The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Romanii
Con (against)
Winning
23 Points

"acceptance only" for first rounds is a waste of time

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 7 votes the winner is...
Romanii
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/9/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 569 times Debate No: 56300
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (7)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

the initiator should start their argument right off the bat. the opposition should then respond and add their own arguments. making the first rounds be acceptance only just wastes time that could be spent debating.
Romanii

Con

Thanks to my opponent for instigating this debate.
Judging from the topic, I will assume that first round is for arguments rather than acceptance.


R1) Time

My opponent states that "making the first rounds be acceptance only just wastes time that could be spent debating."
However, writing "I accept" and a couple of pleasantries literally takes two minutes at MOST... this is not a significant amount of time at all compared to average debate argument time limit of 3 days. Even if the debate argument time limit were only 1 day, 2 minutes would still consist of roughly 0.002% of that time frame.
It is clear that having an acceptance round does not waste a substantial amount of time.


C1) Unequal Rounds

Having an acceptance round avoids the problem of unequal rounds, where one debater has one more round to debate than the other debater, thus giving them an unfair advantage.

Without acceptance

R1: rules / arguments
R2: arguments / rebuttals
R3: rebuttals / rebuttals
R4: conclusions / conclusions

Instigator gets 3 rounds to debate, Contender gets 4 rounds to debate.

With acceptance

R1: rules / acceptance
R2: arguments / arguments
R3: rebuttals / rebuttals
R4: conclusions / conclusions

Instigator gets 3 rounds to debate, Contender gets 3 rounds to debate.
It is clear that having an acceptance round makes things fairer for both debaters.

One potential alternative solution to the unequal rounds problem is forcing the contender to type "no round as agreed upon" in their final round, but that has become notorious throughout the DDO community as a cheap method of earning the instigator bonus and simultaneously getting to have last word in the debate, creating an unfair advantage for the instigator (http://www.debate.org...)

Thus, having an acceptance round is the best way to avoid the unequal rounds problem.


CONCLUSION

I have refuted my opponent's argument as well as provided compelling reasons for the inclusion of an acceptance round.

Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

most debates happen over a notable amount of time. that means, when the initiator comes back to debate, he has to mere make note that someone accepted his debate. then they have to wait again for the opponent to respond.

acceptance debates have the same problems as regular debates. might has well do regular debates.

------
without accept:
r1 argument by pro, argument and rebuttal by con
r2 argument and rebuttal by pro, argument and rebuttal by con
r3 argument and rebuttal by pro, argument and rebuttal by con

with accept
r1 argument by pro, accept by con
r2 acknowledgment of pro, argument and rebuttal by con
r3 argument and rebuttal by pro, argument and rebuttal by con

in this accept scenario, con still gets more rebuttal time

alternative with accept scenario
r1 topic by pro, accept by con
r2 argument by pro, argument and rebuttal by con
r3 argument and rebuttal by pro, argument and rebuttal by con

you see con is going to get more rebuttal time no matter the approach. you'd have to include restrictions on how format of how responses are made for it to be equal. acceptance without anything more then is no different than regular debates.
Romanii

Con

"most debates happen over a notable amount of time. that means, when the initiator comes back to debate, he has to mere make note that someone accepted his debate. then they have to wait again for the opponent to respond."

My opponent is going to have to be more articulate... I am not able to glean a coherent message from this statement no matter how I look at it...

My opponent's main case is that all the problems faced by acceptance debates are also faced by non-acceptance debates, since Con will always have more opportunities for rebuttals. She backs that up with the following outlines:

without accept:
r1 argument by pro, argument and rebuttal by con
r2 argument and rebuttal by pro, argument and rebuttal by con
r3 argument and rebuttal by pro, argument and rebuttal by con

with accept
r1 argument by pro, accept by con
r2 acknowledgment of pro, argument and rebuttal by con
r3 argument and rebuttal by pro, argument and rebuttal by con

Needless to say, there are some major problems with these...

1) It don't allow Pro to set any rules for the debate, since he's presenting arguments straight off the bat. Without rules, a debate is susceptible to getting completely derailed by semantics and/or trolling. I was arguing that acceptance rounds should be allowed *under the assumption* that round 1 is for rules, since that is the norm on DDO...

2) It assumes that Con would still be stupid enough to post "I accept" even after observing that Pro has already posted his arguments in round 1... Again, I was arguing that first round should be for Con's acceptance ONLY IF Pro posted rules in round 1, which is usually the case.

My opponent then provides another possible debate outline...

alternative with accept scenario
r1 topic by pro, accept by con
r2 argument by pro, argument and rebuttal by con
r3 argument and rebuttal by pro, argument and rebuttal by con

you see con is going to get more rebuttal time no matter the approach. you'd have to include restrictions on how format of how responses are made for it to be equal.

Yes... that is the point of presenting rules in round 1... so that you can specify things like the second round being only for opening arguments, thus solving the problem of Con having more opportunities for rebuttals than Pro.


