Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

Is it legal if....

imabench
Posts: 21,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 2:41:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Lets say there is a five round debate and one side, lets say the pro, after each and every round says to vote pro even though there are 3, 4, even 5 rounds left. Is it frowned upon to give the con conduct points in this case because I find it unprofessional for one side to say to vote for them after each round, but I was wondering if im allowed to give conduct points that way or if that is flat out illegal on DDO
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 2:48:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
When I first came here I saw that and thought it was extremely arrogant, ...I even saw some people write "Vote pro/con" before their opponent had made a response.

However, its not worth taking off conduct. Conduct exists for people that speak like Izbo and that's it. You know you're a good voter if you rarely take off source, conduct, and grammar points....because the vast majority of debates don't warrant that. Nevertheless there will always be that jerk that finds an excuse to take off points that weren't necessary.

In short, its rude but it's too insignificant to affect your decision.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 3:07:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/3/2012 2:48:16 PM, 000ike wrote:
When I first came here I saw that and thought it was extremely arrogant, ...I even saw some people write "Vote pro/con" before their opponent had made a response.

However, its not worth taking off conduct. Conduct exists for people that speak like Izbo and that's it. You know you're a good voter if you rarely take off source, conduct, and grammar points....because the vast majority of debates don't warrant that. Nevertheless there will always be that jerk that finds an excuse to take off points that weren't necessary.

In short, its rude but it's too insignificant to affect your decision.

Agreed with most of this. Ending with the line "Vote Pro" isn't really that beneficial, but it sometimes works when intelligently placed. E.g. "...and the moral reason is more important than the financial reason my opponent gave, and I urge a PRO vote on these grounds".
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 10:34:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/3/2012 2:48:16 PM, 000ike wrote:
When I first came here I saw that and thought it was extremely arrogant, ...I even saw some people write "Vote pro/con" before their opponent had made a response.

However, its not worth taking off conduct. Conduct exists for people that speak like Izbo and that's it. You know you're a good voter if you rarely take off source, conduct, and grammar points....because the vast majority of debates don't warrant that. Nevertheless there will always be that jerk that finds an excuse to take off points that weren't necessary.

In short, its rude but it's too insignificant to affect your decision.

As a added note it's annoying when people give a tied vote for sources, when one side didn't cite any sources, and the other side gave credible sources, such as .gov and .edu
If you ask me that's just like vote bombing, because you are giving favoritism to one side.
I see it all the time, and it's extremely irritating
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 10:49:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/4/2012 10:34:11 AM, DanT wrote:
At 3/3/2012 2:48:16 PM, 000ike wrote:
When I first came here I saw that and thought it was extremely arrogant, ...I even saw some people write "Vote pro/con" before their opponent had made a response.

However, its not worth taking off conduct. Conduct exists for people that speak like Izbo and that's it. You know you're a good voter if you rarely take off source, conduct, and grammar points....because the vast majority of debates don't warrant that. Nevertheless there will always be that jerk that finds an excuse to take off points that weren't necessary.

In short, its rude but it's too insignificant to affect your decision.

As a added note it's annoying when people give a tied vote for sources, when one side didn't cite any sources, and the other side gave credible sources, such as .gov and .edu
If you ask me that's just like vote bombing, because you are giving favoritism to one side.
I see it all the time, and it's extremely irritating

1. .gov & .edu are not more credible than .com....If the debate is a criticism of the government then .gov would likely have exaggerated accomplishments and omitted details.

2. If the debate requires more logic than facts, then demanding sources is senseless.

3. I hate it when people think source loading will get them source points. Sources exist as a voting criteria only to prevent people from making up lies. Not so they can waste characters filling their argument with links like argumentative steroids, feigning the appearance of legitimacy.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 11:33:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/4/2012 10:49:59 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/4/2012 10:34:11 AM, DanT wrote:
At 3/3/2012 2:48:16 PM, 000ike wrote:
When I first came here I saw that and thought it was extremely arrogant, ...I even saw some people write "Vote pro/con" before their opponent had made a response.

However, its not worth taking off conduct. Conduct exists for people that speak like Izbo and that's it. You know you're a good voter if you rarely take off source, conduct, and grammar points....because the vast majority of debates don't warrant that. Nevertheless there will always be that jerk that finds an excuse to take off points that weren't necessary.

In short, its rude but it's too insignificant to affect your decision.

