Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

Voting Bias

Axiom
Posts: 241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 9:52:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm not going to be specific with names, but if this continues I will. People are voting for what they believe, obviously without reading any of the debates except skimming through parts that the person they support wrote.
It's embarassing and disrespectful to the debators and the intellectual community.
I have debated for abortion. I have debated that there is evidence for god's existence. I have debated on both sides of the fence and I have voted for both sides as well.
But some people on here ONLY EVER VOTE for what they believe in. It's ridiculous. They don't just give 'three' points for arguments without grounds, they give 'five' or 'seven.'
People like this are a scourge.
Now, a few theists as well as atheists on here are extremely guilty of this. But what I see that bugs me the most is when theists claim, "God is beyond reason. So you can't contain him with reason." or "he has a better grasp of theology, so he shredded your arguments." These are begging the question and assuming your answer as well as basically saying, 'there was no point to debating this anyway.'
People's voting privileges should be subject to review if they recieve more than three complaints and then they should be subject to termination after a warning if the votebombing continues. Enough is enough.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 10:15:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
This has been a problem for quite a while, but the solution is to just ask the community to counter those votes. People are usually vigilant about that.
Also, you cannot punish people just because they consistently vote for the side that they agree with. I rarely bother voting on debates in which my favored side is losing because I don't have any obligation to vote on debates and usually those are n00b-snipes. The exception to this policy is if I like the person who is winning and he or she happens to have beliefs that don't correspond with mine/is arguing for a side that I don't agree with, and that's really only one person I'll do that for. If that person is losing, I don't vote on his debates.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 10:19:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't mind giving names. Conservativepolitico and gileandos are repeat offenders.

Gileandos mostly votes on religious debates, and in just about all of them he gave the win to the theistic position. Bias is natural when voting, but there are limits...
"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
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 10:20:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 10:19:23 AM, 000ike wrote:
I don't mind giving names. Conservativepolitico and gileandos are repeat offenders.

Gileandos mostly votes on religious debates, and in just about all of them he gave the win to the theistic position. Bias is natural when voting, but there are limits...

I agree that Gileandos is biased, and I have conclusive proof of it based on my welfare debate with 16kadams. However, he probably doesn't vote on debates in which the atheist position is winning. That does not mean, however, that he is votebombing.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 10:50:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 10:20:59 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 8/17/2012 10:19:23 AM, 000ike wrote:
I don't mind giving names. Conservativepolitico and gileandos are repeat offenders.

Gileandos mostly votes on religious debates, and in just about all of them he gave the win to the theistic position. Bias is natural when voting, but there are limits...

I agree that Gileandos is biased, and I have conclusive proof of it based on my welfare debate with 16kadams. However, he probably doesn't vote on debates in which the atheist position is winning. That does not mean, however, that he is votebombing.

Even when the atheist position is winning, it turns out he still voted for the theistic position.

People seem to think that writing long and bias garbage exempts them from being accused of dishonest voting. He can write an essay for all I care, I'll still call him out on it.
"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
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 11:28:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
There are bias votes in every debate. It is especially annoying when people abuse source points. "Which debater on balance proved there argument with appropriate quantity and and appropriate interpretation of evidence?"

I would probably only vote source in cases where people claim a false statistic, claim a statistic without sourcing or make a misinterpreted claim about a statistic.

I often see people voting on who had more sources, or if you use wikipedia you you lose source points. Weak stuff.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 11:34:01 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The OP highlights some of most difficult to see votebombs. Many people just summarize one side's arguments as opposed to considering both sides and explaining why one side was superior. Often, they are difficult to get countered as well especially if the voter gave an RFD albeit a poor one.

The best thing to do is to get more legitimate votes on your debate to drown out poor RFDs or negate their impact.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 12:14:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
As people have stated, there will always be voting bias as long as individuals refuse to sit down, read the entire debate, demonstrate evidence of comprehension outside of subjective perception--or that they actually read the debate, and simply weigh the sides by virtue of arguments--not the pressures of pre-existing beliefs, positions, and so forth.

