Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

Why do conceders recieve a conduct point?

F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 11:12:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
This has been bugging me quite a bit and I am curious why a lot of voters give someone who conceded the conduct point.

For example, in SocialPinko's debate with LarztheLoser where Spinko conceded, TUF writes:

"Pro admits defeat, to con honorably." and gives a point to Spinko while giving the other points to Larz.

In another example in RoyLatham vs Lannan13's debate, Lannan conceded yet was given the conduct point by two people with RFD's of "Con conceded" and "Con R4" respectively.

In the debate between Logic_on_Rails and Stephen Hawkins (http://debate.org...), Stephen concedes, which results in RFD's of

"Forfeited but I gave him conduct since he at least had a good reason :P"

and

"Conduct to Con for notifying Pro he was going to FF"

This has happened numerous times across tons and tons of debates. We all know that these aren't isolated examples.

The Conduct point

The point for conduct asks "who has better conduct?" How does a gracious concession or notification of a forfeit cause the conceder's/forfeiter's conduct to be better than his opponent's? Why must the opponent lose the conduct point (and potentially a cleansweep/perfect win) simply because he was "graciously" conceded to?

To put things in perspective, I think it is justified to dock conduct points to people who forfeit without warning. Giving a notice or conceding should make them immune from being docked conduct effectively tying the conduct point. I see no reason to actually give them the conduct point.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 11:28:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/17/2013 11:12:33 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
This has been bugging me quite a bit and I am curious why a lot of voters give someone who conceded the conduct point.

For example, in SocialPinko's debate with LarztheLoser where Spinko conceded, TUF writes:

"Pro admits defeat, to con honorably." and gives a point to Spinko while giving the other points to Larz.

In another example in RoyLatham vs Lannan13's debate, Lannan conceded yet was given the conduct point by two people with RFD's of "Con conceded" and "Con R4" respectively.

In the debate between Logic_on_Rails and Stephen Hawkins (http://debate.org...), Stephen concedes, which results in RFD's of

"Forfeited but I gave him conduct since he at least had a good reason :P"

and

"Conduct to Con for notifying Pro he was going to FF"

This has happened numerous times across tons and tons of debates. We all know that these aren't isolated examples.

The Conduct point

The point for conduct asks "who has better conduct?" How does a gracious concession or notification of a forfeit cause the conceder's/forfeiter's conduct to be better than his opponent's? Why must the opponent lose the conduct point (and potentially a cleansweep/perfect win) simply because he was "graciously" conceded to?

To put things in perspective, I think it is justified to dock conduct points to people who forfeit without warning. Giving a notice or conceding should make them immune from being docked conduct effectively tying the conduct point. I see no reason to actually give them the conduct point.

In those cases, it's not so much a signal that the conduct was better on any one side as much as it is a recognition of the growth of the individual who conceded.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 11:29:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
It's to show that concession is better than wasting time. Without it, people b!tch and have to suffer through a week of waiting for an argument even though they've still won.

More importantly, it breeds good debating. If you cannot turn up to an event, state it beforehand. Don't wait ages to not do anything.
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...
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 11:45:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I have no idea. Why would anyone even care about receiving the conduct point if they're inevitably going to lose any way?
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 12:03:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/17/2013 11:28:17 AM, royalpaladin wrote:

In those cases, it's not so much a signal that the conduct was better on any one side as much as it is a recognition of the growth of the individual who conceded.

I guess that makes more sense than voting because the conduct was better on one side. I still think in a competitive debate, the "growth" of the debater is irrelevant to a vote. Growth can be acknowledged in the comments section. Further, how does a concession or a notice of a forfiet signal growth unless the member had a history of forfeiting without notice?

At 1/17/2013 11:29:24 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
It's to show that concession is better than wasting time. Without it, people b!tch and have to suffer through a week of waiting for an argument even though they've still won.

More importantly, it breeds good debating. If you cannot turn up to an event, state it beforehand. Don't wait ages to not do anything.

Both of these things can be acknowledge by not docking the conduct point and leaving it tied. Forfeiters usually lose the point on conduct so the lack of the docking is a valid indication that no poor conduct was shown.

At 1/17/2013 11:45:20 AM, phantom wrote:
I have no idea. Why would anyone even care about receiving the conduct point if they're inevitably going to lose any way?

I don't think they do. I am wondering more from the perspective of a voter - why a voter votes the way he/she does.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 12:05:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/17/2013 11:45:20 AM, phantom wrote:
I have no idea. Why would anyone even care about receiving the conduct point if they're inevitably going to lose any way?

I don't think they do. I am wondering more from the perspective of a voter - why a voter votes the way he/she does.

Yeah, exactly, but it seems the voter is doing it as like a reward. Just to give the conceder something. But since he's going to lose, he shouldn't care, so it's not really giving him anything at all.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
imabench
Posts: 21,211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 12:14:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/17/2013 11:29:24 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
It's to show that concession is better than wasting time. Without it, people b!tch and have to suffer through a week of waiting for an argument even though they've still won.

More importantly, it breeds good debating. If you cannot turn up to an event, state it beforehand. Don't wait ages to not do anything.

