Total Posts:4|Showing Posts:1-4
Jump to topic:

Weighting of vote categories.

TameHumanoid
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2013 4:15:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I did post this to the enhancement suggestions but I actually wanted to discuss this with people and thought that this would be the best way to find some immediate critiques.

This may have already been suggested more than once, sorry I am inexperienced with what comes up often int he forums topics and merely meant to propose something that I've noticed was a little fishy with the voting weighting.

If conduct and s+g are only worth 1 point each, and arguments worth 3, then why is it that the category requiring the least amount of hard work or originality is given more voting weight than two of the four categories being assessed?

Spelling and grammar also will differ between British and American English so, depending on which one the debater is using, a reader might see a mistake where in reality there was none.

Also, isn't having poor conduct supposed to abe a worse offence for a debater than having poor spelling and grammar? Surely conduct should have a weighting of 2 points whilst the subjective reliability of the sources used should be given a mere weighting of one vote.

Also, I am very surprised that there are not separate voting categories for rebuttals and constructive arguments since both are very different skills and both would be worth three points for rebuttals and two for constructive arguments each since one debater might have given lots of extremely good constructive points but then have been torn to shreds by a very efficient rebutter who unfortunately didn't have much to offer of their own points.

I am curious if such a voting system would be more preferable than the current one.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2013 4:25:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/24/2013 4:15:33 PM, TameHumanoid wrote:

Spelling and grammar also will differ between British and American English so, depending on which one the debater is using, a reader might see a mistake where in reality there was none.

That is true, but from what I've seen, people usually don't award points for spelling and grammar unless one side is just really bad in such a way that it can't be accounted for merely by the differences between the British and the Americans. I think there should be a point for spelling and grammar since some people are so bad that it's painful to read. Spelling and grammar contribute to good communication skills, and that's important in debate.

Also, isn't having poor conduct supposed to abe a worse offence for a debater than having poor spelling and grammar? Surely conduct should have a weighting of 2 points whilst the subjective reliability of the sources used should be given a mere weighting of one vote.

Some conduct is worse than others. For example, writing twice the word limit by putting half of your text in pictures and embedding the pictures in the debate is far worse than just calling somebody a name. There's only one of two ways to deal with this. You can either standardize conduct with a given number of points, regardless of the nature of the bad conduct, or you can make it to where voters can choose the number of conduct points they want to award. The latter options would probably create more problems than it solves, so I think the system we have in place, although not perfect, is better than the alternative.

Also, I am very surprised that there are not separate voting categories for rebuttals and constructive arguments since both are very different skills and both would be worth three points for rebuttals and two for constructive arguments each since one debater might have given lots of extremely good constructive points but then have been torn to shreds by a very efficient rebutter who unfortunately didn't have much to offer of their own points.

I don't think it's a bad idea to break the argument voting down into rounds where you can award points to one side or the other in each round. On the other hand, there's something to be said for simplicity, too, and the RFD allows you to assess rounds individually if you want to, then just to aware a point for your over all assessment. It seems like a good system to me.

I am curious if such a voting system would be more preferable than the current one.

The only thing I would change is that I would give more points for arguments. Right now, arguments are 3 points and sources are 2 points. So sources are almost as important as arguments. I think arguments ought to get four or five points because they are the most important thing in the debate.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2013 4:44:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/24/2013 4:25:48 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 5/24/2013 4:15:33 PM, TameHumanoid wrote:

Spelling and grammar also will differ between British and American English so, depending on which one the debater is using, a reader might see a mistake where in reality there was none.

That is true, but from what I've seen, people usually don't award points for spelling and grammar unless one side is just really bad in such a way that it can't be accounted for merely by the differences between the British and the Americans. I think there should be a point for spelling and grammar since some people are so bad that it's painful to read. Spelling and grammar contribute to good communication skills, and that's important in debate.

Also, isn't having poor conduct supposed to abe a worse offence for a debater than having poor spelling and grammar? Surely conduct should have a weighting of 2 points whilst the subjective reliability of the sources used should be given a mere weighting of one vote.

Some conduct is worse than others. For example, writing twice the word limit by putting half of your text in pictures and embedding the pictures in the debate is far worse than just calling somebody a name. There's only one of two ways to deal with this. You can either standardize conduct with a given number of points, regardless of the nature of the bad conduct, or you can make it to where voters can choose the number of conduct points they want to award. The latter options would probably create more problems than it solves, so I think the system we have in place, although not perfect, is better than the alternative.

Also, I am very surprised that there are not separate voting categories for rebuttals and constructive arguments since both are very different skills and both would be worth three points for rebuttals and two for constructive arguments each since one debater might have given lots of extremely good constructive points but then have been torn to shreds by a very efficient rebutter who unfortunately didn't have much to offer of their own points.

I don't think it's a bad idea to break the argument voting down into rounds where you can award points to one side or the other in each round. On the other hand, there's something to be said for simplicity, too, and the RFD allows you to assess rounds individually if you want to, then just to aware a point for your over all assessment. It seems like a good system to me.

I am curious if such a voting system would be more preferable than the current one.

The only thing I would change is that I would give more points for arguments. Right now, arguments are 3 points and sources are 2 points. So sources are almost as important as arguments. I think arguments ought to get four or five points because they are the most important thing in the debate.

You'd think, considering how much you wrote, I would find something disagreeable, but you said exactly what I would have said.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2013 4:46:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/24/2013 4:44:51 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 5/24/2013 4:25:48 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 5/24/2013 4:15:33 PM, TameHumanoid wrote:

Spelling and grammar also will differ between British and American English so, depending on which one the debater is using, a reader might see a mistake where in reality there was none.

That is true, but from what I've seen, people usually don't award points for spelling and grammar unless one side is just really bad in such a way that it can't be accounted for merely by the differences between the British and the Americans. I think there should be a point for spelling and grammar since some people are so bad that it's painful to read. Spelling and grammar contribute to good communication skills, and that's important in debate.

Also, isn't having poor conduct supposed to abe a worse offence for a debater than having poor spelling and grammar? Surely conduct should have a weighting of 2 points whilst the subjective reliability of the sources used should be given a mere weighting of one vote.

Some conduct is worse than others. For example, writing twice the word limit by putting half of your text in pictures and embedding the pictures in the debate is far worse than just calling somebody a name. There's only one of two ways to deal with this. You can either standardize conduct with a given number of points, regardless of the nature of the bad conduct, or you can make it to where voters can choose the number of conduct points they want to award. The latter options would probably create more problems than it solves, so I think the system we have in place, although not perfect, is better than the alternative.

Also, I am very surprised that there are not separate voting categories for rebuttals and constructive arguments since both are very different skills and both would be worth three points for rebuttals and two for constructive arguments each since one debater might have given lots of extremely good constructive points but then have been torn to shreds by a very efficient rebutter who unfortunately didn't have much to offer of their own points.

I don't think it's a bad idea to break the argument voting down into rounds where you can award points to one side or the other in each round. On the other hand, there's something to be said for simplicity, too, and the RFD allows you to assess rounds individually if you want to, then just to aware a point for your over all assessment. It seems like a good system to me.

I am curious if such a voting system would be more preferable than the current one.

The only thing I would change is that I would give more points for arguments. Right now, arguments are 3 points and sources are 2 points. So sources are almost as important as arguments. I think arguments ought to get four or five points because they are the most important thing in the debate.

You'd think, considering how much you wrote, I would find something disagreeable, but you said exactly what I would have said.

Great minds think like me. :-)
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle