Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

Is it justified to vote on old debates?

F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2011 9:42:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The best way to learn the intricacies of debating is to look through old debates by the best members and read their arguments. This is especially true on debates on the big issues. Reading these debates which are real classics done with great effort is an excellent way to understand the main sources of conflict on those issues. If one debater was clearly winning and your vote doesn't affect the winner, the most straightforward thing to do is to vote and give your RFD.

The grey area comes in a situation like this
http://www.debate.org...
where the difference between the scores is less than three points. Your vote could then potentially change the winner of the debate.

At first glance the right thing to do is to go ahead and vote anyways. However, if you or me or anyone else here has completed a certain number of debates and felt that they won a certain number of debates, it can be a rude shock to wake up one day and find out that they have lost a debate that they assumed they won.

For this reason, I am against voting periods of more than 2-3 weeks and usually limit the voting period on my debates to 1-2 weeks. However, the question still remains: Is it justified to change the winner of a year-old debate if you can give an adequate RFD?
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2011 9:47:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/1/2011 9:42:07 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
The best way to learn the intricacies of debating is to look through old debates by the best members and read their arguments. This is especially true on debates on the big issues. Reading these debates which are real classics done with great effort is an excellent way to understand the main sources of conflict on those issues. If one debater was clearly winning and your vote doesn't affect the winner, the most straightforward thing to do is to vote and give your RFD.

The grey area comes in a situation like this
http://www.debate.org...
where the difference between the scores is less than three points. Your vote could then potentially change the winner of the debate.

At first glance the right thing to do is to go ahead and vote anyways. However, if you or me or anyone else here has completed a certain number of debates and felt that they won a certain number of debates, it can be a rude shock to wake up one day and find out that they have lost a debate that they assumed they won.

For this reason, I am against voting periods of more than 2-3 weeks and usually limit the voting period on my debates to 1-2 weeks. However, the question still remains: Is it justified to change the winner of a year-old debate if you can give an adequate RFD?

Hmmm...I personally would still vote-away and I am not sympathetic to a member's rants about how my single vote changed the results of the debate.

A voter shouldn't be concerned with what the members think as long as he/she explains his motives as best as he can.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2011 9:48:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I've had a couple old debates get necro-voted on, and both caused me to be losing. One of them is back to normal though. Its not pleasant. I don't like the possibility of waking up one morning to see another L on my record. Nobody else probably does either.

So in short, no, I wouldn't vote if it would change the outcome.
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2011 9:52:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/1/2011 9:48:04 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
I've had a couple old debates get necro-voted on, and both caused me to be losing. One of them is back to normal though. Its not pleasant. I don't like the possibility of waking up one morning to see another L on my record. Nobody else probably does either.

So in short, no, I wouldn't vote if it would change the outcome.

The issue is particularly controversial when somebody has a really good debate record. Maikuru, for instance, was 25-0 for a really long time, until some people necro-voted and made him 24-1. Grape used to be 47-0, but he would keep fluctuating between that and 46-1 because people would keep necro-voting on his debate with Kinesis.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2011 9:58:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/1/2011 9:52:21 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
At 11/1/2011 9:48:04 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
I've had a couple old debates get necro-voted on, and both caused me to be losing. One of them is back to normal though. Its not pleasant. I don't like the possibility of waking up one morning to see another L on my record. Nobody else probably does either.

So in short, no, I wouldn't vote if it would change the outcome.

The issue is particularly controversial when somebody has a really good debate record. Maikuru, for instance, was 25-0 for a really long time, until some people necro-voted and made him 24-1. Grape used to be 47-0, but he would keep fluctuating between that and 46-1 because people would keep necro-voting on his debate with Kinesis.

I don't see any "necro-votes" in the grape-kinesis debate. In any case, I am not talking about countering. I have realized that old votebombs are flammable and are much better left alone. I am talking about an actual vote. By the way, which of your debates had a change of outcomes?
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2011 10:06:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
A win or loss is supposed to reflect all the votes on a debate, not just the debates over a certain period of time. If you think one member defeated another, your opinion shouldn't have less weight in this determination than another's just because yours came later.
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2011 10:10:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
When long or indefinite voting periods are selected, I assume it is because the debaters wished for their debates to continue drawing interest and attention. To not vote in such cases is a disservice. If your vote happens to change the outcome, so be it. The next voter may change it back.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2011 1:48:58 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Regardless of whichever decision is "right" or "wrong" I always do to others as I would want done to me. I hate when I log on one day and I have all of a sudden lost a debate that hasn't been touched for weeks or even months, so I won't do it to others. Of course I will consider a few things like whether the person is still active, what their record is, how close the debate was, etc...
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2011 6:15:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I assume that if they didn't want us to keep voting, they wouldn't have a long voting period.

Personally, I like a two-week period. But if I created a debate with a year-long period, I'd have no grounds for complaint if people accepted that invitation.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 2:24:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I think it is legitimate to vote on old debates, because they are left open for voting so it's within the rules. However, while some people read old debates out of interest, others just go back and vote bomb. Far more the latter than the former.

I think the main reason debates are left open is because that's the default. I think the default should be changed to something like two or three months. It's a pain to have to discuss the issue with every new member.

Grape conceded his debate with me. I just wanted to take the opportunity to rub that in.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 2:28:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/1/2011 10:10:50 PM, Maikuru wrote:
When long or indefinite voting periods are selected, I assume it is because the debaters wished for their debates to continue drawing interest and attention. To not vote in such cases is a disservice. If your vote happens to change the outcome, so be it. The next voter may change it back.

This. Your opinion on the debate is no less valid merely because you are reading it 6 months after it was first written.

However, if a member started the debate before other voting periods were available, then I'd understand. Did the site always allow people to select limited voting periods?
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 2:49:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
As I've already said to F-16, I'm not necessarily oppose to necro voting so long as it isn't a vote bomb, such as what just happened to my debate against IllegalCombatant on rape.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
DHDebate
Posts: 40
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 7:47:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/1/2011 9:42:07 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
The best way to learn the intricacies of debating is to look through old debates by the best members and read their arguments. This is especially true on debates on the big issues. Reading these debates which are real classics done with great effort is an excellent way to understand the main sources of conflict on those issues. If one debater was clearly winning and your vote doesn't affect the winner, the most straightforward thing to do is to vote and give your RFD.

The grey area comes in a situation like this
http://www.debate.org...
where the difference between the scores is less than three points. Your vote could then potentially change the winner of the debate.

At first glance the right thing to do is to go ahead and vote anyways. However, if you or me or anyone else here has completed a certain number of debates and felt that they won a certain number of debates, it can be a rude shock to wake up one day and find out that they have lost a debate that they assumed they won.

For this reason, I am against voting periods of more than 2-3 weeks and usually limit the voting period on my debates to 1-2 weeks. However, the question still remains: Is it justified to change the winner of a year-old debate if you can give an adequate RFD?

Definitely. If you've been swayed by a person's arguments then by all means give them the vote, I would even go so far as to say you have an obligation to do such. It may be disappointing to the one who was prior winning, but by choosing to debate with an unending voting period, or accepting a debate with an unending voting period, you accept that votes will always be open.
Or if you want to look at it a different way, would it be wrong to vote for a president you liked just because the other candidate was winning before hand?