Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

The Worst Kind of Vote.

CJKAllstar
Posts: 408
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 11:19:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
http://www.debate.org...

The second vote on my debate, is the most irritating form of debate. Ever, and a big problem with the voting system.

If you think a votebomb is bad, or a lack of RFD is bad, then you might have not experienced the vote where someone's RFD is complaining about something you did not even do.

The RFD on my debate about victimless crimes states,

" Con lost when he said all laws are made for the safety of all individuals. "

Now, I only said, "All law relating to crime is based around safety."

After all, that is the purpose of legislature against crime, and my made my point so clear and repeated over and over again that, "Law is about withholding the rights of everybody."

I don't care whether this is correct or incorrect. What matters is that the voter seemed to not read my argument carefully enough, and this made me think, what is the use of receiving votes or an RFD, unless the voter is experienced? Unless the voter is an expert, you are left with people who aren't the best, deciding on your victory. Unless the voter knows his stuff and can closely read and knows how to vote and give a reason, then what value does a vote from someone who isn't an expert have?

Voting is supposed to decide who is the best and reasons can be given to explain your choice. But if a four year child tells you that you are not good at maths, it means nothing. If a completely inexperienced fighter tells a black belt, sixth dan fighter that he fights incorrectly, the weight that carries will most likely be minimal. If he does have a concern, he will go to somebody who is more experienced, or will be confident in his skill.

I'm not saying that somebody who isn't an experienced is always worse than someone who is, but with voting it matters, because a win has significance. It means your arguments were stronger, you were more convincing or you were closer to a perfect debate than your opponent. It means that you had stronger arguments and that they were more effective. So when somebody has the power to decide that, when somebody has the power to say all of this, and explain why, he must at do it correctly, or know how to. If he does not, it devalues everything a win sends the message about, and gets rid of this.

So what am I getting at? A way to strengthen the value of a vote, not simply by being in three debates and mobile validation, but having a certain number of debates won. Now, early on, this will not work. The amount of votes will be lacking, but with the amount of people who have won debates now, this system will work. I propose, that you must have had a minimum of 15 debates, and have a win-lose ratio of at least 60%. So 15 debates and at least 9 wins allows you to vote as a minimum.

If you look at the person who voted, I don't want to specify his stats, but they are a perfect correlation between what I mean. I like winning, winning is good. But if it is in vain, then what use is it? And worse, if I lose due to bad votes by people who aren't very good at debating, then it is injustice. Yes, many people will be discouraged, but if you also add an incentive system with voting, in that voting gives you points for example, then not only is there an incentive to vote, but to win, then finally votes can have ground and strength behind them. Then voting will have value once again.
"Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." - George Orwell
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 11:47:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/18/2014 11:19:14 AM, CJKAllstar wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

The second vote on my debate, is the most irritating form of debate. Ever, and a big problem with the voting system.

If you think a votebomb is bad, or a lack of RFD is bad, then you might have not experienced the vote where someone's RFD is complaining about something you did not even do.

The RFD on my debate about victimless crimes states,

" Con lost when he said all laws are made for the safety of all individuals. "

Now, I only said, "All law relating to crime is based around safety."

After all, that is the purpose of legislature against crime, and my made my point so clear and repeated over and over again that, "Law is about withholding the rights of everybody."

I don't care whether this is correct or incorrect. What matters is that the voter seemed to not read my argument carefully enough, and this made me think, what is the use of receiving votes or an RFD, unless the voter is experienced? Unless the voter is an expert, you are left with people who aren't the best, deciding on your victory. Unless the voter knows his stuff and can closely read and knows how to vote and give a reason, then what value does a vote from someone who isn't an expert have?

Voting is supposed to decide who is the best and reasons can be given to explain your choice. But if a four year child tells you that you are not good at maths, it means nothing. If a completely inexperienced fighter tells a black belt, sixth dan fighter that he fights incorrectly, the weight that carries will most likely be minimal. If he does have a concern, he will go to somebody who is more experienced, or will be confident in his skill.

I'm not saying that somebody who isn't an experienced is always worse than someone who is, but with voting it matters, because a win has significance. It means your arguments were stronger, you were more convincing or you were closer to a perfect debate than your opponent. It means that you had stronger arguments and that they were more effective. So when somebody has the power to decide that, when somebody has the power to say all of this, and explain why, he must at do it correctly, or know how to. If he does not, it devalues everything a win sends the message about, and gets rid of this.

So what am I getting at? A way to strengthen the value of a vote, not simply by being in three debates and mobile validation, but having a certain number of debates won. Now, early on, this will not work. The amount of votes will be lacking, but with the amount of people who have won debates now, this system will work. I propose, that you must have had a minimum of 15 debates, and have a win-lose ratio of at least 60%. So 15 debates and at least 9 wins allows you to vote as a minimum.

If you look at the person who voted, I don't want to specify his stats, but they are a perfect correlation between what I mean. I like winning, winning is good. But if it is in vain, then what use is it? And worse, if I lose due to bad votes by people who aren't very good at debating, then it is injustice. Yes, many people will be discouraged, but if you also add an incentive system with voting, in that voting gives you points for example, then not only is there an incentive to vote, but to win, then finally votes can have ground and strength behind them. Then voting will have value once again.

It's your job to to educate your audience so they can give a fair vote. If the voter misunderstands something it's your fault. Einstein said some variation of the following quote.

"You don't truly understand something until you can explain it to your 83 year old grandma"
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 11:50:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
It would probably be useful to learn some rhetoric as well. Logic doesn't typically beat rhetoric. The smart voters will be persuaded by logic, but to deal with the bad ones you need to convince with some good rhetoric.
CJKAllstar
Posts: 408
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 11:57:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
It's your job to to educate your audience so they can give a fair vote. If the voter misunderstands something it's your fault. Einstein said some variation of the following quote.

"You don't truly understand something until you can explain it to your 83 year old grandma"

I knew this would come up, and I totally agree. But I wrote in bold letters, next to a see of plain text that, "Law is about withholding the rights of everybody."

I had a whole round based around showing the correlation between the human rights and law. Most of my rebuttal was supporting this fact. I had a whole round also explaining the major fault with Pro's argument.

I agree with you, but I made it as clear as I needed to for the purpose of this debate. Any more, then it would have taken up too much space and would have been detrimental for the argument.

I agree with that quote 100%, and I could have made it clearer and could have explained it to an 83 year old grandma, but when that might have been at the cost of the debate, I needed to find the balance between brevity and quality, which I did. I made it very clear and said it in layman's terms. The voter himself stated something that I did not even say at all.

You are right, but I did make it as clear as I needed to. Even if you can explain it to an 83 year old grandma, there is still a 90 year old grandma that won't understand, and that is the issue I have.
"Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." - George Orwell
CJKAllstar
Posts: 408
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 12:01:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/18/2014 11:50:47 AM, Wylted wrote:
It would probably be useful to learn some rhetoric as well. Logic doesn't typically beat rhetoric. The smart voters will be persuaded by logic, but to deal with the bad ones you need to convince with some good rhetoric.

I agree with that totally. But considering I'm fourteen and I've won debates by using the fallacy of relative privation, which is just a lame excuse of a fallacy, rhetoric is something I never thought of. I suppose it wouldn't be too much of a burden if I could ask for some help with rhetoric?
"Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." - George Orwell
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 12:09:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/18/2014 11:19:14 AM, CJKAllstar wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

The second vote on my debate, is the most irritating form of debate. Ever, and a big problem with the voting system.

If you think a votebomb is bad, or a lack of RFD is bad, then you might have not experienced the vote where someone's RFD is complaining about something you did not even do.

The RFD on my debate about victimless crimes states,

" Con lost when he said all laws are made for the safety of all individuals. "

Now, I only said, "All law relating to crime is based around safety."

After all, that is the purpose of legislature against crime, and my made my point so clear and repeated over and over again that, "Law is about withholding the rights of everybody."