^ this
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
likespeace
Posts: 57
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 12:49:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Often the winning party concedes the conduct point to the party who conceded the argument, and so the justification becomes even more straightforward.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 12:53:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/17/2013 12:49:59 PM, likespeace wrote:
Often the winning party concedes the conduct point to the party who conceded the argument, and so the justification becomes even more straightforward.

I think that justifies the votes since the voters are merely doing what the debaters asked, yet - a) Voters often give conduct even when not asked and b) No idea why the debaters would concede the conduct point when they had no poor conduct.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 1:19:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
One reason can be that voters value the rare time when someone -- especially a prominent member -- admits to having no proper response, or changing his mind. Knowing that the member who conceded will lose, they give him the conduct point regardless to honor him and promote the good behavior that is to be open to changing your mind and admitting defeat.
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 2:08:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm with Stephen. Its just preferable to concede and give the win rather than forfeit all your rounds and make the opponent wait for a whole week for the it to finish. F-16 says you can reward that by not docking them conduct (since forfeiters usually lose it), but imo, actually giving someone a positive point rather than not giving them a negative one has more of a psychological effect. Its similar to how people would prefer the incentive of "if you do this I'll give you a dollar" instead of "if you do this, I won't take a dollar away from you".
TUF
Posts: 21,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 6:38:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
TBH, the only reason I do it, is because I feel bad for the contender. It's not like they are going to win anyway, so the points just there to say "Thanks for trying!".

Just because someone conceded in a later round doesn't mean they didn't put forth effort into the previous rounds.

I understand your point though. It's mainly just a token to let the other player know that their work didn't go un-recognized just because it was unfinished. If someone puts no effort into a debate, then I am more likely to give all seven points to the other person.
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
THE_OPINIONATOR
Posts: 575
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 6:59:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/17/2013 6:38:14 PM, TUF wrote:
TBH, the only reason I do it, is because I feel bad for the contender. It's not like they are going to win anyway, so the points just there to say "Thanks for trying!".

Just because someone conceded in a later round doesn't mean they didn't put forth effort into the previous rounds.

I understand your point though. It's mainly just a token to let the other player know that their work didn't go un-recognized just because it was unfinished. If someone puts no effort into a debate, then I am more likely to give all seven points to the other person.

Like the little trophy the others get that didn't place at various sporting events and competitions?
My Blog: Life Through The Eyes of a Christian

http://bloggingforjchrist.blogspot.com...

Life Through The Eyes of a Christian Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com...
tmar19652
Posts: 727
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 7:23:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/17/2013 11:29:24 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
It's to show that concession is better than wasting time. Without it, people b!tch and have to suffer through a week of waiting for an argument even though they've still won.

More importantly, it breeds good debating. If you cannot turn up to an event, state it beforehand. Don't wait ages to not do anything.

+1, rewards not wasting time and makes no difference in the outcome of the debate.
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 9:11:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/17/2013 11:29:24 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
It's to show that concession is better than wasting time. Without it, people b!tch and have to suffer through a week of waiting for an argument even though they've still won.

More importantly, it breeds good debating. If you cannot turn up to an event, state it beforehand. Don't wait ages to not do anything.
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2013 4:08:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/17/2013 2:08:12 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
I'm with Stephen. Its just preferable to concede and give the win rather than forfeit all your rounds and make the opponent wait for a whole week for the it to finish. F-16 says you can reward that by not docking them conduct (since forfeiters usually lose it), but imo, actually giving someone a positive point rather than not giving them a negative one has more of a psychological effect. Its similar to how people would prefer the incentive of "if you do this I'll give you a dollar" instead of "if you do this, I won't take a dollar away from you".

But if we had a competition where a couple of participants/group of participants were competing to see who can collect the most amount of dollars after a set period, then not taking away the dollar would have the exact same effect.

Your analogy is different since you are using a real life situation as opposed to a controlled study where the sole purpose is to get more dollars than your opponent. Dollars have intrinsic value by themselves, points do not. The only thing that matters with respect to points is having more points than your opponent. Further the value of points is skewed in a way that is different from dollars. I for instance would rather win a debate 30-0 than 40-10.

Moreover, the positive psychological effect if it exists is unjustified since not showing up for a debate isn't a morally better action than showing up and performing. Compare a debater who gave it their best shot but was beaten to a debater who informed his opponent that he wouldn't be able to show up. Why must only the second debater be rewarded and given a positive psychological boost (assuming the positive effect exists)? Actually showing up and giving a debate your best shot is ALSO the "right" thing to do.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2013 12:35:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If the opponent concedes rather than forfeits, there is no conduct violation, so theoretically conduct should be tied.

Still, I don't mind seeing someone who has gracefully conceded get a point for recognition of the courtesy of not forfeiting and making the three day clock run out. There's no harm, because it doesn't change the outcome. Of course, if the debate somehow became close, there'd be an issue.
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2013 2:50:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/18/2013 4:12:51 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
@ Mirza, TUF, Ryukyuzo and Stephen,

Why reward "showing up" any more than we reward "giving a debate your best shot?"

