Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

How many people get RFD that dont the debate?

DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2011 2:56:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
This is something that's really bugging me, because I didn't realize how many people do this until recently.

Here is an example

Me @ Debate
Global Warming Alarmists focus on Surface Temperature readings, which are highly inaccurate because they are subject to the Heat Island Effect.

Ore_Ele @ debate
According to the EPA, "The annual mean air temperature of a city with 1 million people or more can be 1.8–5.4°F (1–3°C) warmer than its surroundings."

According to the Journal of Geophysical Research Vol. 116,; due to the heat island effect, 6.2% of Climate stations have a >5°C error, 64.4% of climate stations have a >2°C error, 21.5% have a >1°C error, and 7.9% have a <1°C error. A <1°C error is good, a >1°C error is fair, a >2°C error is poor, and a >5°C error is worse.

It clearly says "the annual mean air temperature… can be 1 – 3 degree C." Since the global warming debate is about the average temperature, that is the only data that matters, the rest is just a red herring.

Using the pie chart from my last round we see that the average Error is over 2°C, which is poor, with 6.2% having an error of more than 5°C.
Under 1°C is good, and under 2°C is fair.
Only 7.9% of surface temperature readings are usable, and the other 92.1% are worthless

Since we are talking about average global temperatures, the average temperature error is what matters. Just like a high temp or a low temp of a single day or night is not important, neither is a single day of the Heat Island effect. We are talking about annual trends..... My opponent claims that the error is over 2 degrees, however, this is a per station error and it is only an estimate. It is also the case that the error range is + or -, so if one errors +2 degrees and another errors -2 degrees, they balance out

The average temperature error is over 2°C, so this still points to the Heat Island effect corrupting data...My opponent claims that "the error range is + or -, so if one errors +2 degrees and another errors -2 degrees, they balance out. "
This is false, as the error is a (+) not a (-).
That is like saying you can stick a thermometer to the tail pipe of your car, and get a accurate reading, because the error would cancel it's self out. The error is only a (+) thus it does not cancel it's self out.

F-16_Fighting_Falcon @ RFD
Pro was able to show that global warming occurs everywhere besides the polar regions, that the heat island effect was irrelevant when finding long term trends...Splendid performance from Pro.

Someone obviously didn't read the debate.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2011 3:00:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
If you have an problem with how F-16 judged then take it up with him directly through a personal message, there's no reason for a thread.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2011 3:36:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It should also be noted that he re-arranged the arguments, so that my comments appear to be addressing something that they weren't actually addressing in the debate.

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

DanT - "The Heat Island Effect is the tendency of urban and suburban areas to be warmer than adjacent rural areas. In the United States, such built environments are 2 to 10°F warmer-a function of less vegetation, reduced airflow, and large areas of roofs, asphalt, concrete, and paved surfaces that absorb the sun's heat."

Ore_Ele's response - "According to the EPA, "The annual mean air temperature of a city with 1 million people or more can be 1.8–5.4°F (1–3°C) warmer than its surroundings." Turning to CityMayors.com [2], we can see that there are only 410 cities in the entire world with populations over 1 million and only 9 of those cities are in the USA [3]."

DanT's response - "My oppoenent's source (http://www.epa.gov......) states "The annual mean air temperature of a city with 1 million people or more can be 1.8–5.4°F (1–3°C) warmer than its surroundings. In the evening, the difference can be as high as 22°F (12°C)"
Thus the difference according to his sources can be as high as 22°F, not 5.4°F as he claims."

My response - "I would ask all readers and my opponent to re-read the quote that my opponent pulled out. While it does say "In the evening, the difference can be as high as 12 degrees C." It should be noted that this is an extreme difference at only a single point. It clearly says "the annual mean air temperature… can be 1 – 3 degree C." Since the global warming debate is about the average temperature, that is the only data that matters, the rest is just a red herring."

DanT just pulled arguments from an entirely different argument chain and slapped them together to make it appear like I had no idea what I was talking about.

DanT, you requested a rematch, and I told you what 3 things that rematch would need to include (and 2 of those 3 where just reverting back to changes you made, such as allowing 8,000 characters and more than a 3 day voting period). You challenged me multiple times without doing all three, so I blocked you from challenging me again. As I've said before (and several times), if you'd like to continue the debate, there is always the science section.

sheesh.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2011 5:01:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/8/2011 3:00:19 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
If you have an problem with how F-16 judged then take it up with him directly through a personal message, there's no reason for a thread.

