The Instigator
truthseeker613
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
jm_notguilty
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

unfair advantage in debating

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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: 8/10/2011 Category: Education
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,164 times Debate No: 17847
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

truthseeker613

Pro

This debate is somewhat paradoxical, as I am proposing that the instigator is at a disadvantage due to the fact that the contender has last word. Despite this handicap I hope to have an enlightening debate.
jm_notguilty

Con

Challenge accepted. I would like my opponent to clarify his position more accurately in R2, then I can post my arguments/rebuttals.
Debate Round No. 1
truthseeker613

Pro

To clarify, I am saying that there is an imbalance in the debate system as the contender has last word these are the words most fresh in the voter (and any readers) mind at the conclusion of reading the debate. In addition the instigator cannot respond to what was last said. the instigator may have a very good rebuttal or the contender may have made a mistake or inaccuracy and the instigator is powerless to respond to the contenders statement. This puts the instigator at a disadvantage.
Now for some numbers and facts, showing the "last word" advantage, I will present some interesting facts figures and observations based on what ddo calls "the top 10 debaters".

The "top" debater on ddo (i.e. most experienced ddo debater): In the past 9 debates has been contender every time winning 9 0ut of 9 that means in her past 9 debates she choose contender every time and won every time.
To contrast the debater in 2nd place bravely chooses the opposite side as instigator in 9 0f the past 9 debates. The results show, bec. of this (or I should say in spite of it) he has a winning percentile of 58% significantly lower than the 1st debater who has a winning percent of over 90. The difference in style are reflected in the win %.

#3 an impressive 94% win rate, 4 out of the past 5 debates was contender.

#4 a moderate 80% and likewise has been contender 3 of last 5.

#5 (in my opinion the best debater on ddo) has an impressive 94% win rate and 4 of past 5 he was contender.

#6 similar to #4.

#7 88.4 contender 4 of 5.

#8 similar to #2, 53% win rate and majority of past 5 have been instigator.

#9 88.9 majority contender.

finally #10 like #4 and #6.

wow. Even I didn't expect the #'s to match my theory so well but they clearly do. There is a clear correlation between these debating styles and their win %. I know this isn't the most perfect data proof but hey, I'm just starting. I shall attempt to compute more sound statistical proof.

I might add the impetus for this craze/ crusade of mine. losing the past 5 debates I instigated which I think I should have won. They further shows the detrimental effects of not being able to respond

Here are some personal experiences, the content of the debate is irrelevant to this debate what is relevant is the points I make regarding them.

http://www.debate.org......
I am focusing on the better argument section. note those who voted in my favor where 2 of the senior, well known and well respected debaters on ddo,
cliff. stamp and Roy lanthem who is one of the best debaters on this site. both of them voted in my favor and gave detailed reasons for doing so. Despite this I lost the debate bec. some kids couldn't keep the entirety of the debate in their mind and where swayed by "the last word".

http://www.debate.org......
my opponent did not even debate much (instead just harped on definitions) till the final round after which I could not respond.

http://www.debate.org....... see comments after debate where it is clear the damage of not having last word.

http://www.debate.org...... .
Note in round 4 my entire last argument was completely dropped. Not a word. I pointed this out in the debate itself in round 5. yet none of the voters realized this glaring drop. The only plausible explanation is they forgot and were swayed by the power of "the last word".

enough examples I'll get back to the states then turn it over to my opponent for now:

in analysis of the section of debates entitled "recently ended":
of the 19 debates that were voted on, in a whopping 15 of them contender was winning.
or looking at the score discrepancy instigator totaled 50 while contender totaled 181.
I find these #'s quite significant.

I would continue with states but I think the following quote from Ore_ele is all I need:
"Historically, the Contender wins 65.4% of all debates. Given that this applies to 12,500 debates, that is hard to say that there is no correlation. We also see this trend leaning more and more towards the Contender, with the last 5,000 debates favoring them 68.9%."

The #'s speak for themselves. vote pro.
jm_notguilty

Con

I thank my opponent for his response.

"To clarify, I am saying that there is an imbalance in the debate system as the contender has last word these are the words most fresh in the voter (and any readers) mind at the conclusion of reading the debate."

