The Instigator
dinokiller
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
vardas0antras
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points

You shouldn't be allowed to vote for yourself in debates.

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...
dinokiller
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/29/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,380 times Debate No: 13508
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (24)
Votes (4)

 

dinokiller

Pro

My point is that you shouldn't be allowed to vote for yourself in your own debate.
Many people are giving themself the maxinum points for just the reason to win the debate unfairly.
vardas0antras

Con

To start of Id like to thank my opponent for this rather unorthodox debate.

Id like to remind you that you have the burden of proof anyways here are my arguments:
A)http://www.debate.org...
Kleptin (having a high win ratio) says no one should worry about their win ration:
"Now, the lower your win ratio, the more evidence there is that you are hated/discriminated against. I find that amusing, so I sank myself down to 0 to make several points."
B)People will make multiple accounts and vote for themselves albeit not for long but there will always be someone winning purely on this reason. Please note that even if we abolish the ability to vote for oneself people would still vote for oneself except with different accounts (http://www.debate.org... one person having over ten accounts !).
c)People will down-vote other people that they don't like or don't agree with on the site and many people are frankly bias hence you'll lose even if you win the argument!

There's no reason to remove this ability because when it comes to unfair winning it all usually comes down to the B and C reason and its rarely only because of voting for oneself (http://www.debate.org... one person having over ten accounts !).

I challenge opponent to produce 3 instances where a debate won just because of this ability. If not I suggest that this ability shouldn't be removed because removing it is a waste of time. Instead we should follow Kleptins example which I believe solves the main problem you seem to have with the ability to vote for oneself. Furthermore Id like to say that even if you do provide 3 examples which is unlikely, you still don't abolish the main problem only diminish it however Kleptins way does destroy the problem.

In conclusion I suggest not to waste our time with these things but lets just follow Kleptin instead!!!
Debate Round No. 1
dinokiller

Pro

My idea of a fair debate is if you couldn't vote for yourself so it would be fair.
Very well anyway, I accept your challenge.

A)http://www.debate.org......
Kleptin (having a high win ratio) says no one should worry about their win ration:
"Now, the lower your win ratio, the more evidence there is that you are hated/discriminated against. I find that amusing, so I sank myself down to 0 to make several points."

This is more of HIS opinion over this.
Do you believe that every loser with zero wins is hated? No, they just failed in winning the debate.
Do you feel hated because you lost all your debates? Maybe, but its your feeling, not the rest of the losers.
I lost all my debates too, do i feel hated? No, since i debate for fair winning and if i lost fair and squarely, I lost and will improve. But, 1 thing that strike me hard in the back is that you have clearly won the debate, yet your opponent has more points because he was voting for himself. For this reason, I'm against voting for yourself.

B)People will make multiple accounts and vote for themselves albeit not for long but there will always be someone winning purely on this reason. Please note that even if we abolish the ability to vote for oneself people would still vote for oneself except with different accounts (http://www.debate.org...... one person having over ten accounts !).

Sure, but to be able to vote, you need to verify yourself yes? Someone who has multiple accounts and registered as same number can easily be blocked if you just block the sole number from voting yourself.
This goes with my idea of blocking the ability to vote for yourself.
Also, multiple account comes with the risk of ban.
My and your source: http://www.debate.org...

c)People will down-vote other people that they don't like or don't agree with on the site and many people are frankly bias hence you'll lose even if you win the argument!

Personal opinion exists in here, you are allowed to not agree with the winner.
There are nearly 21000 people here in www.debate.org and the chance of losing because people doesn't like you is very small, unless you are hated by all 21000 persons which means you are a jerk.
But, the winner is only decided by voters, not the debaters in this case which can be seen as fair.
I mean look for example the President Selection.
Everyone could vote for his/her president. Some vote by speech, some vote by appearance.
My conclusion? Voting because of personal grudge or opinion is allowed in my opinion.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Arguments
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. The ability of being able to vote for yourself is abused since it gives clear advantage over someone who can't vote for himself because he doesn't live around US.

That was my only argument coming here :P
And since you want at least 3 debates where a winner gets decided by voting for himself, sadly I can't do that for you.

There are millions of debates here (well maybe lower) and you want me to find such a thing?
Its the same as finding a needle in a forest.

I await your answer
vardas0antras

Con

First Id like to thank you for your quick response (something I rarely do myself).

"This is more of HIS opinion over this."
Please remember that we're debating your opinion and that you're a very inexperienced compared to Kleptin hence his opinion is worth. This doesn't mean that you're wrong but it does give you a bad start.
"Do you believe that every loser with zero wins is hated?" I never said that and never will. I dont think that youre a loser nor do i think that Im hated (not enough time for that to happen)."Do you feel hated because you lost all your debates?" This has diminished my enthusiasm but no (I think that people simply didnt care enough to read the whole debate but thats the past)."But, 1 thing that strike me hard in the back is that you have clearly won the debate, yet your opponent has more points because he was voting for himself. For this reason, I'm against voting for yourself."Please give me an example where i lost because of this.