It wasn't just his, I was using it as an example. I was wondering how many other people experience the same thing. Thus the question mark.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2011 5:02:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/8/2011 3:36:02 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
It should also be noted that he re-arranged the arguments, so that my comments appear to be addressing something that they weren't actually addressing in the debate.

They are in order

I made sure of it.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2011 5:07:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/8/2011 3:36:02 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
It should also be noted that he re-arranged the arguments, so that my comments appear to be addressing something that they weren't actually addressing in the debate.

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

DanT - "The Heat Island Effect is the tendency of urban and suburban areas to be warmer than adjacent rural areas. In the United States, such built environments are 2 to 10°F warmer-a function of less vegetation, reduced airflow, and large areas of roofs, asphalt, concrete, and paved surfaces that absorb the sun's heat."

Ore_Ele's response - "According to the EPA, "The annual mean air temperature of a city with 1 million people or more can be 1.8–5.4°F (1–3°C) warmer than its surroundings." Turning to CityMayors.com [2], we can see that there are only 410 cities in the entire world with populations over 1 million and only 9 of those cities are in the USA [3]."

DanT's response - "My oppoenent's source (http://www.epa.gov......) states "The annual mean air temperature of a city with 1 million people or more can be 1.8–5.4°F (1–3°C) warmer than its surroundings. In the evening, the difference can be as high as 22°F (12°C)"
Thus the difference according to his sources can be as high as 22°F, not 5.4°F as he claims."

My response - "I would ask all readers and my opponent to re-read the quote that my opponent pulled out. While it does say "In the evening, the difference can be as high as 12 degrees C." It should be noted that this is an extreme difference at only a single point. It clearly says "the annual mean air temperature… can be 1 – 3 degree C." Since the global warming debate is about the average temperature, that is the only data that matters, the rest is just a red herring."


DanT just pulled arguments from an entirely different argument chain and slapped them together to make it appear like I had no idea what I was talking about.

DanT, you requested a rematch, and I told you what 3 things that rematch would need to include (and 2 of those 3 where just reverting back to changes you made, such as allowing 8,000 characters and more than a 3 day voting period). You challenged me multiple times without doing all three, so I blocked you from challenging me again. As I've said before (and several times), if you'd like to continue the debate, there is always the science section.

sheesh.

BS, I did to. I did all 3 things you asked,

The 1st two times, I didn't change the characters, because you max out your characters on purpose, than create a new debate to list sources. I think quality is more important than quantity, but maybe that is just ,me.

The 3rd time I changed it to 8,000 and you still rejected it.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2011 5:15:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
If I lose a debate, that's fine.... I have lost them before....What I don't like is when the people are voting blatantly disregard the debate, and the resolution of the debate.

Has anyone else experienced this with voting on their debates?
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2011 5:27:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/8/2011 5:07:15 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/8/2011 3:36:02 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
It should also be noted that he re-arranged the arguments, so that my comments appear to be addressing something that they weren't actually addressing in the debate.

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

DanT - "The Heat Island Effect is the tendency of urban and suburban areas to be warmer than adjacent rural areas. In the United States, such built environments are 2 to 10°F warmer-a function of less vegetation, reduced airflow, and large areas of roofs, asphalt, concrete, and paved surfaces that absorb the sun's heat."

Ore_Ele's response - "According to the EPA, "The annual mean air temperature of a city with 1 million people or more can be 1.8–5.4°F (1–3°C) warmer than its surroundings." Turning to CityMayors.com [2], we can see that there are only 410 cities in the entire world with populations over 1 million and only 9 of those cities are in the USA [3]."

DanT's response - "My oppoenent's source (http://www.epa.gov......) states "The annual mean air temperature of a city with 1 million people or more can be 1.8–5.4°F (1–3°C) warmer than its surroundings. In the evening, the difference can be as high as 22°F (12°C)"
Thus the difference according to his sources can be as high as 22°F, not 5.4°F as he claims."

My response - "I would ask all readers and my opponent to re-read the quote that my opponent pulled out. While it does say "In the evening, the difference can be as high as 12 degrees C." It should be noted that this is an extreme difference at only a single point. It clearly says "the annual mean air temperature… can be 1 – 3 degree C." Since the global warming debate is about the average temperature, that is the only data that matters, the rest is just a red herring."


DanT just pulled arguments from an entirely different argument chain and slapped them together to make it appear like I had no idea what I was talking about.

