Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

Bad RFDs

GOP
Posts: 453
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 10:40:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
So, don't you just hate it when people give three sentence RFDs, but they don't really explain why that certain debater won?

Here's an example of a bad RFD

"I agreed with pro before and after the debate. Pro's arguments were respectful. S&G were great for both sides but Pro used his words better. Pro used basic logic to support his arguments and it was merely common sense"

Like, seriously? I kept on reporting a vote like this, and it never got removed.
Linkish1O2
Posts: 2,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 1:21:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 10:40:25 AM, GOP wrote:
So, don't you just hate it when people give three sentence RFDs, but they don't really explain why that certain debater won?

Here's an example of a bad RFD

"I agreed with pro before and after the debate. Pro's arguments were respectful. S&G were great for both sides but Pro used his words better. Pro used basic logic to support his arguments and it was merely common sense"

Like, seriously? I kept on reporting a vote like this, and it never got removed.

Not many people want to write a book of an RFD
"I am a mystery and to unlock the mystery at my core, one must simply embrace slendermans hug with no fear."- me

"I hearby declare myself a phantom in the darkness."-me
GOP
Posts: 453
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 1:22:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 1:21:14 PM, Linkish1O2 wrote:
At 6/19/2014 10:40:25 AM, GOP wrote:
So, don't you just hate it when people give three sentence RFDs, but they don't really explain why that certain debater won?

Here's an example of a bad RFD

"I agreed with pro before and after the debate. Pro's arguments were respectful. S&G were great for both sides but Pro used his words better. Pro used basic logic to support his arguments and it was merely common sense"

Like, seriously? I kept on reporting a vote like this, and it never got removed.

Not many people want to write a book of an RFD

I know, but at least they should write an RFD in a way that indicates they have read the debate thoroughly.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 1:23:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 10:40:25 AM, GOP wrote:
So, don't you just hate it when people give three sentence RFDs, but they don't really explain why that certain debater won?

Here's an example of a bad RFD

"I agreed with pro before and after the debate. Pro's arguments were respectful. S&G were great for both sides but Pro used his words better. Pro used basic logic to support his arguments and it was merely common sense"

Like, seriously? I kept on reporting a vote like this, and it never got removed.

Lol this is tyler5362's vote.

I think Airmax is leaving this up as it cancels out with ChosenWolff's vote, since that vote was also extreme.

But Airmax did want to remove it yes.

The problem is if he removes it, then he is capable of just voting again.... And he did vote again after his previous one was removed.

I agree it's an unacceptable vote given the size of huge debate.
Linkish1O2
Posts: 2,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 1:26:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 1:22:43 PM, GOP wrote:
At 6/19/2014 1:21:14 PM, Linkish1O2 wrote:
At 6/19/2014 10:40:25 AM, GOP wrote:
So, don't you just hate it when people give three sentence RFDs, but they don't really explain why that certain debater won?

Here's an example of a bad RFD

"I agreed with pro before and after the debate. Pro's arguments were respectful. S&G were great for both sides but Pro used his words better. Pro used basic logic to support his arguments and it was merely common sense"

Like, seriously? I kept on reporting a vote like this, and it never got removed.

Not many people want to write a book of an RFD

I know, but at least they should write an RFD in a way that indicates they have read the debate thoroughly.

Yes but some people can look at other RFDs and base opinion off of what they have found. A minor problem I have found.
"I am a mystery and to unlock the mystery at my core, one must simply embrace slendermans hug with no fear."- me

"I hearby declare myself a phantom in the darkness."-me
GOP
Posts: 453
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 1:27:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 1:23:06 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/19/2014 10:40:25 AM, GOP wrote:
So, don't you just hate it when people give three sentence RFDs, but they don't really explain why that certain debater won?

Here's an example of a bad RFD

"I agreed with pro before and after the debate. Pro's arguments were respectful. S&G were great for both sides but Pro used his words better. Pro used basic logic to support his arguments and it was merely common sense"

Like, seriously? I kept on reporting a vote like this, and it never got removed.

Lol this is tyler5362's vote.