The idea is we want to incentivise conceding rather than letting the clock run out. If you go ahead and argue, that's even better -- but think of it like a trade-off. Conceding is the safe way to make 1 point. You won't win, but you'll get a point. Arguing means you have a shot at winning, but the trade-off is the risk that you might end up with nothing.
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2013 2:56:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/17/2013 12:03:26 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 1/17/2013 11:29:24 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
It's to show that concession is better than wasting time. Without it, people b!tch and have to suffer through a week of waiting for an argument even though they've still won.

More importantly, it breeds good debating. If you cannot turn up to an event, state it beforehand. Don't wait ages to not do anything.

Both of these things can be acknowledge by not docking the conduct point and leaving it tied. Forfeiters usually lose the point on conduct so the lack of the docking is a valid indication that no poor conduct was shown.

I'd contend that the point makes it more explicit and obvious to those looking on to the event with a cursory glance, especially to new users who are not even familiar with the "dock a mark for forfeiting a round".
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...
TUF
Posts: 21,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2013 5:08:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/18/2013 4:12:51 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
@ Mirza, TUF, Ryukyuzo and Stephen,

Why reward "showing up" any more than we reward "giving a debate your best shot?"

Like I said, you have a point, and I probably won't award points for tat anymore.

But as I explained before, it's just a token of recognition of effort that they put into the debate, just to concede later on.
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2013 5:32:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/18/2013 5:08:13 PM, TUF wrote:
At 1/18/2013 4:12:51 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
@ Mirza, TUF, Ryukyuzo and Stephen,

Why reward "showing up" any more than we reward "giving a debate your best shot?"

Like I said, you have a point, and I probably won't award points for tat anymore.

But as I explained before, it's just a token of recognition of effort that they put into the debate, just to concede later on.

At a certain point in an inevitable loss, the soon-to-be-loser has a choice - waste my time with a long-winded, useless argument, or tip the king, tip the hat and save me the time of reading a bunch of words that are being spewed for no other reason than the person enjoys the sound of their own voice (or they are an obstinate prick).

When they choose the former, given that it will be a 5pt disadvantage across the board, I say give 'em the token point as recognition of not choosing the aforementioned obstinate prick route.

They still lose, but they feel better about and it encourages other with sure-fire losers to let go of those losers at the point they realize that's what they're workin with.

win/win/win
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2013 9:15:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/18/2013 4:08:21 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:

But if we had a competition where a couple of participants/group of participants were competing to see who can collect the most amount of dollars after a set period, then not taking away the dollar would have the exact same effect.

If its the same effect, then it shouldn't matter. Voting 4-1 or 3-0 would be equivalent, so there'd be no point in criticizing one over the other.

Your analogy is different since you are using a real life situation as opposed to a controlled study where the sole purpose is to get more dollars than your opponent. Dollars have intrinsic value by themselves, points do not. The only thing that matters with respect to points is having more points than your opponent. Further the value of points is skewed in a way that is different from dollars. I for instance would rather win a debate 30-0 than 40-10.

Why? If you view voting 4-1 and 3-0 to be the same thing, then 30-0 and 40-10 would also be the same thing, and therefore, doing the latter over the former shouldn't bother you.


Moreover, the positive psychological effect if it exists is unjustified since not showing up for a debate isn't a morally better action than showing up and performing. Compare a debater who gave it their best shot but was beaten to a debater who informed his opponent that he wouldn't be able to show up. Why must only the second debater be rewarded and given a positive psychological boost (assuming the positive effect exists)?

The second debater wasn't the only one who was rewarded, because the debater who didn't forfeit was already rewarded by winning the debate. I agree that showing up and competing is a morally better option than forfeiting. Thats why showing up is rewarded by having a chance to win the debate outright, and forfeiting (without letting time expire) is worth less.
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2013 8:43:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/17/2013 11:29:24 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
It's to show that concession is better than wasting time. Without it, people b!tch and have to suffer through a week of waiting for an argument even though they've still won.

More importantly, it breeds good debating. If you cannot turn up to an event, state it beforehand. Don't wait ages to not do anything.
I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

http://www.twainquotes.com... , http://thewritecorner.wordpress.com... , http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com...
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2013 8:32:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Why do conceders recieve a conduct point?

Why does the perceived loser of a debate get any points at all? It's like those pathetic "participation awards" You lost, but were gonna give you a trophy anyway so your "feelings" arent hurt.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2013 10:15:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/18/2013 4:12:51 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
@ Mirza, TUF, Ryukyuzo and Stephen,

Why reward "showing up" any more than we reward "giving a debate your best shot?"

A good point. I'd say a solution would be a change in programming to allow 'downvoting' of bad behaviour. But we have to make do with what we got.

So on the issue: the conduct for the concession, in my view, makes it explicit that someone has done something honourable and useful to others by conceding and not having to wait 3 days to realise there's a forfeit (if not longer when talking of the debate as a whole). We show that a debate itself is good and has been given its best shot, though, by the comments in the vote, making clear whether you thought it was good or bad. For those reading the debate, the number of votes usually implies its worth, and what the votes say is usually a good summary. So the actual voting score is good enough to say "this debate was very well done".
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...