Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

DDO Voting 101

Beverlee
Posts: 721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 1:48:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Please tell how you personally score debates.

How do you score Forfeitures?

How do you score for conduct?

Any other input is great!

Thank you!
Mysterious_Stranger
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 2:09:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 1:48:38 PM, Beverlee wrote:
Please tell how you personally score debates.

How do you score Forfeitures?

How do you score for conduct?

Any other input is great!

Thank you!

Protip: Never vote without putting a proper reason, especially if you have given more points to a certain side, or you will be accused of "votebombing" almost as quickly as you hit the "cast my vote button"
Turn around, go back.
lannan13
Posts: 23,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 6:48:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 1:48:38 PM, Beverlee wrote:
Please tell how you personally score debates.

How do you score Forfeitures?

Usually 4-7 points.
How do you score for conduct?

Any other input is great!

Thank you!
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 9:05:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
A forfeit of itself only loses conduct, which is one point. However, the person forfeiting usually loses arguments as well, because forfeiting usually means that his opponents arguments went unanswered. Sometimes the debater who didn't forfeit failed to make a prima facie case, meaning that his arguments were irrelevant to the resolution or contained an obvious logical contradiction. In that case, the forfeiting debater can win arguments. If the forfeit is in the middle of a debate and the person forfeiting returns, he may also win arguments by making up for the lost round with enough good arguments. when your opponent forfeits, pile on by saying anything you have to say about the topic so your opponent will have trouble catching up.

Conduct can also be lost by insulting the other debater with "my opponent didn't read my arguments," "my opponent is too stupid (or too ignorant of the topic) to understand my arguments," or by using bad language (which violates a site rule). A recent debate featured "my opponent is a fat kid." That's an ad hom insult. A fine point is that an argument can be insulted ("that argument is crazy") without a conduct violation.

In general, lying in arguments is not a conduct violation, because a debater is free to play devil's advocate in the debate. He doesn't have to be sincere.

Failure to acknowledge a source is a conduct violation, nonetheless the argument stands and must be refuted. So "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." would stand as an argument even if it is not attributed to Jefferson or to unknown 18th century origins. It's always permissible to use all or parts of what you wrote in previous debates without acknowledgement. A DDO debate, unlike a school assignment, is more about arguments than about originality.

An uncommon conduct violation is when the opponent doesn't debate the resolution, per "What I really want to talk about here is ..." A deliberate disregard for the apparent intended meaning of the resolution is also a conduct violation. If the resolution is "Beef is better than pork." and the debater argues that one should be a vegetarian, that's a conduct violation for refusing to debate the intended topic.

My opinions on these issues are not accepted by everyone. There are site rules about insults, abuse, and bad language. Other than that it's up to the voter to decide.
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 10:43:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
(The following is only my opinion. My opinion rarely aligns with the majority opinion here on DDO. You have been properly forewarned.)

The points that can be awarded, and why:

Conduct:
Forfeiting usually warrants the loss of this point, unless otherwise agreed on by the debaters or adequately explained and made-up for.

Abusive language, auto-win definitions, twisting the debate by semantics, and changing the resolution in mid-debate all lose this point as well. Ad hominem arguments (arguing against the debater, rather than his arguments) are both invalid logically and poor conduct.

Some debaters set up debates with impossible-to-fulfill burdens on their opponents, like having them prove a universal negative or giving them twenty separate arguments to defend against; these types of auto-win situations deserve censure. Many people will disagree with me, but I believe that the loss of the conduct point is justified for such abuse.

Continuing to argue the debate in the comments, especially taking voters to task for how they voted, loses the conduct point from my votes; again, not everyone agrees with me here.

On the other hand, if a debater is particularly polite and correct in their conduct with a unprofessional or borderline abusive opponent, I reward them with this point. Flawless conduct in the face of irritation deserves some recognition, even if the other side has not done anything quite bad enough to be punished.

Spelling/Grammar:
I usually do not award this point except in cases of intolerably poor spelling or syntax. A few typos will occur, given the medium; there should be some leniency. I do not count this against people who are just learning English if their efforts are at least semi-intelligible.

On the other hand, people who write five rounds of 8,000 characters each without inserting a single carriage return automatically lose this from me. I fervently believe in the use of paragraphs, and count poor formatting as a mark of a poor debater.