I can't seem to understand your grammar and sentencing structure, but from what I can read, you're saying, that all readers/voters are prone to make up their minds once they read the contender's last word in the last round, you're saying that they tend to skip some arguments and go to the last round, is that right? There are different kinds of voters and readers, it's their choice to decide on who to vote, this has nothing to do with the DDO system.

"In addition the instigator cannot respond to what was last said. the instigator may have a very good rebuttal or the contender may have made a mistake or inaccuracy and the instigator is powerless to respond to the contenders statement. This puts the instigator at a disadvantage."

So, understanding your argument, you are implying that the instigator always have the disadvantage as to the contender due to the fact he/she doesn't get the last word and just because he/she doesn't get to say last, he loses.

Well, I will say those claims are false and I'll refute those claims by arguing that while both sides in debating have disadvantages, the instigator has advantages.

Well, to start, the Instigator is the one who creates the debate, which basically means that the instigator can choose which side they want, weather pro or con. They set the rules, voting time limit, maximum characters, etc. They get to make their FIRST ARGUEMENT, then the contender is obligated to refute them and post a new argument for his/her own (considering the character limits). The Instigators also sets up the debating structure, they are the ones who define the terminology of words and are in charge of semantics, so the debate won't turn into a battle of terms which are useless. As I said, they set the rules meaning they can say what can happen in the last round so no unfair happenings can occur (like new arguments, etc.).

Those are some advantages that can overshadow the shallow argument that the instigator is at the disadvantage.

"Now for some numbers and facts, showing the "last word" advantage, I will present some interesting facts figures and observations based on what ddo calls "the top 10 debaters"..."

Ahh, statistics...

The DDO system lets anyone who register participate in debates, meaning newbies can instigate their own debates. But, some of those newbies make the debate then leave the site and tend to not come back, probably unpatient and not waiting for the opponent or just really forgetting. This is the fault of the instigator, not the system. Also, newbies are prone to make crappy resolutions which can attract experienced debaters to noobsnipe them. And, another reason the instigators lose, is that they forfeit.

Example of newbie-instigated debates that end in forfeits:
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

As an additional source for my argument, I'd like to point, that Ore_Ele, one of the site's most experienced debaters, stated that one of the other reasons of newbie's being sniped are that the "Contenders are more likely to find and exploit semantic arguments to get a technical win."

(As I said, semantic arguments may be useless, but they are fun sometimes).

Source: http://www.debate.org...

"Here are some personal experiences, the content of the debate is irrelevant to this debate what is relevant is the points I make regarding them..."

These arguments are considered to be null and void as the sources are invalid due to the fact there's no such significant sources on the links, therefore, they are irrelevant and baseless.

Closing: I'd like to ask my opponent this, if the instigator obviously gets the first word, who gets the last? My opponent complains that the instigator is not treated fairly because he/she does not get the last word, well, if he gets the last then it's unfair to his opponent, the contender. Someone NEEDS and MUST get the last word, and it should be the contender to make them equal. Simple logic, ladies and gentlemen. I will need more arguments from my foe to persuade us that he can contradict that someone is obligated to have the last word in debates, someone needs to speak last. If not, then this is pointless.

Also, as a sidenote, I said that I didn't understand some of my opponent's grammar/sentencing structure, and if I missed something, sorry.

Nothing further for now.
Debate Round No. 2
truthseeker613

Pro

Apology:
1)My links did not work, I will repeat them in this round.

2)Sorry for lack of punctuation, I will try to do better.

Rebuttal:
I apologize if I was not clear enough, it seems my opponent did not understand my position, from the gross discrepancy between what I wrote and what he understood."

1)I did not say "all readers/voters".

2)I did not say, they "make up their minds once they read the contenders last word in the last round".

3)I did not say anything about skipping arguments, and going strait to the end.

4)As pointed out in #1 I did not use extreme language, such as, "all", or "always".

What I did say was a much more modest:
There is an imbalance in the fact that the contender goes last, there are 3 possible reasons for this:

1)The contenders side is most fresh in the readers mind when they finish reading.

