The Instigator
truthseeker613
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
BlackVoid
Con (against)
Winning
28 Points

increasing # of debate rounds

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/11/2011 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,201 times Debate No: 17870
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (8)

 

truthseeker613

Pro

Resolution: In my opinion the max. # of rounds allowed on do should be increased.
BlackVoid

Con

Thanks for the debate. I noticed that wording of the resolution could give him an unfair advantage, but I looked over another debate he had on this issue, and he did not follow up on it. So I felt safe accepting.

I await Pro's opening argument.


Debate Round No. 1
truthseeker613

Pro

I apologize for the wording indeed I will not play games like that my only intention was to protect myself from anyone playing semantic games with the word "should".

I thank my opponent for accepting, I hope to have an enlightening debate.

My argument is simple it doesn't hurt to give people more options. some debates are very long and very complicated and more rounds are needed to sort things out especially with regard to culture based debates It can take quite a few rounds to get a paradigm shift.

The reason for limiting rounds would be bec. then they would go on forever. to that my response is 3 fold

1) that's up to the debaters let them chose what they want. No one is being forced or tricked just read before accepting. It can also be discussed in the comments box prior to accepting.

2)the fact that it can go on forever just proves my point that more time is needed.

3) I never said no limit I only said a higher limit.
BlackVoid

Con

Thanks to Truthseeker for his opening argument. I'll give my own case then refute his.


C1: No one will read six round debates

Since my opponent wants the option to have more than the standard 5 rounds, we're looking at a six round match that he must defend (or more). The obvious problem here is that 6 rounds of back and forth 8000 character rounds is ridiculous. Assuming round 1 is for acceptance, that 80,000 characters of bickering. We might as well read a Steven King book, or a couple forum posts by Charleslb.

The site already has a voting problem. There's no real incentive to vote on debates, and since the three debate requirement prevents a lot of people from voting, most rounds are decided by three votes or less. That's only talking about ones with three rounds of debating. Debates with 4 or 5 rounds of arguing get even less attention because few people are willing to read ten forum posts by Charleslb. Increasing this amount makes the problem even worse.


C2: Long debates reduce RFD quality

A. Long debates don't get many votes, but in addition, the ones they do get typically aren't that good.

The longer a debate is, the less likely that it will be read. Nevertheless, some people will vote on it just to at least get somebody on the board, even if they didn't read the whole thing. There's nothing inherently wrong with this, but it does mean that longer debates tend to get poor-quality RFD's. The daunting length of a six round debate will pretty much deter anyone from reading it all, which means that any votes they do get will probably not be accurate and the RFD may have nothing to do with what was argued.

B. Even if the whole debate was read and voted on, the length makes it inherently harder to judge.

A reader can't remember all 9000 arguments that would be made over the course of 12 rebuttals. This means that any RFD will leave out arguments that could be crucial to the true outcome of the debate. That creates a higher probability of an incorrect vote or low-quality RFD. This would be alleviated by fewer rounds, which would require less arguments to remember and this make it easier to judge.


C3: Long debates encourage ranting

In a six round debate, you don't have to be quick and concise like you do in a three round debate, In three rounds, you have to make your argument clear immediately and refute as thoroughly as possible because there isn't time to do it later. With six rounds, people can go on giant rants about their beliefs rather than presenting a concise argument just because they can substantiate it later.

Also, imagine if two mediocre or bad debaters went at it for six rounds of 8000 characters. That would be such a joy to see, wouldn't it?

The six round format is particularly disheartening in this instance, as ranting would be inevitable any time there's not two top-tier debaters facing off.



Lets look at my opponent's case.


He first argues that more rounds could help settle complex issues that require a lot of time to figure out. My contention 3 responds to this by saying that most debates with more than 5 rounds won't actually resolve the issue, but instead will encourage ranting which doesn't "settle" anything. I'd also say that a 3 or 4 round debate would actually give a more in depth discussion because debaters have to make their warrants as concise as possible, since there's not time to substantiate them later.

He also says that it can take a lot of rounds of debating to get a Paradigm Shift, which means a change of the reader's opinion. This is responded to by Contention 1, which indicates that no one will read all six rounds of a debate so that their opinion can be changed in the first place.



He gives three pre-emptive arguments against the argument that 6 round debates would go on forever. I never made this argument so they dont apply.


Basically, five rounds in enough. Six, seven, or god forbid, ten rounds is too murderous of a read for Juggle to consider implementing it.
Debate Round No. 2
truthseeker613

Pro

(For the record this ascertain that no one will read them I am assuming is not meant literary "no one" if it is meant so I reject it on the grounds that some one genuinely interested in the topic most certainly will read a long debate.)

My opponent offers several very good reasons why debaters would not want to have more than 5 rounds.

This is not a reason that they should not be allowed to have more than 5 rounds if they'd like.

These are very good reasons that debaters should limit their debates. But as I pointed out previously there are potential reasons why debaters would want a longer debates why stop them?
BlackVoid

Con

I do indeed feel that no one will read an entire 6 round debate. Now, maybe one out of every ten long debates might get someone to read most of it. But 90% of the time, any voter a 6 round debate gets will be from people who have merely skimmed over the debate. But in almost every case, 80,000 - 90,000 characters will not be read by anyone. This also means there will be inaccurate voting because skimming debates causes key points of the round to be missed.