Arguments:
A debater does not have to be correct. His arguments can be pure fabrication, based on faulty premises and thin air, and still win these points. He does not have to convince you of anything; whether you change your mind on the topic is completely irrelevant to how you should vote.

For that matter, your personal beliefs/opinions/feelings about the topic are completely irrelevant to the debate, and should not figure in your vote AT ALL.

That bears repeating. DO NOT VOTE ON YOUR FEELINGS.

That is the most common abuse of the vote, here or anywhere else.

Your feelings are irrelevant. The truth of the matter is irrelevant. One can argue that Woden is the president of the United States and babies are blood-sucking alien monsters and still win, if one argues correctly and is faced with an incompetent opponent. If the other side never points out reality, you cannot make the point for them.

Award the arguments points on the merits of the arguments presented, not on your preconceived notions or any basis they may have in reality. You cannot make any arguments for either side that they did not make themselves; cannot introduce any evidence that was not introduced in the debate. If Pro claims the sky is green, gives a source backing his statement up, and Con never contradicts this, it is improper to award Con points for the argument he failed to make.

The debater that makes the arguments with the fewest holes wins this point, all other things being equal. There are frequent exceptions to this, however:

1. When an argument is made, but never contested; or at some point later on is no longer contested. This often happens where there are several separate lines of argument flying, and insufficient space to handle them all. This is a "dropped" argument, and if enough of these remain at the end of the debate to uphold one side or the other, award Arguments points accordingly.

2. When a debater forfeits multiple turns, especially at the end of the debate, he has effectively conceded his opponents arguments, no matter how unsound they may be.

3. When a debater waits until the very last round, after his opponent can no longer reply, and makes additional arguments or introduces new evidence. This is abusive behavior, losing the Conduct point, and none of these arguments or sources should count.

There is some room for rhetoric; sometimes a debater will be technically correct but wholly unconvincing, while his opponent has great sounding arguments that are not logically sound. Good luck judging these; you'll never get anyone to agree on how to do it. I try to judge arguments on the content, rather than the form, and handle the format with the spelling/grammar point.

Sources:
Oftentimes, this boils down to "Pro had sources, and Con didn't."

If both sides have sufficient sources to establish their points, I do not go through and count how many each have. The exact number is irrelevant; they just need to back up their statements. I usually do not award this point to either side unless there one debater backed up his claims and the other did not.

Sometimes, someone will try to use a blatantly unreliable source for their arguments, which in my opinion would justify awarding this point to their opponent, all other things being equal.

"Reliable sources" varies from debate to debate, too; there are a few debates where even things like encyclopedia dramatica and 4.chan are acceptable(?) sources, in context.

... and if you read all THAT, there is hope for you yet. I will now get off my soapbox.
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
Beverlee
Posts: 721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2013 9:11:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 10:43:57 PM, Chrysippus wrote:
(The following is only my opinion. My opinion rarely aligns with the majority opinion here on DDO. You have been properly forewarned.)

The points that can be awarded, and why:

Conduct:
Forfeiting usually warrants the loss of this point, unless otherwise agreed on by the debaters or adequately explained and made-up for.

Abusive language, auto-win definitions, twisting the debate by semantics, and changing the resolution in mid-debate all lose this point as well. Ad hominem arguments (arguing against the debater, rather than his arguments) are both invalid logically and poor conduct.

Some debaters set up debates with impossible-to-fulfill burdens on their opponents, like having them prove a universal negative or giving them twenty separate arguments to defend against; these types of auto-win situations deserve censure. Many people will disagree with me, but I believe that the loss of the conduct point is justified for such abuse.

Continuing to argue the debate in the comments, especially taking voters to task for how they voted, loses the conduct point from my votes; again, not everyone agrees with me here.

On the other hand, if a debater is particularly polite and correct in their conduct with a unprofessional or borderline abusive opponent, I reward them with this point. Flawless conduct in the face of irritation deserves some recognition, even if the other side has not done anything quite bad enough to be punished.

Spelling/Grammar:
I usually do not award this point except in cases of intolerably poor spelling or syntax. A few typos will occur, given the medium; there should be some leniency. I do not count this against people who are just learning English if their efforts are at least semi-intelligible.

On the other hand, people who write five rounds of 8,000 characters each without inserting a single carriage return automatically lose this from me. I fervently believe in the use of paragraphs, and count poor formatting as a mark of a poor debater.