I think Airmax is leaving this up as it cancels out with ChosenWolff's vote, since that vote was also extreme.

But Airmax did want to remove it yes.

The problem is if he removes it, then he is capable of just voting again.... And he did vote again after his previous one was removed.

I agree it's an unacceptable vote given the size of huge debate.

LOL yes, this is Tyler's vote. I just changed the words a bit because I didn't want to plagiarize.

Anyway, if Airmax doesn't want chosenwolf's vote to be there, then he should remove it. If he is using Tyler's vote as a counter, then Airmax would be contradicting himself since he personally messaged me that there is no reason why you would need to countervote. Also, he is capable of voting again, but he could have his voting privileges revoked.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 1:29:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 1:27:03 PM, GOP wrote:
At 6/19/2014 1:23:06 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/19/2014 10:40:25 AM, GOP wrote:
So, don't you just hate it when people give three sentence RFDs, but they don't really explain why that certain debater won?

Here's an example of a bad RFD

"I agreed with pro before and after the debate. Pro's arguments were respectful. S&G were great for both sides but Pro used his words better. Pro used basic logic to support his arguments and it was merely common sense"

Like, seriously? I kept on reporting a vote like this, and it never got removed.

Lol this is tyler5362's vote.

I think Airmax is leaving this up as it cancels out with ChosenWolff's vote, since that vote was also extreme.

But Airmax did want to remove it yes.

The problem is if he removes it, then he is capable of just voting again.... And he did vote again after his previous one was removed.

I agree it's an unacceptable vote given the size of huge debate.

LOL yes, this is Tyler's vote. I just changed the words a bit because I didn't want to plagiarize.

Anyway, if Airmax doesn't want chosenwolf's vote to be there, then he should remove it. If he is using Tyler's vote as a counter, then Airmax would be contradicting himself since he personally messaged me that there is no reason why you would need to countervote. Also, he is capable of voting again, but he could have his voting privileges revoked.

I guess so, the situation is a bit more complicated than this though... Given how the close the debate is and the volatility of those 2 voters. Basically it would suck if they were both removed and then they just revote just before the time limit expired and end up deciding the debate.

Also we have some history with the voters...
GOP
Posts: 453
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 1:30:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 1:26:03 PM, Linkish1O2 wrote:
At 6/19/2014 1:22:43 PM, GOP wrote:
At 6/19/2014 1:21:14 PM, Linkish1O2 wrote:
At 6/19/2014 10:40:25 AM, GOP wrote:
So, don't you just hate it when people give three sentence RFDs, but they don't really explain why that certain debater won?

Here's an example of a bad RFD

"I agreed with pro before and after the debate. Pro's arguments were respectful. S&G were great for both sides but Pro used his words better. Pro used basic logic to support his arguments and it was merely common sense"

Like, seriously? I kept on reporting a vote like this, and it never got removed.

Not many people want to write a book of an RFD

I know, but at least they should write an RFD in a way that indicates they have read the debate thoroughly.

Yes but some people can look at other RFDs and base opinion off of what they have found. A minor problem I have found.

That's pretty problematic since anyone could do that. Anyone could just avoid reading the debate and then just vote by using someone else's RFDs as their comments. This would be a good trick for biased people, since they would only care about supporting the side he wants to win. At the same time, this would be difficult since it's hard to remove their votes because they have provided enough justification.

This is why I think everyone should come up with their own RFDs. No basing it off others opinions or anything like that.
GOP
Posts: 453
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 1:31:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 1:29:20 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/19/2014 1:27:03 PM, GOP wrote:
At 6/19/2014 1:23:06 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/19/2014 10:40:25 AM, GOP wrote:
So, don't you just hate it when people give three sentence RFDs, but they don't really explain why that certain debater won?

Here's an example of a bad RFD

"I agreed with pro before and after the debate. Pro's arguments were respectful. S&G were great for both sides but Pro used his words better. Pro used basic logic to support his arguments and it was merely common sense"

Like, seriously? I kept on reporting a vote like this, and it never got removed.