2)the instigator may have a very good rebuttal, or the contender may have made a mistake, or inaccuracy, and the instigator is powerless to respond to the contenders statement. This puts the instigator at a disadvantage.

3)The instigator is powerless to respond to what the contender says in the last round, as opposed to the contender, who has opportunity to respond to everything stated by the instigator.

My opponents first argument is that there are disadvantages in favor of the instigator. The advantages for instigator that he mentioned were the following:
1) The instigator can choose which side they want, weather pro or con.
2) They set the rules, voting time limit, maximum characters, etc.
3) They get to make their FIRST ARGUEMENT, then the contender is obligated to refute them and post a new argument for his/her own (considering the character limits).
4) The Instigators also sets up the debating structure,
5) They are the ones who define the terminology of words and are in charge of semantics, so the debate won't turn into a battle of terms which are useless.
6) As I said, they set the rules meaning they can say what can happen in the last round so no unfair happenings can occur (like new arguments, etc.).

I would argue 2 points to all these arguments:

1) These are not advantages in the debate, these are the debate itself. 2 people agreed to debate a topic with certain conditions. what difference does it make who wrote them? Its not like they agreed to debate, and then the instigator got to do all this, rather it is the other way around.

2)The statistics show a nearly 2:1 difference in the winning rates of contender to instigator.

statistical rebuttal:

My opponent claims that there are alternate reasons for the statistical difference.

My response is 4 fold:

1) The size of the gap nearly 2:1 is too large to be attributed to these reasons alone.

2) As my opponent claimed before their are advantages to instigator, though I don't find those reasons to be so strong there they may be something, and there is another advantage that instigator had unlimited research time. The fact that despite all this there is still such a huge gap 65.4 : 34.6, indicates there is much in favor of contender.

3)Since I argued that it is reasonable that the last word has power, and the statistics indeed show that the one with the last word wins so much more often, It is probable that it (at least partially) contributes to this difference.

4) My case examples, which unfortunately did not work in the previous round and there for do not count. I will repeat them here now.

Argument:

cases:

http://www.debate.org...
I am focusing on the better argument section. note those who voted in my favor where 2 of the senior, well known and well respected debaters on ddo, cliff. stamp and Roy lathem. both of them voted in my favor and gave detailed reasons for doing so. Despite this I lost the debate bec. some kids couldn't keep the entirety of the debate in their mind and where swayed by "the last word".

(http://www.debate.org...
my opponent did not even debate much (instead just harped on definitions) then in the final round after which I could not respond, he won.

http://www.debate.org...
see comments after debate where it is clear the damage of not having last word.

http://www.debate.org...
Note in round 4 my entire last argument was completely dropped. Not a word. I pointed this out in the debate itself in round 5. yet none of the voters realized this glaring drop. The only plausible explanation is they forgot and were swayed by the power of "the last word".

This combined with reason and statistics make up my argument.
jm_notguilty

Con

I thank my opponent for his response.

Rebuttals:

"There is an imbalance in the fact that the contender goes last, there are 3 possible reasons for this:"

"1)The contenders side is most fresh in the readers mind when they finish reading."

Which makes them.... What? From what you're saying, it affects the voting system, the potential voters are already making up their minds once they read the most fresh and latest argument, which is from the contender. As I said before, someone has, must and needs to speak last.

Also, I'd like to add that when the voters side with he person who has the last word, then those voters are the ones you should blame for being unfair, not the debating system.

"2)the instigator may have a very good rebuttal, or the contender may have made a mistake, or inaccuracy, and the instigator is powerless to respond to the contenders statement. This puts the instigator at a disadvantage."

At the bolded texts, isn't that an advantage for the instigator?

OK, let's assume that the instigator was given the oppurtunity to refute the contender's last statement, which may be a very good rebuttal, or maybe an inaccuracy, error or mistake that the instigator made that can be refuted again, the contender is powerless to respond, and it puts the contender at disadvantage.

As I said again, who should make the last statement, because someone should do so.

"3)The instigator is powerless to respond to what the contender says in the last round, as opposed to the contender, who has opportunity to respond to everything stated by the instigator."

See my rebuttal for #2.