Arguments:
A debater does not have to be correct. His arguments can be pure fabrication, based on faulty premises and thin air, and still win these points. He does not have to convince you of anything; whether you change your mind on the topic is completely irrelevant to how you should vote.

For that matter, your personal beliefs/opinions/feelings about the topic are completely irrelevant to the debate, and should not figure in your vote AT ALL.

That bears repeating. DO NOT VOTE ON YOUR FEELINGS.

That is the most common abuse of the vote, here or anywhere else.

Your feelings are irrelevant. The truth of the matter is irrelevant. One can argue that Woden is the president of the United States and babies are blood-sucking alien monsters and still win, if one argues correctly and is faced with an incompetent opponent. If the other side never points out reality, you cannot make the point for them.

Award the arguments points on the merits of the arguments presented, not on your preconceived notions or any basis they may have in reality. You cannot make any arguments for either side that they did not make themselves; cannot introduce any evidence that was not introduced in the debate. If Pro claims the sky is green, gives a source backing his statement up, and Con never contradicts this, it is improper to award Con points for the argument he failed to make.

The debater that makes the arguments with the fewest holes wins this point, all other things being equal. There are frequent exceptions to this, however:

1. When an argument is made, but never contested; or at some point later on is no longer contested. This often happens where there are several separate lines of argument flying, and insufficient space to handle them all. This is a "dropped" argument, and if enough of these remain at the end of the debate to uphold one side or the other, award Arguments points accordingly.

2. When a debater forfeits multiple turns, especially at the end of the debate, he has effectively conceded his opponents arguments, no matter how unsound they may be.

3. When a debater waits until the very last round, after his opponent can no longer reply, and makes additional arguments or introduces new evidence. This is abusive behavior, losing the Conduct point, and none of these arguments or sources should count.

There is some room for rhetoric; sometimes a debater will be technically correct but wholly unconvincing, while his opponent has great sounding arguments that are not logically sound. Good luck judging these; you'll never get anyone to agree on how to do it. I try to judge arguments on the content, rather than the form, and handle the format with the spelling/grammar point.

Sources:
Oftentimes, this boils down to "Pro had sources, and Con didn't."

If both sides have sufficient sources to establish their points, I do not go through and count how many each have. The exact number is irrelevant; they just need to back up their statements. I usually do not award this point to either side unless there one debater backed up his claims and the other did not.

Sometimes, someone will try to use a blatantly unreliable source for their arguments, which in my opinion would justify awarding this point to their opponent, all other things being equal.

"Reliable sources" varies from debate to debate, too; there are a few debates where even things like encyclopedia dramatica and 4.chan are acceptable(?) sources, in context.


... and if you read all THAT, there is hope for you yet. I will now get off my soapbox.

I read it, and I'm saving it! This is great! Thank you!
airmax1227
Posts: 13,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2013 9:53:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 10:43:57 PM, Chrysippus wrote:
(The following is only my opinion. My opinion rarely aligns with the majority opinion here on DDO. You have been properly forewarned.)

The points that can be awarded, and why:

Conduct:
Forfeiting usually warrants the loss of this point, unless otherwise agreed on by the debaters or adequately explained and made-up for.

Abusive language, auto-win definitions, twisting the debate by semantics, and changing the resolution in mid-debate all lose this point as well. Ad hominem arguments (arguing against the debater, rather than his arguments) are both invalid logically and poor conduct.

Some debaters set up debates with impossible-to-fulfill burdens on their opponents, like having them prove a universal negative or giving them twenty separate arguments to defend against; these types of auto-win situations deserve censure. Many people will disagree with me, but I believe that the loss of the conduct point is justified for such abuse.

Continuing to argue the debate in the comments, especially taking voters to task for how they voted, loses the conduct point from my votes; again, not everyone agrees with me here.

On the other hand, if a debater is particularly polite and correct in their conduct with a unprofessional or borderline abusive opponent, I reward them with this point. Flawless conduct in the face of irritation deserves some recognition, even if the other side has not done anything quite bad enough to be punished.

Spelling/Grammar:
I usually do not award this point except in cases of intolerably poor spelling or syntax. A few typos will occur, given the medium; there should be some leniency. I do not count this against people who are just learning English if their efforts are at least semi-intelligible.