Lol this is tyler5362's vote.

I think Airmax is leaving this up as it cancels out with ChosenWolff's vote, since that vote was also extreme.

But Airmax did want to remove it yes.

The problem is if he removes it, then he is capable of just voting again.... And he did vote again after his previous one was removed.

I agree it's an unacceptable vote given the size of huge debate.

LOL yes, this is Tyler's vote. I just changed the words a bit because I didn't want to plagiarize.

Anyway, if Airmax doesn't want chosenwolf's vote to be there, then he should remove it. If he is using Tyler's vote as a counter, then Airmax would be contradicting himself since he personally messaged me that there is no reason why you would need to countervote. Also, he is capable of voting again, but he could have his voting privileges revoked.

I guess so, the situation is a bit more complicated than this though... Given how the close the debate is and the volatility of those 2 voters. Basically it would suck if they were both removed and then they just revote just before the time limit expired and end up deciding the debate.

Also we have some history with the voters...

The good thing is that airmax can remove votes even if the time limit has expired.

Also, I am sorry that you have some history with the voters. I am sorry that people vote in a retributive manner.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 1:43:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 10:40:25 AM, GOP wrote:
So, don't you just hate it when people give three sentence RFDs, but they don't really explain why that certain debater won?

Here's an example of a bad RFD

"I agreed with pro before and after the debate. Pro's arguments were respectful. S&G were great for both sides but Pro used his words better. Pro used basic logic to support his arguments and it was merely common sense"

Like, seriously? I kept on reporting a vote like this, and it never got removed.

It's funny when I have a vote better than that it gets removed but those votes stay.

I voted on Zarroette's and gave an explanation, but it was removed. I think it might have been because I did the bare minimum explaining and added on the end "I may clarify further, if I feel like it". Anyway it was removed and I was forced to clarify further.
GOP
Posts: 453
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 2:00:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 1:29:20 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/19/2014 1:27:03 PM, GOP wrote:
At 6/19/2014 1:23:06 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/19/2014 10:40:25 AM, GOP wrote:
So, don't you just hate it when people give three sentence RFDs, but they don't really explain why that certain debater won?

Here's an example of a bad RFD

"I agreed with pro before and after the debate. Pro's arguments were respectful. S&G were great for both sides but Pro used his words better. Pro used basic logic to support his arguments and it was merely common sense"

Like, seriously? I kept on reporting a vote like this, and it never got removed.

Lol this is tyler5362's vote.

I think Airmax is leaving this up as it cancels out with ChosenWolff's vote, since that vote was also extreme.

But Airmax did want to remove it yes.

The problem is if he removes it, then he is capable of just voting again.... And he did vote again after his previous one was removed.

I agree it's an unacceptable vote given the size of huge debate.

LOL yes, this is Tyler's vote. I just changed the words a bit because I didn't want to plagiarize.

Anyway, if Airmax doesn't want chosenwolf's vote to be there, then he should remove it. If he is using Tyler's vote as a counter, then Airmax would be contradicting himself since he personally messaged me that there is no reason why you would need to countervote. Also, he is capable of voting again, but he could have his voting privileges revoked.

I guess so, the situation is a bit more complicated than this though... Given how the close the debate is and the volatility of those 2 voters. Basically it would suck if they were both removed and then they just revote just before the time limit expired and end up deciding the debate.

Also we have some history with the voters...

Also, what is wrong with Sagey? I think he gave a bad RFD too. He did the same with my debate!
JohnMaynardKeynes
Posts: 1,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 2:01:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 2:00:07 PM, GOP wrote:
At 6/19/2014 1:29:20 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/19/2014 1:27:03 PM, GOP wrote:
At 6/19/2014 1:23:06 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/19/2014 10:40:25 AM, GOP wrote:
So, don't you just hate it when people give three sentence RFDs, but they don't really explain why that certain debater won?

Here's an example of a bad RFD

"I agreed with pro before and after the debate. Pro's arguments were respectful. S&G were great for both sides but Pro used his words better. Pro used basic logic to support his arguments and it was merely common sense"

Like, seriously? I kept on reporting a vote like this, and it never got removed.

