Where did all the good voters go?

Recently the majority of people voting on my debates have poor voting conduct.

Some examples of this poor conduct would be;

Ignoring the resolution (most common)
Ignoring accepted definitions
Including things not mentioned in the debate, in the RFD
Vote Bombing
Voting for what they agree with, and not who had a stronger argument
Giving a RFD that does not reflect the debate in any shape or form.

Has anyone else noticed this?

Probably the conservative voting block at it again.

At 1/16/2012 4:11:32 PM, DanT wrote:
Recently the majority of people voting on my debates have poor voting conduct.

Some examples of this poor conduct would be;

Ignoring the resolution (most common)
Ignoring accepted definitions
Including things not mentioned in the debate, in the RFD
Vote Bombing
Voting for what they agree with, and not who had a stronger argument
Giving a RFD that does not reflect the debate in any shape or form.

Has anyone else noticed this?

There have been multiple threads on the subject. Just scroll down on the Debate.org forum.

At 1/16/2012 4:11:32 PM, DanT wrote:
Recently the majority of people voting on my debates have poor voting conduct.

Some examples of this poor conduct would be;

Ignoring the resolution (most common)
Ignoring accepted definitions
Including things not mentioned in the debate, in the RFD
Vote Bombing
Voting for what they agree with, and not who had a stronger argument
Giving a RFD that does not reflect the debate in any shape or form.

Has anyone else noticed this?

You only define 'good voters' as ones that think exactly like you and vote how you want them to vote. You refuse to budge on positions and categorically refuse to admit that you might have lost a debate and challenge voters directly whenever they vote against you. There is no voting block against you, and for your last debate with DoubleR you had some reputable voters who voted against you.

At 1/16/2012 4:12:44 PM, Wnope wrote:
Probably the conservative voting block at it again.

wow...lol

At 1/16/2012 4:18:21 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:

At 1/16/2012 4:11:32 PM, DanT wrote:
Recently the majority of people voting on my debates have poor voting conduct.

Some examples of this poor conduct would be;

Ignoring the resolution (most common)
Ignoring accepted definitions
Including things not mentioned in the debate, in the RFD
Vote Bombing
Voting for what they agree with, and not who had a stronger argument
Giving a RFD that does not reflect the debate in any shape or form.

Has anyone else noticed this?

You only define 'good voters' as ones that think exactly like you and vote how you want them to vote. You refuse to budge on positions and categorically refuse to admit that you might have lost a debate and challenge voters directly whenever they vote against you. There is no voting block against you, and for your last debate with DoubleR you had some reputable voters who voted against you.

Not true, only when the RFD shows obvious misconduct.

When the RFD is just, I accept it;

I made no complaints in my "States have a Right to Secede" debate, or my "Joke War" debate, or my "Can the US pay off its Debt in our lifetimes?" debate.

At 1/16/2012 4:12:44 PM, Wnope wrote:
Probably the conservative voting block at it again.

Trolling at its finest

At 1/16/2012 4:11:32 PM, DanT wrote:
Recently the majority of people voting on my debates have poor voting conduct.

Some examples of this poor conduct would be;

Ignoring the resolution (most common)
Ignoring accepted definitions
Including things not mentioned in the debate, in the RFD
Vote Bombing

: Voting for what they agree with, and not who had a stronger argument

Giving a RFD that does not reflect the debate in any shape or form.

Has anyone else noticed this?

This thread is obviously a rant because of our debate on the meaning of "equal opportunity". So far 3 people voted, and they all voted against you. The first checked off that they agree with you before and after the debate but still voted for me, the others were neutral, so your claim is factually a load of BS. The second voter said that you made a good first argument, so apparently he understood what you were trying to say, but still voted for me. The third took the time to provide a nearly 4,000 character RFD explaining why he voted against you.

You lost to OMG because the voters did not agree with your interpretation of the phrase. Now you are currently losing to me on a debate about what that phrase means. Yet instead of admitting that you might be wrong about something, you claim that everyone else here doesn't understand and that I am the one who has belief bias. Ok Izbo. Keep telling yourself that.

At 1/16/2012 4:46:26 PM, Double_R wrote:

At 1/16/2012 4:11:32 PM, DanT wrote:
Recently the majority of people voting on my debates have poor voting conduct.

Some examples of this poor conduct would be;

Ignoring the resolution (most common)
Ignoring accepted definitions
Including things not mentioned in the debate, in the RFD
Vote Bombing

: Voting for what they agree with, and not who had a stronger argument

Giving a RFD that does not reflect the debate in any shape or form.

Has anyone else noticed this?

This thread is obviously a rant because of our debate on the meaning of "equal opportunity".

That's not even out of voting period, in fact voting just started, it's unrelated. The world does not revolve around you.
I'm just bringing up a topic that was on my mind, and obviously on other people's mind.

At 1/16/2012 4:46:26 PM, Double_R wrote:

At 1/16/2012 4:11:32 PM, DanT wrote:

You lost to OMG because the voters did not agree with your interpretation of the phrase.

OMG agreed with my interpretation in round 1.

At 1/16/2012 4:59:08 PM, DanT wrote:

At 1/16/2012 4:46:26 PM, Double_R wrote:

At 1/16/2012 4:11:32 PM, DanT wrote:

You lost to OMG because the voters did not agree with your interpretation of the phrase.

OMG agreed with my interpretation in round 1.

No, she didn't. Your interpretation is what the 5 round debate that we just finished was about.

At 1/16/2012 5:11:20 PM, Double_R wrote:

At 1/16/2012 4:59:08 PM, DanT wrote:

At 1/16/2012 4:46:26 PM, Double_R wrote:

At 1/16/2012 4:11:32 PM, DanT wrote:

You lost to OMG because the voters did not agree with your interpretation of the phrase.

OMG agreed with my interpretation in round 1.

No, she didn't. Your interpretation is what the 5 round debate that we just finished was about.

Really, I thought that was your interpretation. In fact as far as I'm concerned that debate is unrelated, because it was not dependent on that debate what so ever.

The resolution of my debate with OMG was,
"Resolved: In the United States, all individuals have an equal opportunity to advance social class."

OMG than added the following details;
"First round is for acceptance, clarification of terms, and other concerns.

It should be specified that this discussion will be on the topic of substantive liberties rather than formal liberties. Yes, all individuals under a capitalist system may be legally allowed to acquire capital but that is not the point of this debate. This debate will focus on the real life prospects of individuals born with different natural abilities."

The definitions we agreed upon were;
"(adj) equal (having the same quantity, value, or measure as another)

(n) opportunity (a possibility due to a favorable combination of circumstances)

(v) advance (develop further)

(n) social class, socio-economic class (people having the same social, economic, or educational status)"

Those definitions were accepted by OMG

and in round 3, I gave another definition, "(n) prospect (the possibility of future success) "

Which OMG "accepted... as valid".

However despite the definitions, OMG contented the idea that the resolution mentions possibility, and the voters fell for it, either because they wanted her to win, they didn't pay attention to the debate, or they were gullible.