On the other hand, people who write five rounds of 8,000 characters each without inserting a single carriage return automatically lose this from me. I fervently believe in the use of paragraphs, and count poor formatting as a mark of a poor debater.

Arguments:
A debater does not have to be correct. His arguments can be pure fabrication, based on faulty premises and thin air, and still win these points. He does not have to convince you of anything; whether you change your mind on the topic is completely irrelevant to how you should vote.

For that matter, your personal beliefs/opinions/feelings about the topic are completely irrelevant to the debate, and should not figure in your vote AT ALL.

That bears repeating. DO NOT VOTE ON YOUR FEELINGS.

That is the most common abuse of the vote, here or anywhere else.

Your feelings are irrelevant. The truth of the matter is irrelevant. One can argue that Woden is the president of the United States and babies are blood-sucking alien monsters and still win, if one argues correctly and is faced with an incompetent opponent. If the other side never points out reality, you cannot make the point for them.

Award the arguments points on the merits of the arguments presented, not on your preconceived notions or any basis they may have in reality. You cannot make any arguments for either side that they did not make themselves; cannot introduce any evidence that was not introduced in the debate. If Pro claims the sky is green, gives a source backing his statement up, and Con never contradicts this, it is improper to award Con points for the argument he failed to make.

The debater that makes the arguments with the fewest holes wins this point, all other things being equal. There are frequent exceptions to this, however:

1. When an argument is made, but never contested; or at some point later on is no longer contested. This often happens where there are several separate lines of argument flying, and insufficient space to handle them all. This is a "dropped" argument, and if enough of these remain at the end of the debate to uphold one side or the other, award Arguments points accordingly.

2. When a debater forfeits multiple turns, especially at the end of the debate, he has effectively conceded his opponents arguments, no matter how unsound they may be.

3. When a debater waits until the very last round, after his opponent can no longer reply, and makes additional arguments or introduces new evidence. This is abusive behavior, losing the Conduct point, and none of these arguments or sources should count.

There is some room for rhetoric; sometimes a debater will be technically correct but wholly unconvincing, while his opponent has great sounding arguments that are not logically sound. Good luck judging these; you'll never get anyone to agree on how to do it. I try to judge arguments on the content, rather than the form, and handle the format with the spelling/grammar point.

Sources:
Oftentimes, this boils down to "Pro had sources, and Con didn't."

If both sides have sufficient sources to establish their points, I do not go through and count how many each have. The exact number is irrelevant; they just need to back up their statements. I usually do not award this point to either side unless there one debater backed up his claims and the other did not.

Sometimes, someone will try to use a blatantly unreliable source for their arguments, which in my opinion would justify awarding this point to their opponent, all other things being equal.

"Reliable sources" varies from debate to debate, too; there are a few debates where even things like encyclopedia dramatica and 4.chan are acceptable(?) sources, in context.


... and if you read all THAT, there is hope for you yet. I will now get off my soapbox.

This was really nicely done. Thanks for posting it. I may use it, in part or in full (with your permission of course) for a project dedicated to explaining every element related to voting that will become a sticky in the DDO forums. You'll be given credit of course.
Debate.org Moderator
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2013 10:34:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/1/2013 9:53:01 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 9/30/2013 10:43:57 PM, Chrysippus wrote:
opinionated stuff.

This was really nicely done. Thanks for posting it. I may use it, in part or in full (with your permission of course) for a project dedicated to explaining every element related to voting that will become a sticky in the DDO forums. You'll be given credit of course.

Certainly. Like I said, there's definitely disagreement on when to award conduct and argument points; you may want to adjust this to better match the general consensus. You're welcome to it, though.
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
airmax1227
Posts: 13,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2013 10:44:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/1/2013 10:34:29 PM, Chrysippus wrote:
At 10/1/2013 9:53:01 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 9/30/2013 10:43:57 PM, Chrysippus wrote:
opinionated stuff.

This was really nicely done. Thanks for posting it. I may use it, in part or in full (with your permission of course) for a project dedicated to explaining every element related to voting that will become a sticky in the DDO forums. You'll be given credit of course.

Certainly. Like I said, there's definitely disagreement on when to award conduct and argument points; you may want to adjust this to better match the general consensus. You're welcome to it, though.