"Sure, but to be able to vote, you need to verify yourself yes? Someone who has multiple accounts and registered as same number can easily be blocked if you just block the sole number from voting yourself."
So all one has to do is barrow few cellphones like from brothers and uncles and close friends plus old phones are almost free and people usually have at average two phones (In Ireland thats a common truth)

"Personal opinion exists in here, you are allowed to not agree with the winner." Personal opinion is irrelevant to who won (for most debates). If I see a debate called "Jesus is a myth", I will obviously disagree but despite this I oath to vote for who won the debate even if Pro did (even if i could refute Pro I still ought to vote for Pro because it not my debate)."Voting because of personal grudge or opinion is allowed in my opinion." Yes it should be allowed but voting of this kind doesnt consider the debate itself and who made better arguments.Hence the winner is random despite those 7 points which one can add by voting for oneself.

"1. The ability of being able to vote for yourself is abused since it gives clear advantage over someone who can't vote for himself because he doesn't live around US."It does give an advantage but only microscopically when compared to other factors. The best way is to simply not care because although there are plenty of instances where the voting was fair there are just as many of unfair examples. In conclusion: Follow Kleptin for he will lead us to oasis!

I eagerly await your response
Debate Round No. 2
dinokiller

Pro

Lol, i thought quick responses was normal.

Anyway confusing me in the begin doesn't help either...
This debate is all about the opinions over the voting system.
There are no true winners, its just for convincement.
Also, you keep menting Kleptin. Sure he has a big win ratio and all but thats still an opinion, however u look at it.
Again, i have a feeling you are trying to make Kleptin a salvation of the debaters.

Look back at point A, which you clearly state: "Now, the lower your win ratio, the more evidence there is that you are hated/discriminated against."

You clearly state that users with lower win ratio gets hated.
Now I ask again, do you think that every loser with zero wins is hated?
And don't tell me again that you didn't say that.

Also, you want an example of a debate where someone voted for himself in his debate and won, but sadly i can't show you one since:
1. I have a life, I'm not gonna check through ALL the debates.
2. Its something uncommon to show up with the increasing debaters.

"So all one has to do is barrow few cellphones like from brothers and uncles and close friends plus old phones are almost free and people usually have at average two phones (In Ireland thats a common truth)"

You are right here, I wish debate.org has changed this.
Another note is that if people multi account, just to vote for himself, he/she risks to be banned.
The victory he gets can turn very sourly into the last he can get.
I guess my point is a bit changed. My idea now is to either remove the verification and let us ALL vote or simply prevent people from voting from themself.

"If I see a debate called "Jesus is a myth", I will obviously disagree but despite this I oath to vote for who won the debate even if Pro did (even if i could refute Pro I still ought to vote for Pro because it not my debate)."

I already told you, personal opinion is allowed. What you are now telling me is YOUR personal opinion.
You expect that eveyone will nicely play by the rules and vote for the winner instead of choosing someone else because you hate a certain person? I already told you, personal opinion plays a factor in votes.
You made clear that you would vote for the winner, yet there are some people who would vote for pro instantly if there was something like "Jesus is a myth".

"Yes it should be allowed but voting of this kind doesnt consider the debate itself and who made better arguments.Hence the winner is random despite those 7 points which one can add by voting for oneself."

Thats why its called a vote, you vote with personal opinions about the debate.
My point is that people abuse the voting system because they vote for themself, not because some personal feelins.

"It does give an advantage but only microscopically when compared to other factors. The best way is to simply not care because although there are plenty of instances where the voting was fair there are just as many of unfair examples. In conclusion: Follow Kleptin for he will lead us to oasis!"

How can you call it something small? A vote is still a vote which people abused to get an extra 7 points.
And don't give me those hasty conclusions, Kleptin's idea was an opinion.

I have 2 ideas now which you can refute it if you want.

1) We remove the verification and allow EVERYONE to vote.
Pro: Your opponent votes for himself? Vote for yourself too without problem.

2) We block people from voting themself.
Pro: People can't vote for themself anymore.

Either idea works, but for the cons, i have you add to your rebuttal.
vardas0antras

Con

Yes quick responses are normal but my world is vice versa to what is normal hence i still feel grateful.

1)"There are no true winners, its just for convincement."I must disagree because if i can prove that abolishing this ability is completely useless and that theres another way, you lose.

2)"Sure he has a big win ratio and all but thats still an opinion, however u look at it."Yes but due to his experience his opinion is worth more meaning that you're at a bad start.