"My opponents first argument is that there are disadvantages in favor of the instigator.... I would argue 2 points to all these arguments:"

"1) These are not advantages in the debate, these are the debate itself. 2 people agreed to debate a topic with certain conditions. what difference does it make who wrote them? Its not like they agreed to debate, and then the instigator got to do all this, rather it is the other way around."

Lol at the bolded texts.

My opponent seems to be confused here, and is kinda confusing me as well. This is an advantage because the instigator is the one who sets up the 'WHOLE' debate. Which gives him an advantage because, as I said, is in control of the rules and sets up the topic to discuss, and the contender would either accept it or not, which can be a disadvantage to the contender since she has no choice but to pick the only side (pro or con).

2)The statistics show a nearly 2:1 difference in the winning rates of contender to instigator.

See my rebuttal below.

"statistical rebuttal:"

These arguments are baseless as it did not refute my rebuttal on it the previous round.

So, I'll repeat it here, in case my opponent fails to read it again.

"The DDO system lets anyone who register participate in debates, meaning newbies can instigate their own debates. But, some of those newbies make the debate then leave the site and tend to not come back, probably unpatient and not waiting for the opponent or just really forgetting. This is the fault of the instigator, not the system. Also, newbies are prone to make crappy resolutions which can attract experienced debaters to noobsnipe them. And, another reason the instigators lose, is that they forfeit. I've given sources on newbie-instigated debates above."

Now, I also also mentioned Ore_Ele's statement regarding this issue in R2, I will post it here so you can read:

"Historically, the Contender wins 65.4% of all debates. Given that this applies to 12,500+ debates, that is hard to say that there is no correlation. We also see this trend leaning more and more towards the Contender, with the last 5,000 debates favoring them 68.9%.

The likely reasons are because...
1) Instigators are often new members that will not finish their debates (they can also accept debates and never finish them, but it is more likely they'll start one).
2) Instigators often start with their arguments in R1, so the potential Contenders will not accept unless they are confident that they'll win because their opponent has revieled their hand.
3) Contenders are more likely to find and exploit semantic arguments to get a technical win."

Source: http://www.debate.org...

Now, I want my opponent to refute those arguments.

"My case examples,..... Argument:..... cases:"

Reply/Conclusion: The fact you posted this is nonsense, you are just complaining because you lost as an instigator, how will you know if they voted because of the contender's last word? Are you a psychic? If the readers/voters click his sources and read his arguments, then you will see that there is NO evidence in those sources to suggest that the voters read the last word of the contender and voted in favor of the contender.

This is all about my opponent complaining that he lost those 3 debates and 2 others, and possibly losing 8 more. All instigated by him.

OK, so now, I will repeat, my opponent needs to refute the fact that if there is a disadvantage on not getting the last word (which there are none), then someone (the instigator or the contender) has/must/needs to speak last and there should be no disadvantage to the person who didn't speak last.

There is no unfair advantage in debating, or rather the debating system. Do not blame the system, blame the voters if they committed such unfair practices on voting.

I leave the floor to my opponent for his final rebuttals then I will proceed to mine.

Good luck.

Debate Round No. 3
truthseeker613

Pro

Rebuttals:

"Some one must go last."

That doesn't make it any less of a disadvantage.

I agree that giving each side equal time is fair. However there is an unfair side to it. That makes it unfair. My opponents point seems to be that since there is no alternative it is fair. I disagree with this reasoning, that since there is no alternative that makes it fair.

Further more there all alternatives to make it more fair. I put up a thread on this topic and got some suggestions.

"system isn't unfair but rather the voters":
From a logic standpoint even if we were to say that the voters are unfair that doesn't preclude the system from being unfair.
A system which leads to unfairness is unfair. Consider the following extreme example: consider a court system in which the jury is told that if they acquit the defendant they will be awarded a million $. Would you say that the system is fair its just the jury which is unfair, obviously no.
One more example to be shore my point gets across. Consider that it has been shown that a blue court room results in the jury being more sympathetic to one side. For the court room to be painted blue would be considered unfair not merely the jury, for being affected by the color blue.