Yeah there may need to be some adjustments and edits (though I'm not implying anything specific)... but it's a great general statement of voting. The more views on it (especially as detailed as this one) the greater chance we have of creating the best guideline.
Debate.org Moderator
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2013 11:40:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 10:43:57 PM, Chrysippus wrote:
Continuing to argue the debate in the comments, especially taking voters to task for how they voted, loses the conduct point from my votes; again, not everyone agrees with me here.

I absolutely agree with you. Nonetheless, I will add nuance:

- You may continue the argument in the comments after the voting ends. You may also do clarifications, like, "Joe, you said that I didn't respond to Con's third point. The second paragraph of my second post dealt specifically with Con's third point. May I ask you to consider that paragraph, and to reconsider your vote." Or, "When I wrote 'comprise,' I meant compose. Sorry for the error."

But, if continue the debate in the comments, arguing with the voters, your opponent, or just with people who comment, then you are cheating. You are violating the character limits, and the turn-taking requirements. You deserve the FF (full forfeit (seven point forfeit)), but I don't know that anybody gives the FF for that; it's definitely worth the conduct point.

- Some people say that nothing you do outside the debate can affect your score for the debate. I disagree; if you insult voters or your opponent in the comments, then you lose the conduct point.

Spelling/Grammar:
I usually do not award this point except in cases of intolerably poor spelling or syntax. A few typos will occur, given the medium; there should be some leniency. I do not count this against people who are just learning English if their efforts are at least semi-intelligible.

If it's bad enough to make reading difficult or less pleasurable, then I'll award the point. Not for anything trivial.

Your feelings are irrelevant. The truth of the matter is irrelevant. One can argue that Woden is the president of the United States and babies are blood-sucking alien monsters and still win, if one argues correctly and is faced with an incompetent opponent. If the other side never points out reality, you cannot make the point for them.

You cannot make the point for them. But you can make it to them. That is, this is an educational site. If you tell someone how she could have done a better job, that's good. Just distinguish this advice from your RFD. Probably put it in a separate comment. I mix the dicta right in with the RFD, but that's probably inferior practice. I say something like, "Pro should have said X, but he didn't, so his argument fails. Con didn't point that out, though, so I don't get to base my vote on it." That probably confuses some people. But I hope it's educational for the debaters.

Sometimes, someone will try to use a blatantly unreliable source for their arguments, which in my opinion would justify awarding this point to their opponent, all other things being equal.

I vote sources when someone says "X is true." and cites a source that really claims X is false. If you misrepresent your sources, you deserve to die. I hardly ever vote sources except if I notice a misrepresentation.

The explanation of the source points needs clarification. Many people say, "I grant sources to Pro because he had more sources." That's wrong. If you vote sources to Pro, it should be because his sources (regardless of whether they are more or fewer than his opponent's sources) were more persuasive, because they were telling, because they helped him win the argument.

... and if you read all THAT, there is hope for you yet. I will now get off my soapbox.

Great post, Chrys.
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2013 12:09:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/1/2013 11:40:23 PM, wiploc wrote:
- Some people say that nothing you do outside the debate can affect your score for the debate. I disagree; if you insult voters or your opponent in the comments, then you lose the conduct point.

I forgot about insulting the voters; I guess I've not seen that happen very often, and when it did, the debater had already shown his colors as an unprintable son of an unmentionable in the debate.

Another point of conduct: asking people to vote for you outside of the debate, especially in PMs. When that happens, though, my usual response is to refuse to vote on the debate at all, rather than deducting the conduct point. I don't know if there is a reporting function for that now; Phil never used to care, so it was a choice between ignoring the abuse or raising a stink about it in the forums. I can see how this could be valid grounds for awarding the conduct point.

If the other side never points out reality, you cannot make the point for them.

You cannot make the point for them. But you can make it to them. That is, this is an educational site. If you tell someone how she could have done a better job, that's good. Just distinguish this advice from your RFD. Probably put it in a separate comment. I mix the dicta right in with the RFD, but that's probably inferior practice. I say something like, "Pro should have said X, but he didn't, so his argument fails. Con didn't point that out, though, so I don't get to base my vote on it." That probably confuses some people. But I hope it's educational for the debaters.

Yes, and well put. If it looks like they might benefit from it, a pointer or two on why their argument isn't strong enough; but I usually put those at the end.


I vote sources when someone says "X is true." and cites a source that really claims X is false. If you misrepresent your sources, you deserve to die.

YES.