DanT, you requested a rematch, and I told you what 3 things that rematch would need to include (and 2 of those 3 where just reverting back to changes you made, such as allowing 8,000 characters and more than a 3 day voting period). You challenged me multiple times without doing all three, so I blocked you from challenging me again. As I've said before (and several times), if you'd like to continue the debate, there is always the science section.

sheesh.

BS, I did to. I did all 3 things you asked,

No you didn't, the last time you only did 7,000, after you had asked me if I would meet in the middle and I said no.


The 1st two times, I didn't change the characters, because you max out your characters on purpose, than create a new debate to list sources. I think quality is more important than quantity, but maybe that is just ,me.

I maxed out because you throw up 8 graphs without a source, or word to explain them, and I had to address each one of them.


The 3rd time I changed it to 8,000 and you still rejected it.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2011 5:28:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/8/2011 5:02:50 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/8/2011 3:36:02 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
It should also be noted that he re-arranged the arguments, so that my comments appear to be addressing something that they weren't actually addressing in the debate.


They are in order

I made sure of it.

Well then everyone can go to the debate and see themselves who is telling the truth.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2011 5:33:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
To answer OP's question, yes. Almost everybody gets RFD's that make no sense. Some users are actually known for making inaccurate RFD's that have nothing to do with the arguments made in the debate. Usually its not enough to influence the outcome, but in some cases it is.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2011 5:36:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/8/2011 5:33:25 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
To answer OP's question, yes. Almost everybody gets RFD's that make no sense. Some users are actually known for making inaccurate RFD's that have nothing to do with the arguments made in the debate. Usually its not enough to influence the outcome, but in some cases it is.

Thank you for being the first poster to stay on topic.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2011 5:49:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/8/2011 5:28:24 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/8/2011 5:02:50 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/8/2011 3:36:02 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
It should also be noted that he re-arranged the arguments, so that my comments appear to be addressing something that they weren't actually addressing in the debate.


They are in order

made sure of it.

Well then everyone can go to the debate and see themselves who is telling the truth.

Let me help;

At 11/8/2011 2:56:46 PM, DanT wrote:
This is something that's really bugging me, because I didn't realize how many people do this until recently.

Here is an example

Me @ Debate
Global Warming Alarmists focus on Surface Temperature readings, which are highly inaccurate because they are subject to the Heat Island Effect.

Round 1

Ore_Ele @ debate
According to the EPA, "The annual mean air temperature of a city with 1 million people or more can be 1.8–5.4°F (1–3°C) warmer than its surroundings."


Round 2
According to the Journal of Geophysical Research Vol. 116,; due to the heat island effect, 6.2% of Climate stations have a >5°C error, 64.4% of climate stations have a >2°C error, 21.5% have a >1°C error, and 7.9% have a <1°C error. A <1°C error is good, a >1°C error is fair, a >2°C error is poor, and a >5°C error is worse.

Round 2

It clearly says "the annual mean air temperature… can be 1 – 3 degree C." Since the global warming debate is about the average temperature, that is the only data that matters, the rest is just a red herring.

Round 3

Using the pie chart from my last round we see that the average Error is over 2°C, which is poor, with 6.2% having an error of more than 5°C.
Under 1°C is good, and under 2°C is fair.
Only 7.9% of surface temperature readings are usable, and the other 92.1% are worthless

Round 3

Since we are talking about average global temperatures, the average temperature error is what matters. Just like a high temp or a low temp of a single day or night is not important, neither is a single day of the Heat Island effect. We are talking about annual trends..... My opponent claims that the error is over 2 degrees, however, this is a per station error and it is only an estimate. It is also the case that the error range is + or -, so if one errors +2 degrees and another errors -2 degrees, they balance out

Round 4
The average temperature error is over 2°C, so this still points to the Heat Island effect corrupting data...My opponent claims that "the error range is + or -, so if one errors +2 degrees and another errors -2 degrees, they balance out. "
This is false, as the error is a (+) not a (-).
That is like saying you can stick a thermometer to the tail pipe of your car, and get a accurate reading, because the error would cancel it's self out. The error is only a (+) thus it does not cancel it's self out.

