The Instigator
beanall
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
dtaylor971
Con (against)
Winning
23 Points

we should not have to have three debates before voting for a debate.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
dtaylor971
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/31/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 535 times Debate No: 43201
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (6)

 

beanall

Pro

THIS IS BULL SH!T. hehe
dtaylor971

Con

I accept this debate. I would like to let pro go first.
Debate Round No. 1
beanall

Pro

3 is too many. it represents the trinity of God. God is huge therefore three is too many.
dtaylor971

Con

Sorry I have to do this to you. I won't to go on too strong because you are new here.

--Rebuttal I: Opening Statement for Pro--

My opponent, in this round, states that three is too many because it represents the trinity of God. However, the trinity of God represents what God is and isn't. Had this example really been relevant, it would have to be polytheistic to represent the debates, as each debate is a separate topic and each God represents a different topic.

Also, God is an unproven "theory" of life. You fail to give a solid example of something that exists for a fact.

--Argument I: Unfair voting--

(I) Unfair voting is a big problem here on DDO. We (the serious members, like YYW, Ore_Ele, or Thett3) have to deal with this day in and day out. People fail to provide a reasonable RFD, votebomb, and even ask other members to vote unfairly on their debates. The three debate requirement helps reduce this to a more moderate level, even if it is still a problem.

(II) To further prove my point, I looked at some beginner votes. Below are some of them:

Debate 1. Timelord48: (He literally said nothing) (1)

Milliare: obvious (2)

badbob: Pro refrained from insults. Con started strong with arguments and answered pro's comeback. Con wins. (3)

Now let's take a look at some more experienced members on these topics...

Debate 1. Iamanatheistandthisiswhy: Con gets points for spelling and conduct. I don't want to award argument points, as they both seemed to miss important factors, such as what are the meaning attributed to street language. The time limit should have been longer if Pro wanted to take the debate seriously. Well done Con. (1).

Debate 2. Supershamu: Wow good debate. Con made a very convincing argument and I think Pro agreed. Well done you two. (2).

Debate 3. RoyLatham: (Subbed out because of space I have in this debate. To see actual vote, go to the (3) link.

Anyway, I gave each vote a score out of ten.

Experienced members: 21/30. Debates done: 236.
Noobs: 6/30. Debates done: 9.

As you can see, there is a considerable difference between the species of Experienced Members and the subspecies of Noobs. And what separates them is the amount of debates conducted. If everyone was allowed to vote, there would be 10,900 more noobs making votes like that (4). I think speak for most, if not all, veterans here when I say "we don't need that."


(1) http://www.debate.org...
(2) http://www.debate.org...
(3) http://www.debate.org...
(4) http://www.debate.org...


--Argument 2: Business--

(III) Furthermore, the requirement for voting makes sure that we block off a lot of the less serious members and (mostly) only keep the better ones here. It also makes people want to debate more to get to the voting requirement.

For example, say you really wanted to vote on a debate and you already confirmed your identity. Now all you need is three debates. This wants you to debate to vote, right? Now more members come in to DDO to vote, and therefore debate. Some people fall into the trap of debating (like me) and become an active member. Now that active member helps DDO become more recognized and have a higher population.

I would post more arguments if you were a bit more experienced here. For now, I pass this debate along to pro. Thanks to pro, the voters and the readers alike.
Debate Round No. 2
beanall

Pro

thank you. i really don't have much of an idea of how to argue. I cam to look at topics and vote (without trolling like I do in this post)

Rebuttal 1

My opponent says that i do not provide evidence that there is a God and claims that God is an unproven "theory" of life, but then doesn't provide evidence of his own claim.

Argument 1

I agree that unfair voting could be a big problem. I understand that the three questions could reduce unfair voting to a more moderate level, but why three? Why not 1? Regardless, people could just type up 3 debates and continue to vote unfairly. Perhaps people like myself want to vote on debates before starting debates, ourselves. I believe that only one debate is needed. It would kill off people who didn't want to actually use the site for real, fair purposes and would not burden people who would like to vote and read debates before actually getting into debates. Reasons why some people may want to read and vote before starting debates would be to "get their feet wet and test the water before jumping in." To ease themselves into the site before losing debates because they (like myself) are not well educated in having to debate. By making "noobs" have one debate, people could determine whether this person is out to "troll" or out to actually be "real" on this site. By having to do three debates, this person may have three lost debates right from the beginning, instead of only one.

Argument 2

Couldn't everything you are saying be done with one debate, rather than 3? The possibility of negative consequences for the new person would be less harsh.

I seriously thank you for taking it easy lol. vote for con!
dtaylor971

Con

In this round, my opponent significantly upgrades from round two and gives me a chance to refute effectively. Thank you. Since this is the last round, arguments presented by me should be ignored by the voters (just in case I do.)

--Rebuttal 1: Argument 1--

So, in my opponent's first argument, he states that three debates tend to have negative consequences, and one would make it more moderate.

He starts of by saying he agrees that unfair voting could be a big problem. However, he states why three? Why not one? We need three debates because it proves your willingness to the site. As I pointed out, 11,000 debaters have 1 debate under their belts, and most haven't been on for a while. Therefore, they are not worthy of voting on debates some people (like me) spend 2 hours per round on if they come on once a month. So it does not kill off people who want to use this site for real (most of the time.)

He also states that people could just type up three debates and vote. First off, it would be a ton easier to just type up one debate and vote, correct? Secondly, we have Airmax banning the guys who do that. So not only would it make more trash debates if you only needed one to vote, but also Airmax would have a lot more work to do...

Then you state the "noobs" are not well educated and would like to vote on a few debates before actually debating. But isn't it possible to read a debate without voting on it? Also, how can you vote successfully if you have never been in a debate yourself and don't have any clue on the rules, format, what to point out, etc.

Then, my opponent states that one debate can help conclude if a dude is gonna troll or actually debate. I have two rebuttals for this.

The first one will be that one is a smaller sample size than three, and you can not judge a member by one debate. For example, a member might put out a giant argument in his first debate, and then troll in the next two. The second rebuttal is a weak one about trolling. If we judged Imabench right off of the bat, debate.org would be a dull, lifeless place...

The last thing my opponent says is that in the process of wanting to vote, you may lose three debates right off the bat. However, while this is true, it is actually good. One of our best members and debaters on this site, 16kadams, had this to say:

"Losing is why I am now winning." So losing a few debates off the bat will be good in your future. You may end up winning 235 debates if you are really obliged to this site.


--Rebuttal 2: Argument 2--

In his last (rather short) argument, he tries to prove my arguments wrong by saying you can do everything I said with just one debate instead of three. However, he is wrong.

To really become attached to debating, you have to do multiple debates, not just one. When you do multiple debates, you get well known and are more likely to spread word of DDO to your friends and/or family. With just one debate, you are more unlikely to do that.

In his last section of the debate, he asks you to vote for con, which is me. I think that is a typo :P


Thanks to my opponent for debating me, and thanks to you for reading and voting. Have a nice day.

Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Josh_b 3 years ago
Josh_b
beanalldtaylor971Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: I immediately vote for con in conduct on grounds of cursing by pro. On better spelling and grammar, I vote for pro because I refuse to copy and paste con's argument into word and convert it from webdings to Times New Roman because this is an English website and webdings is not an English language. The active member trap and incompetent member refusal arguments are actually encouragement for troll debates which cause more work on the moderators but Pro wouldn't know that because of his experience so I tie convincing arguments. Is con's argument directly from a Forum? I'm pretty sure I've read it before- now if I can only find the topic on fair voting. 30 min later, I can't. There's a short message about voting in the FAQ that gives limited info. I can only infer that con believes fair voting is related to the number of debates a person has participated in, so I vote reliable resources in favor of pro because debating is irrelevant to a person's voting ability. Each has different rules.
Vote Placed by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
beanalldtaylor971Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: I still think 3 debates is too much. The text message confirmation is already there to deter spam. I awarded both sides equal conduct because Con took it easy on Pro and Pro thanked him for it. Con was the only one to use sources. Con definitely defeated Pro's argumentation by a long shot, what with his very analytical, logical approach. He used real life examples, math, and testimony from real people. His case was airtight. But then I remembered Pro's argument from the Divine Trinity and it totally blew my mind so I'm voting for Pro.
Vote Placed by kawaii_crazy 3 years ago
kawaii_crazy
beanalldtaylor971Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had no sources while Con had three. Con had more detailed and convincing arguments. Pro cursed. And most importantly, Con actually changed my mind by the time I finished reading this debate. This is hard to do, as you fellow debaters should know.
Vote Placed by Gohan12345 3 years ago
Gohan12345
beanalldtaylor971Tied
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: This debate sucks
Vote Placed by InfiniteBears 3 years ago
InfiniteBears
beanalldtaylor971Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:34 
Reasons for voting decision: he had me at 3 is all powerful. con showed better conduct and grammer
Vote Placed by gordonjames 3 years ago
gordonjames
beanalldtaylor971Tied
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: A first time debater about long established policies. What could possibly go wrong?