The explanation of the source points needs clarification. Many people say, "I grant sources to Pro because he had more sources." That's wrong. If you vote sources to Pro, it should be because his sources (regardless of whether they are more or fewer than his opponent's sources) were more persuasive, because they were telling, because they helped him win the argument.

Good point.

Great post, Chrys.

Thanks, wiploc.
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2013 12:16:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 1:48:38 PM, Beverlee wrote:
Please tell how you personally score debates.

How do you score Forfeitures?

I tend not to read debates involving forfeitures, and just score one point for conduct.

How do you score for conduct?

Forfeitures (above), unintentional plagiarism, any insulting language, failure to adhere to the round #1 stipulations.

Any other input is great!

I read the debate and take notes via (very long) comments, and my RFDs tend to be my conclusions. In my conclusion I note what in the debate most impacted my perspective on the resolution based upon what I took note in the rest of my comments.

I note what was unaddressed by the other side, even if I found the arguments to be unconvincing. In substantive debates, usually this doesn't matter much and I just focus on the substance, but in lopsided debates where one side simply doesn't address the other side at all, this almost always leads me to vote arguments for the side that actually engaged with the opponent's arguments.

I do my best to implement a tabula rasa perspective on debates, so that my opinion, while ever present, has as minimal an impact as possible on my vote. This allows me to score against a side that would otherwise represent my position on a subject - for example, I am pro-military, but will vote against a pro-military proponent in a debate if their argumentation was simply not up to snuff...if I did not vote based on tabula rasa, I'd probably vote pro-military in nearly every debate I read on the topic.

Thank you!

You're welcome. =)
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Beverlee
Posts: 721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2013 12:21:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/2/2013 12:16:22 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/30/2013 1:48:38 PM, Beverlee wrote:
Please tell how you personally score debates.

How do you score Forfeitures?

I tend not to read debates involving forfeitures, and just score one point for conduct.

How do you score for conduct?

Forfeitures (above), unintentional plagiarism, any insulting language, failure to adhere to the round #1 stipulations.

Any other input is great!

I read the debate and take notes via (very long) comments, and my RFDs tend to be my conclusions. In my conclusion I note what in the debate most impacted my perspective on the resolution based upon what I took note in the rest of my comments.

I note what was unaddressed by the other side, even if I found the arguments to be unconvincing. In substantive debates, usually this doesn't matter much and I just focus on the substance, but in lopsided debates where one side simply doesn't address the other side at all, this almost always leads me to vote arguments for the side that actually engaged with the opponent's arguments.

I do my best to implement a tabula rasa perspective on debates, so that my opinion, while ever present, has as minimal an impact as possible on my vote. This allows me to score against a side that would otherwise represent my position on a subject - for example, I am pro-military, but will vote against a pro-military proponent in a debate if their argumentation was simply not up to snuff...if I did not vote based on tabula rasa, I'd probably vote pro-military in nearly every debate I read on the topic.

Thank you!

You're welcome. =)

;-)
Beverlee
Posts: 721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2013 12:24:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
See, I feel like crap when I score "against" someone. I have skipped a bunch of debates that I could have scored just because I like one side or the other.

I can hear it now! Then you need to grow up sister, you are in the tough world now... ugh.

But still, that's my bias. Lying about it wont help. So I doubt I will score many debates unless I am personally interested in them for one reason or another.

But how do you score against people that you like?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2013 12:35:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I agree with most of what Roy and Chrys said, with the following caveats:

At 9/30/2013 9:05:45 PM, RoyLatham wrote:

In general, lying in arguments is not a conduct violation, because a debater is free to play devil's advocate in the debate. He doesn't have to be sincere.

IMHO It depends on the lie. If one lies by manipulating known information in the debate, this would warrant conduct for me. For example, if one side said that "the sky is blue" and the other side said "My opponent said the sky isn't blue blah blah argument", this would be a borderline conduct violation for me. It would certainly skew arguments against the liar. Another "lie" would be blatant misrepresentation of sources. Depending on how egregious the misrepresentation was, and whether or not I was curious enough myself to look into the sources, I may score both sources and conduct against someone who did this.

Lying about one's opinion on a subject though would easily qualify for what Roy's talking about here, and in that sense I am in full agreement. For example, if I was pro-death penalty and used persuasive rhetoric arguing against the death penalty and stating how anti-death penalty I was, I'd be lying, but that's fine.