Round 4
F-16_Fighting_Falcon @ RFD
Pro was able to show that global warming occurs everywhere besides the polar regions, that the heat island effect was irrelevant when finding long term trends...Splendid performance from Pro.

there were also tons of people voting on graphs, and not on the arguments that accompanied the graphs, which also is wrong. One of those people voted for me, and I didn't like it because I wanted him to reference more than just the graph.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2011 3:28:03 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/8/2011 5:36:16 PM, DanT wrote:
Thank you for being the first poster to stay on topic.

It would have been easier to stay on topic if you didn't include the names of those that were involved. You post was pretty much a personal attack and it is not surprising that it went off course.

Anyway yes, I feel this has happened to me as well. While sometimes there is little that can be done, you must always remember that communication is a crucial aspect of debating. Instead of writing a post slamming people who voted against you, you should take some time to think about what you could have done differently so that you will be better understood next time.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2011 10:34:03 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
While it is difficult to stay on topic due to the OP's personal attacks, I will try to do so.

It is frustrating when voters don't absorb the real details of the debate and vote off of something that is relatively minor or make blanket statements like "calculations were bad" or "X just threw in a bunch of pictures" etc. I think as a voter, it is important to read in detail and understand which point negates which one. It happened to me a few times but it was quite rare.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2011 12:49:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/9/2011 3:28:03 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/8/2011 5:36:16 PM, DanT wrote:
Thank you for being the first poster to stay on topic.

It would have been easier to stay on topic if you didn't include the names of those that were involved. You post was pretty much a personal attack and it is not surprising that it went off course.

Anyway yes, I feel this has happened to me as well. While sometimes there is little that can be done, you must always remember that communication is a crucial aspect of debating. Instead of writing a post slamming people who voted against you, you should take some time to think about what you could have done differently so that you will be better understood next time.

If it was a personal attack I would have used more offensive language. When I want to insult someone I don't hold back.
I don't mix words, no matter what the conversation is. Just because I'm not censoring myself, does not mean I'm trying to be offensive.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2011 12:55:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/9/2011 12:49:35 PM, DanT wrote:
If it was a personal attack I would have used more offensive language. When I want to insult someone I don't hold back.
I don't mix words, no matter what the conversation is. Just because I'm not censoring myself, does not mean I'm trying to be offensive.

Personal attack does not mean that you are trying to insult them. It means that you are attacking something they did or said while bringing unnecessary attention to the fact that it was they (F-16) who said it. There was no reason to put his name or anyone else's in your post. People do not need to know where it came from, nor would that matter if your intent is to only focus on the issue with the RFD itself.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2011 12:56:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/9/2011 10:34:03 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
While it is difficult to stay on topic due to the OP's personal attacks, I will try to do so.

It is frustrating when voters don't absorb the real details of the debate and vote off of something that is relatively minor or make blanket statements like "calculations were bad" or "X just threw in a bunch of pictures" etc. I think as a voter, it is important to read in detail and understand which point negates which one. It happened to me a few times but it was quite rare.

Not a personal attack.

For me, it's not just about the argument. It's also about the argument's relevance to the resolution. Further pictures such as graphs are part of the argument, and is not separate from the text. focusing on just the pictures, or just the text, degrades the argument, and is tantamount to paraphrasing.

A vote should reflect the entire debate (pictures and text), and should reflect the resolution entirely. The voter should also read the entire debate, and not just skim through, or read only on of the debtor's arguments.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2011 1:00:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/9/2011 12:55:42 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/9/2011 12:49:35 PM, DanT wrote:
If it was a personal attack I would have used more offensive language. When I want to insult someone I don't hold back.
I don't mix words, no matter what the conversation is. Just because I'm not censoring myself, does not mean I'm trying to be offensive.

Personal attack does not mean that you are trying to insult them. It means that you are attacking something they did or said while bringing unnecessary attention to the fact that it was they (F-16) who said it. There was no reason to put his name or anyone else's in your post. People do not need to know where it came from, nor would that matter if your intent is to only focus on the issue with the RFD itself.

I wasn't "Attacking" him period. I quoted him.
Even if I quoted him as anonymous, he would still know it's him, and people who read the debate would too, thus it could still be seen as offensive.

I needed an example, so I used it as a example. It's like using Clinton as an example of an impeachment. It's not a personal attack, it's a reference.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2011 5:21:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The general issue DanT raises comes up fairly often in debates. Suppose someone is Pro and must prove contention X. He advances arguments A, B, C, and D, each of which if true would prove X. The debate proceeds with A being the center of controversy, and after much back-and-forth Con prevails and shows that A is not a good proof of X. Contentions B and C also fail, although with less arguing. However, while D is not much discussed, it successfully proves X. So who wins the debate?