As a added note it's annoying when people give a tied vote for sources, when one side didn't cite any sources, and the other side gave credible sources, such as .gov and .edu
If you ask me that's just like vote bombing, because you are giving favoritism to one side.
I see it all the time, and it's extremely irritating

1. .gov & .edu are not more credible than .com....If the debate is a criticism of the government then .gov would likely have exaggerated accomplishments and omitted details.

2. If the debate requires more logic than facts, then demanding sources is senseless.

3. I hate it when people think source loading will get them source points. Sources exist as a voting criteria only to prevent people from making up lies. Not so they can waste characters filling their argument with links like argumentative steroids, feigning the appearance of legitimacy.

whats wrong with a lot of sources? It is fun :)
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 11:42:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/4/2012 10:49:59 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/4/2012 10:34:11 AM, DanT wrote:
At 3/3/2012 2:48:16 PM, 000ike wrote:
When I first came here I saw that and thought it was extremely arrogant, ...I even saw some people write "Vote pro/con" before their opponent had made a response.

However, its not worth taking off conduct. Conduct exists for people that speak like Izbo and that's it. You know you're a good voter if you rarely take off source, conduct, and grammar points....because the vast majority of debates don't warrant that. Nevertheless there will always be that jerk that finds an excuse to take off points that weren't necessary.

In short, its rude but it's too insignificant to affect your decision.

As a added note it's annoying when people give a tied vote for sources, when one side didn't cite any sources, and the other side gave credible sources, such as .gov and .edu
If you ask me that's just like vote bombing, because you are giving favoritism to one side.
I see it all the time, and it's extremely irritating

1. .gov & .edu are not more credible than .com....If the debate is a criticism of the government then .gov would likely have exaggerated accomplishments and omitted details.

2. If the debate requires more logic than facts, then demanding sources is senseless.

3. I hate it when people think source loading will get them source points. Sources exist as a voting criteria only to prevent people from making up lies. Not so they can waste characters filling their argument with links like argumentative steroids, feigning the appearance of legitimacy.

3 is SO true. I hate seeing a laundry list of like, 30 sources on a 3 paragraph argument. It doesn't make you look smart. It doesn't make your argument more legit.

I actually think the argument described above would have less merit than a 10 paragraph argument with 5 sources.

Temperance applies to sources, too. :)
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 12:57:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
To the people talking about sources, a Source Debate = Worst Debate Ever.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 12:59:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/4/2012 12:57:38 PM, OberHerr wrote:
To the people talking about sources, a Source Debate = Worst Debate Ever.

what's a source debate?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 1:02:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/4/2012 12:59:39 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/4/2012 12:57:38 PM, OberHerr wrote:
To the people talking about sources, a Source Debate = Worst Debate Ever.

what's a source debate?

http://www.debate.org...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
imabench
Posts: 21,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 1:02:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/4/2012 12:59:39 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/4/2012 12:57:38 PM, OberHerr wrote:
To the people talking about sources, a Source Debate = Worst Debate Ever.

what's a source debate?

a debate where people put more effort into getting sources then making arguments...
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 1:03:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/4/2012 12:59:39 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/4/2012 12:57:38 PM, OberHerr wrote:
To the people talking about sources, a Source Debate = Worst Debate Ever.

what's a source debate?

Basically, a debate that just becomes "who has the best/most sources", rather than actual arguing.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 1:08:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/4/2012 1:03:11 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 3/4/2012 12:59:39 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/4/2012 12:57:38 PM, OberHerr wrote:
To the people talking about sources, a Source Debate = Worst Debate Ever.

what's a source debate?

Basically, a debate that just becomes "who has the best/most sources", rather than actual arguing.
http://www.debate.org...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 7:37:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't think that asking for votes is a conduct violation. It's like politicians asking for votes. It's okay, but people already knew they wanted your vote so it's kind of pointless. It does express the idea that you care what readers think, which is good.

Using the expressions "The resolution is affirmed." or "The resolution is negated." sort of puts a period at the end of the debate. It says "I'm outta here."

Philosophical arguments usually don't require sources. There are some topics related to matters of opinion and personal experience where sources are not required because the facts are agreed to.

We should expect debates on politics, economics, news, health, science, and technology to be full of relevant facts. If you don't want that, start your challenge with "In a fantasy world not necessarily related to the real world ..." and see how far you get.