CONCLUSIONS

My opponent has fundamentally misunderstood my argument by ignoring the fact that, generally, in round 1, Pro simply presents the topic and rules, rather than jumping straight into arguments. Due to that misunderstanding, she has not refuted my unequal rounds case at all, which relied on the assumption that round 1 is for Pro's presentation of arguments. Also, she seems to have dropped her contention regarding time (unless that incoherent starting statement was meant to address it...)
I have fulfilled my BOP by showing that there is good reason to follow the Round 1 Topic/Acceptance format, whereas my opponent has not, relying on irregular cases and a misunderstanding of general debate format to make her argument.

Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

the notable amount of time thing. pro starts a debate. con accepts. pro acknowledges. con debates. these steps take a notable amount of time. if we didn't have the accepts phase, the debating would begin right away. time is wasted then because of the accepts phase.

1. con says rules cannot be established if debating begins right away. actually, rules can be established in that first post just as well. i suppose there is the possibility that further clarification can be gathered with con's first response about the rules. perhaps in this limited istuation acceptance debates have a point.

2. con says people aren't stupid enough to accept after noticing arguemnts in first round. actually, this happens a lot. in fact, the highest debater on this website just finished a debate with me where he did the exact same thing.

so basically if we have a specific reason for acceptance only then it's fine. if we don't then it's a waste of time. i guess con could be said to win cause my statement was pretty general. but besides what he points out, it's a waste of time.
Romanii

Con

"so basically if we have a specific reason for acceptance only then it's fine. if we don't then it's a waste of time. i guess con could be said to win cause my statement was pretty general. but besides what he points out, it's a waste of time."

Pro concedes that acceptance rounds are not a waste of time, as long as there is a good reason to utilize them.
Therefore, f I show that there is often good reason to utilize the acceptance round, then Pro would essentially have conceded the debate.

However, I have *already* shown that there is often good reason to include an acceptance round via my Unequal Rounds argument.
Pro's only rebuttal to this argument was in attacking its underlying assumption that the instigator should present the topic and rules in Round 1.
If I can show that the instigator should present the topic and rules in Round 1, my Unequal Rounds argument would be validated, and by extension, Pro would essentially have conceded the debate.

However, I have *already* shown that it is beneficial for the instigator to include a topic/rules round
Me from last round:
"Without rules, a debate is susceptible to getting completely derailed by semantics and/or trolling.... [one] can specify things like the second round being only for opening arguments, thus solving the problem of Con having more opportunities for rebuttals than Pro."

Pro's only objection goes as follows:

"con says rules cannot be established if debating begins right away. actually, rules can be established in that first post just as well."

However, this forces the instigator to use characters that he could be using on opening arguments, while the contender gets to use ALL his characters for opening arguments. This gives an unfair advantage to the contender. It is clearly simpler and more fair for everyone to just have the instigator present the topic and rules in Round 1.

By the logic presented in the first part of this round, Pro has conceded the debate.

Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
dairygirl4u2cRomaniiTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: pro's argument slapped her back in the face due to how extreme the side she was taking
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
dairygirl4u2cRomaniiTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Essentially, this is a question of whether adding an additional round matters more than equity in debate structure. Pro is right to assert that acceptance only rounds remove one round from argumentation (though that only matters if the instigator selects 5 rounds of debate, since that is the only instance in which you are effectively limited - any other and the instigator had the opportunity to increase the number of rounds and use the acceptance only). Con is also right to contend that character limits put someone who is trying to run an organized debate at a disadvantage, ensuring a shorter character count. I also would have bought that that reduced count incentivizes fewer, less elucidated rules, harming the structure of debates. Nonetheless, it's really a question of quantity versus quality, and Con is the only one to impact his outcomes. So I go with quality. Also, S&G goes Con because of Pro's complete lack of capital letters.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 2 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
dairygirl4u2cRomaniiTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro effectively shoots themselves in the foot when they refer to the opening round can be anything. In effect a rule is a rule and it is the instigator of the debates priority to make sure the debate is even and fair. If this is not the case "i.e. acceptance only, or no last round" then all conditions are the same. Additionally, according to strict adherence to the proposition, by showing that to type "I accept" takes 0.02 % f the time spent on the debate Con wins.
Vote Placed by Ajab 2 years ago
Ajab
dairygirl4u2cRomaniiTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro in essence could not fulfill her (I'm guessing here) BoP, and Con also had a better model, not to mention that keeping the resolution in perspective Pro sorts of concedes the motion.
Vote Placed by Raymond_Reddington 2 years ago
Raymond_Reddington
dairygirl4u2cRomaniiTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro conceded pretty obviously in round 3 and failed to provide effective arguments to fulfill his BoP
Vote Placed by Envisage 2 years ago
Envisage
dairygirl4u2cRomaniiTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Inadvertent concession. The resolution regards acceptance being a "waste of time", and Con sufficiently demonstrated that rules & character conservation are good enough reasons. Personally I would add that it allows you to choose who your opponent is (by barring access to the debate), or it prevents people attempting to write arguments during the acceptance period (to gain time advantage). And also stops you wasting time writing arguments if you have a known noob accept
Vote Placed by Pfalcon1318 2 years ago
Pfalcon1318
dairygirl4u2cRomaniiTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO essentially concedes the debate in R3. Beyond this, PRO does not address CON's points regarding the usefulness of "acceptance only" rounds. Arguments to CON.