At 9/30/2013 10:43:57 PM, Chrysippus wrote:

Arguments:
A debater does not have to be correct. His arguments can be pure fabrication, based on faulty premises and thin air, and still win these points. He does not have to convince you of anything; whether you change your mind on the topic is completely irrelevant to how you should vote.

I strongly disagree with the underlined. If you change your mind on the topic, it is because one side obviously persuaded you away from your former belief. In such a case, arguments would obviously go towards the more persuasive side.

Now, given that your opinion on a topic didn't change, and you still disagreed with, say, PRO on a certain debate, you may still end up voting for PRO because maybe CON simply did not argue the position well. In this sense, I agree with the rest of Chrys's statement here.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2013 12:39:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/2/2013 12:24:06 AM, Beverlee wrote:
See, I feel like crap when I score "against" someone. I have skipped a bunch of debates that I could have scored just because I like one side or the other.

I can hear it now! Then you need to grow up sister, you are in the tough world now... ugh.

Wouldn't dream of it.

But how do you score against people that you like?

There is nothing personal about a good vote. Vote on their arguments, not on them. When my friends make illogical statements, I'm not being a bad friend to point out they aren't making any sense.

You aren't voting that one person is in any way better than another. You are only pointing out that one made better arguments than another. Logic has rules, like a form of mathematics with words; if your friend tries to tell you 2+2=57, it isn't in any way mean spirited to point out their mistake.
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2013 12:39:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/2/2013 12:24:06 AM, Beverlee wrote:
See, I feel like crap when I score "against" someone. I have skipped a bunch of debates that I could have scored just because I like one side or the other.

I can hear it now! Then you need to grow up sister, you are in the tough world now... ugh.

But still, that's my bias. Lying about it wont help. So I doubt I will score many debates unless I am personally interested in them for one reason or another.

But how do you score against people that you like?

Say what you liked about the losing side, and then vote against them. I do that quite a bit actually.

Usually there's a key point left unaddressed that persuaded me to vote against someone I liked, or whose argument I otherwise felt was more compelling. I state my reasoning in detail, state what I liked, and then vote based on my reasoning. Many times, I will give one or two points to the losing side because I did not feel that the winning side deserved all three points for arguments.

As far as just voting for someone because you like them, well, then you're not really voting on the debate, aren't you? =)
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Weiler
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2013 11:12:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/2/2013 12:24:06 AM, Beverlee wrote:
See, I feel like crap when I score "against" someone. I have skipped a bunch of debates that I could have scored just because I like one side or the other.

I can hear it now! Then you need to grow up sister, you are in the tough world now... ugh.

But still, that's my bias. Lying about it wont help. So I doubt I will score many debates unless I am personally interested in them for one reason or another.

But how do you score against people that you like?

I have scored a few debates in which I like the person I voted against, and agreed with their position before and after the debate.

Mainly, this would be because the forfeited rounds, used poor conduct or grammar, used no or obviously bad sources, and/or made particularly bad arguments.

I would also like to address a few of the comments above about debaters arguing in the comment section of the debate. Before voting, I generally did not read the comment section, since I feel what is posted there should have no bearing on the debate. A debater arguing in the comment section is generally bad form, however, there can be exceptions. For example, I have posted a couple times in the comment section on a currently ongoing debate (http://www.debate.org...) in which I am one of the debaters. I did not reference any of my opponents arguments, or expanded upon my own. I specifically pointed out logical fallacies in arguments made by an outside party that my opponent has not included in her arguments (and I it is likely she won't because my opponent seems rather intelligent and these are REALLY bad arguments).
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2013 4:41:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/2/2013 12:35:41 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
I agree with most of what Roy and Chrys said, with the following caveats:

At 9/30/2013 9:05:45 PM, RoyLatham wrote:

In general, lying in arguments is not a conduct violation, because a debater is free to play devil's advocate in the debate. He doesn't have to be sincere.

IMHO It depends on the lie. If one lies by manipulating known information in the debate, this would warrant conduct for me. For example, if one side said that "the sky is blue" and the other side said "My opponent said the sky isn't blue blah blah argument", this would be a borderline conduct violation for me. It would certainly skew arguments against the liar. Another "lie" would be blatant misrepresentation of sources. Depending on how egregious the misrepresentation was, and whether or not I was curious enough myself to look into the sources, I may score both sources and conduct against someone who did this.

Agreed.