Lol this is tyler5362's vote.

I think Airmax is leaving this up as it cancels out with ChosenWolff's vote, since that vote was also extreme.

But Airmax did want to remove it yes.

The problem is if he removes it, then he is capable of just voting again.... And he did vote again after his previous one was removed.

I agree it's an unacceptable vote given the size of huge debate.

LOL yes, this is Tyler's vote. I just changed the words a bit because I didn't want to plagiarize.

Anyway, if Airmax doesn't want chosenwolf's vote to be there, then he should remove it. If he is using Tyler's vote as a counter, then Airmax would be contradicting himself since he personally messaged me that there is no reason why you would need to countervote. Also, he is capable of voting again, but he could have his voting privileges revoked.

I guess so, the situation is a bit more complicated than this though... Given how the close the debate is and the volatility of those 2 voters. Basically it would suck if they were both removed and then they just revote just before the time limit expired and end up deciding the debate.

Also we have some history with the voters...

Also, what is wrong with Sagey? I think he gave a bad RFD too. He did the same with my debate!

He did the same thing to me a while ago: there was a clear BOP for my opponent which he didn't fulfill, yet he awarded him a whopping 6 points because he agreed with him. He's one of the worst voters on the site. Heck, he's an argument for setting ELO restrictions.
~JohnMaynardKeynes

"The sight of my succulent backside acts as a sedative for the beholder. It soothes the pain of life and makes all which hurts seem like bliss. I urge all those stressed by ridiculous drama on DDO which will never affect your real life to gaze upon my cheeks for they will make you have an excitement and joy you've never felt before." -- Dr. Dennybug

Founder of the BSH-YYW Fan Club
Founder of the Barkalotti
Stand with Dogs and Economics
GOP
Posts: 453
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 2:03:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 2:01:54 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 6/19/2014 2:00:07 PM, GOP wrote:
At 6/19/2014 1:29:20 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/19/2014 1:27:03 PM, GOP wrote:
At 6/19/2014 1:23:06 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/19/2014 10:40:25 AM, GOP wrote:
So, don't you just hate it when people give three sentence RFDs, but they don't really explain why that certain debater won?

Here's an example of a bad RFD

"I agreed with pro before and after the debate. Pro's arguments were respectful. S&G were great for both sides but Pro used his words better. Pro used basic logic to support his arguments and it was merely common sense"

Like, seriously? I kept on reporting a vote like this, and it never got removed.

Lol this is tyler5362's vote.

I think Airmax is leaving this up as it cancels out with ChosenWolff's vote, since that vote was also extreme.

But Airmax did want to remove it yes.

The problem is if he removes it, then he is capable of just voting again.... And he did vote again after his previous one was removed.

I agree it's an unacceptable vote given the size of huge debate.

LOL yes, this is Tyler's vote. I just changed the words a bit because I didn't want to plagiarize.

Anyway, if Airmax doesn't want chosenwolf's vote to be there, then he should remove it. If he is using Tyler's vote as a counter, then Airmax would be contradicting himself since he personally messaged me that there is no reason why you would need to countervote. Also, he is capable of voting again, but he could have his voting privileges revoked.

I guess so, the situation is a bit more complicated than this though... Given how the close the debate is and the volatility of those 2 voters. Basically it would suck if they were both removed and then they just revote just before the time limit expired and end up deciding the debate.

Also we have some history with the voters...

Also, what is wrong with Sagey? I think he gave a bad RFD too. He did the same with my debate!

He did the same thing to me a while ago: there was a clear BOP for my opponent which he didn't fulfill, yet he awarded him a whopping 6 points because he agreed with him. He's one of the worst voters on the site. Heck, he's an argument for setting ELO restrictions.

Is my suspicion that sagey's vote won't be removed (despite reporting it many times) true?
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 2:03:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 2:00:07 PM, GOP wrote:
At 6/19/2014 1:29:20 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/19/2014 1:27:03 PM, GOP wrote:
At 6/19/2014 1:23:06 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/19/2014 10:40:25 AM, GOP wrote:
So, don't you just hate it when people give three sentence RFDs, but they don't really explain why that certain debater won?