The best way is to counter it; it is an issue that can not be truly resolved--we can't direct anybody to change their voting conduct, though encouragement and reprimand may at least help--let alone risk a few quarrels, as seen with the Hitchslap conflict that did result in a few "misplaced" votes, or even being ignored. Considering how it is more or less a question of integrity, especially in regards to weighing the victories of a debate, as well as discernment and accurate discrimination, voting would do well to at least allow a member demonstrate his worth to a community...in one aspect. :)
"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
imabench
Posts: 21,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 1:36:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 10:19:23 AM, 000ike wrote:
I don't mind giving names. Conservativepolitico and gileandos are repeat offenders.

Gileandos mostly votes on religious debates, and in just about all of them he gave the win to the theistic position. Bias is natural when voting, but there are limits...

CP is not nearly as bad as some of the other people weve seen on here and you know it
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
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 1:40:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 1:36:40 PM, imabench wrote:
At 8/17/2012 10:19:23 AM, 000ike wrote:
I don't mind giving names. Conservativepolitico and gileandos are repeat offenders.

Gileandos mostly votes on religious debates, and in just about all of them he gave the win to the theistic position. Bias is natural when voting, but there are limits...

CP is not nearly as bad as some of the other people weve seen on here and you know it

Including some of the fellows, some new, some old, and some quite disingenuous in their activities.

Of course, I can't name all of them, but I spy with my little internet eye, a few of them on the road. ;)
"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
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 2:15:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 1:36:40 PM, imabench wrote:
At 8/17/2012 10:19:23 AM, 000ike wrote:
I don't mind giving names. Conservativepolitico and gileandos are repeat offenders.

Gileandos mostly votes on religious debates, and in just about all of them he gave the win to the theistic position. Bias is natural when voting, but there are limits...

CP is not nearly as bad as some of the other people weve seen on here and you know it

You're right. Conservativepolitico is worse. At least when noobs VB, it's easy to identify and counter. CP writes slightly longer RFDs, which, if you didn't read them, would seem legitimate.

I doubt he reads the debates he votes on. For God's sake, he didn't even know who was arguing what in my debate with Thett.

This was his RFD:
" "This shows clearly that God is not bound by the logic he created." You can't be bound by something you created. If we assume God exists, we must assume he created logic, if he created logic he is obviously not bound by logic. God is unbound by logic. This won the debate for Con. A really well done debate. I enjoyed reading it."
http://www.debate.org...

Now read Premise 2 of the syllogism in the 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
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 8:31:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Some of them are pretty bad. But what is the plan about it? The site is averaging something like 2 votes per debate. Restricting voting cannot do a whole lot since there are virtually no votes to restrict.

Maybe we should brain storm on ways to increase QUALITY votes, then we'd have some room to work about crap votes.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 8:54:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 8:31:46 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Some of them are pretty bad. But what is the plan about it? The site is averaging something like 2 votes per debate. Restricting voting cannot do a whole lot since there are virtually no votes to restrict.

Maybe we should brain storm on ways to increase QUALITY votes, then we'd have some room to work about crap votes.

I would assert that the reason people are afraid to cast ballots is specifically because they are either afraid of being accused of being biased/they don't want to deal with the drama or nonsense that potentially may follow.

To quote Oliver Wendel Holmes, though:

"The best remedy to bad speech, is more speech."

The same applies for judging...

I will admit though, that I was once a part of that problem. Then I stopped trying to convince those who voted against me why I was right, but rather tried to understand why they thought I lost the debate. It has been my general experience that the latter is a better strategy.

That is not to say, though, that some votes aren't biased. Many are... but that's unavoidable in many cases. Again, I reference Ol' Ollie.
Tsar of DDO
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 9:51:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 10:20:59 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 8/17/2012 10:19:23 AM, 000ike wrote:
I don't mind giving names. Conservativepolitico and gileandos are repeat offenders.

Gileandos mostly votes on religious debates, and in just about all of them he gave the win to the theistic position. Bias is natural when voting, but there are limits...

I agree that Gileandos is biased, and I have conclusive proof of it based on my welfare debate with 16kadams. However, he probably doesn't vote on debates in which the atheist position is winning. That does not mean, however, that he is votebombing.

I lost that debate ^, however I am open to redoing :P
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