3)"You clearly state that users with lower win ratio gets hated." Out of context.Kleptin was talking about himself hence only people with high win ratios which get lower for no reason are a result of hate. The conclusion however can be be applied to everyone.

4)"2. Its something uncommon to show up with the increasing debaters." and "There are millions of debates here (well maybe lower) and you want me to find such a thing?
Its the same as finding a needle in a forest." The conclusion: This change is of no importance hence its a waste of time.

5)"I already told you, personal opinion is allowed. What you are now telling me is YOUR personal opinion.
You expect that eveyone will nicely play by the rules and vote for the winner instead of choosing someone else because you hate a certain person?" Cant a personal opinion be a fact? I expect people to vote fairly and to vote for who has won the debate.The rules of this website agree with me hence Im correct.Incidentally Grammar Nazi told me that you misspelled everyone.

6)'I already told you, personal opinion plays a factor in votes.' I agree.Furthermore personal opinion is what decides the outcome of the debate and not the ability to vote for oneself.

7)"Thats why its called a vote, you vote with personal opinions about the debate."Wrong. The only votes which have anything to do with opinion are the "agree before the debate" and "agree after the debate".The other votes have nothing to do with opinion.

8)'How can you call it something small? A vote is still a vote which people abused to get an extra 7 points." If its not a small difference then give me a debate where someone has won because of this ability on the other hand this website is filled with personal biased votes which decide the outcome!

Challenges:
1)Find 1 debate where the debate was won because of this ability.
2)Refute the idea that not caring about the win ratio does a better job.
3)Refute the idea that bias votes arent against the rules.

I await your response
Debate Round No. 3
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by dinokiller 6 years ago
dinokiller
Trust me, i know how that feels.
Posted by vardas0antras 6 years ago
vardas0antras
I've no problem with stopping this argument, I just hate it when my points are ignored or misunderstood especially when they're crucial.
Posted by dinokiller 6 years ago
dinokiller
Didnt rly understood what bias ment...

But anyway, its your personal opinion and my personal opinion ok?
Lets stop arguing about it.
Posted by vardas0antras 6 years ago
vardas0antras
First you say bias isnt against the rules but then you say theres no such thing as bias "only you call it a bias here, so it originally wasnt bias".Also you failed (not that you attempted) to prove how opinion isn't bias. Like I said:

"You can have an opinion but it doesnt change the arguments con and pro present."
Posted by dinokiller 6 years ago
dinokiller
only you call it a bias here, so it originally wasnt bias
Posted by vardas0antras 6 years ago
vardas0antras
Sorry but you've presented no refutation: Whys should bias be considered fair if its by definition unfair?So HA!
Posted by dinokiller 6 years ago
dinokiller
Forgot to add at 3.

In short, its not a bias :P
Only you call it a bias here.
Posted by dinokiller 6 years ago
dinokiller
If you are so radically corrupted by evil, i shall now purge your darkness and cleanse your soul.

1. If its so easy to find these debates then give me a link

Heh, u got me. Its NOT easy to find such debate, i never said it was easy. I only said that people involved in such things will be attracted to this certain debate. You go ask others for such debate.

2. Im flattered but which debate have I lost because someone voted for himself?

This was about whether its good or not to not care about the win ratio.
This was self opinion and i already explained, you with zero wins has done even better then most user with wins, not about losing because someone self voted.

3. Never say never because opinion is against the rules. You can have an opinion but it doesnt change the arguments con and pro present. Furthermore bias has everything to do with unfairness which is also against rules.

You already said never, twice. Anyway, you HAVE the freedom of self opinion or whatever heck its called. If can't be punished for your own opinion. Same goes to vote.
Posted by vardas0antras 6 years ago
vardas0antras
"1. Ask people around me, they sure has lost once or twice because of self voters, proof enough."
If its so easy to find these debates then give me a link
"2. The proof is you. You, with zero wins, has done even better then most of the users with high winning rates."Im flattered but which debate have I lost because someone voted for himself?
"3. Bias votes aren't against the rules obviously, we all have the rights of uhh how do you call it? Self opinion?" Never say never because opinion is against the rules. You can have an opinion but it doesnt change the arguments con and pro present. Furthermore bias has everything to do with unfairness which is also against rules.

So no Im still furiously angry >:(
*radically evil laugh*
Posted by vardas0antras 6 years ago
vardas0antras
I cant LOL but even if I did that wouldn't change the outcome of the debate. I am sure that I've won but that wont change the opinions of people who voted all dinokiller hence the result has nothing to do with me. Which is what I preach.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 6 years ago
BlackVoid
dinokillervardas0antrasTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by basrofe 6 years ago
basrofe
dinokillervardas0antrasTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by dudewth 6 years ago
dudewth
dinokillervardas0antrasTied
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:52 
Vote Placed by shooterboss 6 years ago
shooterboss
dinokillervardas0antrasTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04