I don't care whether this is correct or incorrect. What matters is that the voter seemed to not read my argument carefully enough, and this made me think, what is the use of receiving votes or an RFD, unless the voter is experienced? Unless the voter is an expert, you are left with people who aren't the best, deciding on your victory. Unless the voter knows his stuff and can closely read and knows how to vote and give a reason, then what value does a vote from someone who isn't an expert have?

Voting is supposed to decide who is the best and reasons can be given to explain your choice. But if a four year child tells you that you are not good at maths, it means nothing. If a completely inexperienced fighter tells a black belt, sixth dan fighter that he fights incorrectly, the weight that carries will most likely be minimal. If he does have a concern, he will go to somebody who is more experienced, or will be confident in his skill.

I'm not saying that somebody who isn't an experienced is always worse than someone who is, but with voting it matters, because a win has significance. It means your arguments were stronger, you were more convincing or you were closer to a perfect debate than your opponent. It means that you had stronger arguments and that they were more effective. So when somebody has the power to decide that, when somebody has the power to say all of this, and explain why, he must at do it correctly, or know how to. If he does not, it devalues everything a win sends the message about, and gets rid of this.

So what am I getting at? A way to strengthen the value of a vote, not simply by being in three debates and mobile validation, but having a certain number of debates won. Now, early on, this will not work. The amount of votes will be lacking, but with the amount of people who have won debates now, this system will work. I propose, that you must have had a minimum of 15 debates, and have a win-lose ratio of at least 60%. So 15 debates and at least 9 wins allows you to vote as a minimum.

If you look at the person who voted, I don't want to specify his stats, but they are a perfect correlation between what I mean. I like winning, winning is good. But if it is in vain, then what use is it? And worse, if I lose due to bad votes by people who aren't very good at debating, then it is injustice. Yes, many people will be discouraged, but if you also add an incentive system with voting, in that voting gives you points for example, then not only is there an incentive to vote, but to win, then finally votes can have ground and strength behind them. Then voting will have value once again.

...That voter looks awfully familiar... and the problem with his vote does too...

http://www.debate.org...

And hey, he's my second voter as well. Fun times... fun times...
CJKAllstar
Posts: 408
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 12:12:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
That is very interesting...

Your first argument in itself is already valid enough evidence to support your point. It is as if that voter flips a coin and only reads one person's argument, then votes. Now, if my system was in place...
"Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." - George Orwell
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 12:33:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/18/2014 12:12:51 PM, CJKAllstar wrote:
That is very interesting...

Your first argument in itself is already valid enough evidence to support your point. It is as if that voter flips a coin and only reads one person's argument, then votes. Now, if my system was in place...

Actually, I think it's just blatant bias. He's taking an opinion he agreed with before he read the debate, and voting for it with as little justification as he can muster. I don't think he even read through my R1 arguments, let alone the rest of the debate.
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 12:39:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/18/2014 12:33:08 PM, whiteflame wrote:
At 4/18/2014 12:12:51 PM, CJKAllstar wrote:
That is very interesting...

Your first argument in itself is already valid enough evidence to support your point. It is as if that voter flips a coin and only reads one person's argument, then votes. Now, if my system was in place...

Actually, I think it's just blatant bias. He's taking an opinion he agreed with before he read the debate, and voting for it with as little justification as he can muster. I don't think he even read through my R1 arguments, let alone the rest of the debate.

Someone did that on my debate. I was trolled, but the voter just said "That would kill the economy" and gave the troll all seven points
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
CJKAllstar
Posts: 408
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 12:40:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
http://www.debate.org...

Perfection. This is the epitome of what I am talking about. The same person, and he voted for someone who conceded.

This cannot continue.
"Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." - George Orwell
Romanii
Posts: 4,851
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 1:02:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/18/2014 11:47:45 AM, Wylted wrote:

It's your job to to educate your audience so they can give a fair vote. If the voter misunderstands something it's your fault. Einstein said some variation of the following quote.

"You don't truly understand something until you can explain it to your 83 year old grandma"

But a lot of the worst voters don't care to read your challenges to their votes... in fact, some of them don't even read your debate in the first place, instead just coming up with weak reasons to vote for the side they agree with.