Onto the other points.


My opponent has accepted all of my arguments. He still thinks you can affirm because of the reasons he gave as to why someone might want a 6 round debate. Well I responded to all of those reasons in my last round. Since he didn't answer my responses, its established that there's no good reason to allow a 6 or 7 round debate, but there's a lot of good reasons to prohibit it.


Vote Con off my C3 alone. Since he's conceded it, it means that any six-round debate will devolve into needless ranting, which will not acheive a more in-depth discussion like my opponent thinks it will. Thus, extending the maximum amount of rounds will produce lower quality debates and turn off potential voters, which is the opposite of what we want.
Debate Round No. 3
truthseeker613

Pro

I thank my opponent for this most enlightening debate. Although I still believe that I am correct I hear the other point of view and I am much less certain of my conviction. Perhaps more experience will pull me to his way of seeing things.I thank my opponent for a most enlightening debate.

Rebuttal:

My opponent seems to have contradicted himself in the opening paragraph.
I wrote that I assume he does not mean "no one" literally.
He said indeed he does. but, in the next sentence he clearly implies that he doesn't.
so I maintain it is not true that "no one" will read more than 5 rounds. Any one genuinely interested in the topic will.
People read entire books on some topics debated on ddo. In some cases many books. Why is it inconceivable that some one will want to read a long debate on it. Many debates go on for hours and people are interested.

This debate boils down to the fact that I provided some reasons why people would want a longer debate.
While my opponent provides reasons why people would not want a longer debate.
The obvious conclusion then would be to give each person the option, since it doesn't hurt any one else, that doesn't want a long debate.
My opponent questions however, whether there is any valid reason to want more rounds.

It seems to me that this is the crux of the debate weather some one could have reason to want more rounds:
I maintain that some issues as complex as the ones in ddo may need more rounds to go through the issue properly.
My opponent maintains more rounds will not help.

It is up to the voter to decide.

I thank my opponent for a most enlightening debate.
BlackVoid

Con

Thanks to truthseeker for the debate.


Clarification: When I say that no one will read the debate, I mean no one will red all six rounds. My opponent thinks I contradict my contention 1 by saying that a 6 round debate might get someone to read most of it. But reading most of the debate =/= reading all of it, which is whats necessary to vote fairly.

Even if you think that someone might read an entire 6 or 7 round debate, you can still extend Contention 2 which indicates that voting on long debates is inaccurate because its not possible to keep track of every point in the round and decide a winner fairly. Thats because of the sheer amount of arguments, which makes voting difficult.


Pro says that he has given reasons as to why one might want more rounds, and that I explained why they might not, so we should just let 6 rounds be an option. However, I refuted all of his reasons for longer debates, whereas he's conceded my reasons why there should not be. He has still not defended his case, so there is no standing reason why someone would want a six round debate.

Especially regarding my contention three. It directly responds to his argument about acheiving a more in-depth discussion through more debate rounds. Long debates don't encourage deep thought, it encourages recycling arguments and ranting.


Thus, we shouldnt allow more than 5 rounds because it has no real advantages, but has several disadvantages.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by randolph7 5 years ago
randolph7
why would you want to do that? 6 rounds???
Posted by Mestari 5 years ago
Mestari
If you change the resolution to "Resolved: The max number of debate rounds should be increased." I will accept it. The current wording gives you an automatic win if you believe they should be increased.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
truthseeker613BlackVoidTied
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: Just for the record, Pro, you should never assume that the voters would vote for you even though you have conceded to Con's convincing arguments (noting how the extension of debate rounds would lead to less quality votes being cast, less insight on the topic, and so forth) and refused to give an in-depth rebuttal while merely noting a "contradiction".
Vote Placed by randolph7 5 years ago
randolph7
truthseeker613BlackVoidTied
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: Just imagine if this was a 6 round debate. Oye ve.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
truthseeker613BlackVoidTied
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: Nicely argued by Con. He gave the merits of limiting the bounds of debate.
Vote Placed by t-man 5 years ago
t-man
truthseeker613BlackVoidTied
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 didn't refute the arguement about voting
Vote Placed by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
truthseeker613BlackVoidTied
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: Pros main argument that the option should belong to the participents was never refuted. But Con pointed out many reasons why 6 round debates would not be beneficial to DDO, which is ultamately what the decision must be based on.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
truthseeker613BlackVoidTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con effectively refuted Pro's strongest contention which was that some topics need time and length to truly convince voters of a point. Con asserting that long debates lead to rants, less votes and increased inaccuracy in RFD was all that was needed to negate the resolution. SG to Con for better organization and presentation. Also Pro wasted round 3 with superfluous stuff. Who cares what the definition of "no one" is? It is quite obvious, and continually arguing about who said what didn't help.
Vote Placed by shooterboss 5 years ago
shooterboss
truthseeker613BlackVoidTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: BlackVoid is correct in that a 6-round debate will probably not be voted on. His format in his arguments make them easy to read. Plus, his points were stronger.
Vote Placed by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
truthseeker613BlackVoidTied
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: Blackvoid is correct in his acertation that most people would not read past 5 rounds.