Regarding my opponents rebuttal, on my point that the instigator may have a good rebuttal to the contenders last round and is unable to make that rebuttal:

The words, "This puts the instigator at a disadvantage", go on both the words, "the instigator may have a very good rebuttal", and the words "or the contender may have made a mistake, or inaccuracy..."

I hope I have cleared things up.

Regarding the next confusion, on the statement:
"1) These are not advantages in the debate, these are the debate itself. 2 people agreed to debate a topic with certain conditions. What difference does it make who wrote them? Its not like they agreed to debate, and then the instigator got to do all this, rather it is the other way around."

There should be a comma after the word like, in the last sentence.

I hope this has cleared things up.

Statistical evidence:

My opponent provides a # alternative explanations for the statistic, and asks that I refute them.

I will not refute them. I agree that they are plausible reasons for my statistics. What I will argue is that the gap is too large (65.4 to 34.6) to be realistically contributed to those factors alone. In addition to the largeness of the gap my opponent has provided reasons why instigator should win. Despite these factors the statistic still shows such a large gap in favor of contender, leading me to further presume that the last word factor is contributing to this large gap. Further more, since I have argued in reason, that it would make sense that there would be a last word advantage, It follows that it is indeed contributing to this large gap.

I think I have adequately responded to all my opponents rebuttals and therefore on the basis of my arguments in the previous rounds I conclude there is a last word advantage.

To repeat the 3 reasons which are now the corner stone with the other points of my debate are as follows:

1) Psychologically: These are the last words that the reader read and they are freshest in his mind.

2) Instigator cannot respond to inaccuracies made by contender in last round.

3) The contender had a chance to respond to all statements made by his opponent while the instigator has not.

Thank you all, Vote pro.
jm_notguilty

Con

"That doesn't make it any less of a disadvantage."

My opponent didn't refute the fact that someone must speak last, he is just complaining because he lost all the debates he instigated, this disadvantage is NOT from the DDO system, but his own arguments and probably the voter's ignorance.

"consider a court system in which the jury is told that if they acquit the defendant they will be awarded a million $. Would you say that the system is fair its just the jury which is unfair, obviously no.
"

Actually, if the jury has been told that, it would be a mistrial, but if the circumstances say that the judge didn't no but the jury aquitted, then the jury IS unfair.

And the blue thingy analogy, I don't get and has no relation to this whatsoever.

"I hope I have cleared things up."

Actually no, but I still refuted them in the previous rounds.

"To repeat the 3 reasons which are now the corner stone with the other points of my debate are as follows:"

Refuted, refuted, refuted.

I urge the voters to VOTE CON
, because we all know, that DDO and its debating system is as fair as it can be, it gives the debaters equal speech and so on. Please consider some of my arguments in the previous rounds

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by truthseeker613 5 years ago
truthseeker613
yea, thanx I just realized. I'll have to redo them next round
Posted by mongeese 5 years ago
mongeese
Your links are also broken here.
Posted by truthseeker613 5 years ago
truthseeker613
I'm not shure what is unclear. If your interested you can cheak my other debate which is under way as well as my thread in the forums. oh sorry bout the spelling.
Posted by truthseeker613 5 years ago
truthseeker613
why should I deleat the other ones, there are actualy 4 up (I wasnt shure which subject to lable it
) 3 of which have already been taken. I feel this is a prime important topic for anyone intrested in the accuracy and integrety of debateing.
Posted by holden15 5 years ago
holden15
Also, can you please delete your other open debate that has the same title with a spelling error?
Posted by holden15 5 years ago
holden15
Can you further clarify what you are trying to debate over, Truthseeker613?
Are you saying that the phrase "unfair advantage" is not possible?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
truthseeker613jm_notguiltyTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con showed that the voters were unfair and not the system, and that it is the only choice, to which Pro did not present an adequate response within the debate. Sources to Con because Pro didn't really know how to use his sources. He appeals to authority by saying RoyLatham voted for him in his previous debate. The leaderboard stats weren't accurate either. #1 has a high win ratio because she votebombed all her old debates with multiple accounts. #2 starts joke debates which could go either way.
Vote Placed by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
truthseeker613jm_notguiltyTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Con blew pro out of the water but con used more sources so he gets the source point.