we likely know will be biased, we can make the outcome more likely to be truthful.
You say, "I'm pretty sure Barack Obama and John McCain voted for themselves."
I say: Not only should debators voting be eliminate for the likelyhood of biasedness, but if they are likely to cancel each other, what's the point?! Besides I can't vote on a debate. So everytime they would get a freebee if my opponent voted for themself.
You say, "The only difference between a world where debaters and users vote and a world where only the users vote is two votes."
I say: In the unfair debate that made my start this one, only one person voted....my opponent. I did not have the ability to vote, which would have tied it. So it was not fair.
You say, "Where do these pointless argumentations come from, and what are they?"
I say: I did not state nor insuate that. They do not "come from" somewhere, but if there is just one corrupt vote, then it jeprodizes the outcome.
You say, "If only one debater votes, then whatever outcome would have been 'jeopardized' could be normalized if the other debater voted."
I say: I can't vote. So I can't normalize it. Therefore, unjust odds swing to my opponent in the case I mention earlier.
You say, "If both debaters favor one side, they have obviously come to an agreement, or one debater has bowed down to another. I see no problem here - this promotes good sportsmanship."
I say: Huh? There is no agreement. I would vote without the consent, approval, or influence of my opponent. I do not think it likely for anyone to vote for their opponent. Not impossible, improbable.
You say, "Debaters both favoring their own side or the other side is no problem. First, the votes 'nullify' each other"
I say: Again, I can't vote. So I can not 'nullify'. Your point no longer flows through.
(Define 'truth in vote'. How does debaters voting nullify a truthful vote)
What I mean by that is a vote that is unbiased and based on facts of the debate. I don't understand your second statement.
--You said: -No. There will always be negatives, but saying that just because there is 'one' negative something should be scrapped is foolish
-I say: YES! If there is one case that could have changed the outcome if the resolution was implemented, it would have caused a change for the better. Therefore, I HAVE PROVEN MY POINT. Excuse me if I sound rude.
You say, "Allowing debaters who are going to vote for themselves will not create a biased vote, as their two biases will cancel each other out"
I say: Yet again, I can't so I vote, can't cancel out. It isn't fair to me. I have proven to this site that I have a vaild e-mail, phone number, etc. But I still can't vote.
--You say, "This is irrelevant. You can counteract a biased vote by voting on the website instead of a ph
-I say, It is not irrelevant. I was told by the site I would have to recieve a text to be able to vote. I can't text. So I am penalized even when I have proven to the site that I have a valid email, phone number, etc. So, I can't "counterbalance"
You say, Ulitmately (debaters) should have the right to vote.
I say, I don't have the right to vote, because I don't have a texting plan.
I apologize if it sounds like I am repeating myself, but all of my responses are relivant.
-How do we know that all debaters vote in a biased way? What about the debaters that vote in a valid way?
-There are four (not three - I thought of one more) scenarios in which debaters vote. The analysis of each, again:
1) One debater votes: this can easily be righted if both vote. I will get to Pro's personal appeal in a second.
2) Both vote for their own side: understandable, they were debating after all.
3) Both vote for the other side: unlikely but fine. Both admit defeat, so it must have been a close debate.
4) Both vote for one side: there is a consensus on who has won. They don't have to literally say "we agree that X won", but in voting for one side there is an unspoken agreement. This is not improbable. I can almost guarantee you that the top 10% of debaters, as well as other prominent members, would probably admit defeat (if they were somehow defeated). The only debaters that would vote in a biased manner are the ones who would vote in such a manner regardless. That is, they would vote abusively in all debates, not just their own.
Preventing debaters from voting doesn't solve this problem. The kind of person that would give him/herself a +7 is a biased voter in all cases, not just in their debates. These biased votes aren't a problem with the debaters, but with the people. However, keep in mind that many debaters vote legitimately. If we stopped debaters from voting, we get rid of these good votes. Pro is removing the legitimacy of voting. His solution throws out the baby with the bathwater.
-So just because you can't vote, all debaters shouldn't be able to? I don't want to sound like a total jerk, but we can't prevent all DDO debaters from voting because of you. Check it out: http://www.debate.org... . As of now, there are over 12,000 DDO members. Even if some of those members suffer the same texting predicament as you, we have to consider the other 11-odd thousand.
- Actually, you said "The entire debate outcome is therefore jeprodized and subject to pointless arguementations.." in your first contention. I just wanted to know what you meant by pointless argumentations.
-Again, regrettable, but we can't put everyone on hold because of you.
-Again, Aff and Neg don't have to come out and say it. But admitting defeat is difficult, and giving debaters this opportunity is giving them a chance to grow.
-Unless there are two-three cases in which it would have not helped. You seem to forget that the 'one case' argument doesn't work. We must evaluate something like this on the whole. For the one case for the better, how many would go the other way?
1) Not allowing debaters to vote gets rid of legitimate voting.
2) All users have the right to vote - this shouldn't change because someone is debating. While james.ticknor's predicament is regrettable, we can't suspend debaters from voting because of him.
3) The only difference between a world where debaters vote and where they don't is two votes. James.ticknor is an anomaly.
4) Biased voting is not a problem with debaters, but with people. Preventing debaters from voting also prevents legitimate voting.
5) Allowing debaters to vote allows them to grow as people by admitting defeat and voting for their opponent.
Ultimately, letting debaters vote has more positive effects than negatives. Thank you, and vote Con (which is me, really) by putting the dots in the Pro column!
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.