Con often feels he won, because he won the majority of the argument. However, Pro should win because his job was to prove X, and D being valid did exactly that. A debater may make any number of unconvincing arguments, but if there is one true convincing argument, that is all that is necessary to prove the resolution true.

An example of this is proving that 0.9999 ... is exactly equal to one. There are invalid proofs, but the proof x = .9999..., 10x =9.999..., x = 1 is a valid proof, so if it is cited then resolution is proved true.

In the warming debate, land surface temperature data is bogus, because the heat island effect biases almost all the data, not just large cities. However, satellite data was also cited and also shows global warming. The satellite data shows less warming, but nonetheless warming.

Global temperature data is fractal, which means the average is undefined over the whole of time. There are averages only over specified time periods. DanT believed he was arguing about the last decade, which shows no trend. However, without the time being specified, which it wasn't, the usual global warming debate is about 1980 to present, here there is a warming trend.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2011 9:27:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/9/2011 5:21:03 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
The general issue DanT raises comes up fairly often in debates. Suppose someone is Pro and must prove contention X. He advances arguments A, B, C, and D, each of which if true would prove X. The debate proceeds with A being the center of controversy, and after much back-and-forth Con prevails and shows that A is not a good proof of X. Contentions B and C also fail, although with less arguing. However, while D is not much discussed, it successfully proves X. So who wins the debate?

Con often feels he won, because he won the majority of the argument. However, Pro should win because his job was to prove X, and D being valid did exactly that. A debater may make any number of unconvincing arguments, but if there is one true convincing argument, that is all that is necessary to prove the resolution true.

An example of this is proving that 0.9999 ... is exactly equal to one. There are invalid proofs, but the proof x = .9999..., 10x =9.999..., x = 1 is a valid proof, so if it is cited then resolution is proved true.

In the warming debate, land surface temperature data is bogus, because the heat island effect biases almost all the data, not just large cities. However, satellite data was also cited and also shows global warming. The satellite data shows less warming, but nonetheless warming.

The satellite data didn't prove continued warming, as the resolution states. Thus it didn't prove the resolution.

Pro had to prove 2 things according to his own resolution;
1.) A Current warming trend
2.) That it would continue to warm

1.) was possibly proven. I say possibly because it was not overwhelmingly strong, and it depends on the voter.
If you ignore el ninos (Both up and down), it shows stasis over 40 years.

2) on the other hand was not proven at all. Other than charts with surface temperature readings, there was no evidence to show future warming.

This is the main problem I had with the debate. Many disregarded the resolution.

Global temperature data is fractal, which means the average is undefined over the whole of time. There are averages only over specified time periods. DanT believed he was arguing about the last decade, which shows no trend. However, without the time being specified, which it wasn't, the usual global warming debate is about 1980 to present, here there is a warming trend.

I pointed to the last data to show that there will not be continued warming, than showed data that points towards a cooling trend in years to come. The point I was making was ignored, and nearly everything I said went unnoticed.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2011 1:36:33 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/9/2011 5:21:03 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
The general issue DanT raises comes up fairly often in debates. Suppose someone is Pro and must prove contention X. He advances arguments A, B, C, and D, each of which if true would prove X. The debate proceeds with A being the center of controversy, and after much back-and-forth Con prevails and shows that A is not a good proof of X. Contentions B and C also fail, although with less arguing. However, while D is not much discussed, it successfully proves X. So who wins the debate?

Con often feels he won, because he won the majority of the argument. However, Pro should win because his job was to prove X, and D being valid did exactly that. A debater may make any number of unconvincing arguments, but if there is one true convincing argument, that is all that is necessary to prove the resolution true.

I agree with this general concept and in fact I think I follow this concept more so then most voters I have seen. However one very important question is that if point D is not much discussed, then did the Pro really substantiate contention D, or did Pro simply bring up contention D and rely on the voters to make his argument for him by using their own understanding D to conclude X?

While I very strongly consider whether any of their individual points negates the resolution, in order to grant Pro the victory for contention D he must substantiate contention D, which is unlikely if he hardly discussed it. Voting without that basis leads to biased votes simply because the reader agrees with Pro. But if Pro truly understood the topic then he would have spent more time on this contention instead of focusing on the loosing ones. It would also be unfair to vote against Con in this scenario because he would not have had adequate opportunity to negate the contention if it was hardly discussed.