Sources ought to judged one-by-one based upon expected bias. Wikipedia can be expected to have an unbiased account of "pineapples" but for "global warming" and other controversial topics, it's no better than a blog. Even so, blog posts and Wikipedia are good sources whenever they are just presenting data that the reference as coming from a reliable source. An expert opinion can be good source provided the person quoted is a bona fide expert.
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 7:42:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/3/2012 2:41:58 PM, imabench wrote:
Lets say there is a five round debate and one side, lets say the pro, after each and every round says to vote pro even though there are 3, 4, even 5 rounds left. Is it frowned upon to give the con conduct points in this case because I find it unprofessional for one side to say to vote for them after each round, but I was wondering if im allowed to give conduct points that way or if that is flat out illegal on DDO

I get confused, too often, about who is which. Particularly when Con initiates the debate. Sometimes I even write my RFD saying Con where I should have said Pro, and vice versa.

Then I came across a debate where somebody ended each of his posts by saying, "Vote Con" (or "vote Pro" as the case may be). I wasn't confused in that debate. I was reminded at the end of each of this person's posts which label he had.

Such a relief. I thought it was nice of him, a convenience for the reader. So I adopted his practice, hoping to make reading my debates easier for my readers.

I'm sorry it strikes you wrong, but my motive is good, and I want everybody to adopt the practice for clarity's sake.
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 7:46:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/4/2012 10:34:11 AM, DanT wrote:
As a added note it's annoying when people give a tied vote for sources, when one side didn't cite any sources, and the other side gave credible sources, such as .gov and .edu
If you ask me that's just like vote bombing, because you are giving favoritism to one side.
I see it all the time, and it's extremely irritating

Dan thinks everything is vote bombing.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 7:49:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/4/2012 7:46:11 PM, wiploc wrote:
At 3/4/2012 10:34:11 AM, DanT wrote:
As a added note it's annoying when people give a tied vote for sources, when one side didn't cite any sources, and the other side gave credible sources, such as .gov and .edu
If you ask me that's just like vote bombing, because you are giving favoritism to one side.
I see it all the time, and it's extremely irritating

Dan thinks everything is vote bombing.

Or rather any vote given to his opponent...:P
"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
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 7:51:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I work hard to have the best argument. I hate getting three points for best argument and losing two points for not having sources. I'm usually in debates where sources shouldn't count for anything, because the debate is about which of us is reasoning better.

So I wish we didn't give any points for sources, or at most one point.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2012 3:50:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
There is nothing wrong with asking for the voters to vote for you. If it is done too often it can be annoying, but there is no voting category for the least irritating.

As far as sources go I agree with the majority of posts here. There is a reason why we have sources, and there is also a reason sources count for 2 points. Understanding that reason is crucial in understanding when the points for it should be awarded. For those who believe that points for sources can be determined by counting the number of them, or by looking at whether they are a .com or a .edu, I would love to hear their understanding of why we vote on sources in the first place.

Yes DanT, I was talking to you.
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 9:57:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Another reason I like those "Vote Pro" or "Vote Con" at the end of a post is that they are often preceded by summaries. If a debater is disorganized and scattershot, that summary can be a great help in determining what it is that he has tried to argue.
Zaradi
Posts: 14,121
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 10:07:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/6/2012 9:57:51 AM, wiploc wrote:
Another reason I like those "Vote Pro" or "Vote Con" at the end of a post is that they are often preceded by summaries. If a debater is disorganized and scattershot, that summary can be a great help in determining what it is that he has tried to argue.

Being an LD debater, I can't stress the importance of always giving a summary (at my school, we like to call it giving a weather forecast. Those things are always in depth). Whenever in a really complicated debate, whether the complication comes from speed or content, giving a summary of how the round went and why you're currently winning and your opponent losing never, ever, ever hurts. It's part of the thing that makes up the total swag of a debater: whenever you're debating, you're always winning.

As a voter, as well, I love seeing people who do use these summaries. If I get lost trying to wrap my head around really economic arguments or something is just going over my head, however many different ways I try to look at it, looking at the summary normally has a watered-down version of the argument that I can use to make sense of the argument. I can't say how many debates I've seen where the arguments were really in depth and complicated, and the debater gave no summary to try and clarify on what he was arguing and what happened in the round. It's really just useful all around.

It really comes down to personal preference, on whether you want to use it or not, but there really isn't a good downside to it.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...