Here's an example of a bad RFD

"I agreed with pro before and after the debate. Pro's arguments were respectful. S&G were great for both sides but Pro used his words better. Pro used basic logic to support his arguments and it was merely common sense"

Like, seriously? I kept on reporting a vote like this, and it never got removed.

Lol this is tyler5362's vote.

I think Airmax is leaving this up as it cancels out with ChosenWolff's vote, since that vote was also extreme.

But Airmax did want to remove it yes.

The problem is if he removes it, then he is capable of just voting again.... And he did vote again after his previous one was removed.

I agree it's an unacceptable vote given the size of huge debate.

LOL yes, this is Tyler's vote. I just changed the words a bit because I didn't want to plagiarize.

Anyway, if Airmax doesn't want chosenwolf's vote to be there, then he should remove it. If he is using Tyler's vote as a counter, then Airmax would be contradicting himself since he personally messaged me that there is no reason why you would need to countervote. Also, he is capable of voting again, but he could have his voting privileges revoked.

I guess so, the situation is a bit more complicated than this though... Given how the close the debate is and the volatility of those 2 voters. Basically it would suck if they were both removed and then they just revote just before the time limit expired and end up deciding the debate.

Also we have some history with the voters...

Also, what is wrong with Sagey? I think he gave a bad RFD too. He did the same with my debate!

I don't know. I did report it.

It seems burying your barely relevant RFD in lines of irrelevancy is a good way to smuggle in my bad RFD. I had the same with voters on my debate with Wylted on the PoE, where the voters barely touched on the arguments given and only stated what they thought about the conclusion (Neutral for example).

It can't be helped I guess, especially on sensitive popular debates, especially religious ones.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 2:03:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 2:00:07 PM, GOP wrote:
At 6/19/2014 1:29:20 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/19/2014 1:27:03 PM, GOP wrote:
At 6/19/2014 1:23:06 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/19/2014 10:40:25 AM, GOP wrote:
So, don't you just hate it when people give three sentence RFDs, but they don't really explain why that certain debater won?

Here's an example of a bad RFD

"I agreed with pro before and after the debate. Pro's arguments were respectful. S&G were great for both sides but Pro used his words better. Pro used basic logic to support his arguments and it was merely common sense"

Like, seriously? I kept on reporting a vote like this, and it never got removed.

Lol this is tyler5362's vote.

I think Airmax is leaving this up as it cancels out with ChosenWolff's vote, since that vote was also extreme.

But Airmax did want to remove it yes.

The problem is if he removes it, then he is capable of just voting again.... And he did vote again after his previous one was removed.

I agree it's an unacceptable vote given the size of huge debate.

LOL yes, this is Tyler's vote. I just changed the words a bit because I didn't want to plagiarize.

Anyway, if Airmax doesn't want chosenwolf's vote to be there, then he should remove it. If he is using Tyler's vote as a counter, then Airmax would be contradicting himself since he personally messaged me that there is no reason why you would need to countervote. Also, he is capable of voting again, but he could have his voting privileges revoked.

I guess so, the situation is a bit more complicated than this though... Given how the close the debate is and the volatility of those 2 voters. Basically it would suck if they were both removed and then they just revote just before the time limit expired and end up deciding the debate.

Also we have some history with the voters...

Also, what is wrong with Sagey? I think he gave a bad RFD too. He did the same with my debate!

Sagey always awards the atheist side more points. I honestly don't even think he reads the debates.
JohnMaynardKeynes
Posts: 1,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 2:04:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 2:03:01 PM, GOP wrote:
At 6/19/2014 2:01:54 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 6/19/2014 2:00:07 PM, GOP wrote:
At 6/19/2014 1:29:20 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/19/2014 1:27:03 PM, GOP wrote:
At 6/19/2014 1:23:06 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/19/2014 10:40:25 AM, GOP wrote:
So, don't you just hate it when people give three sentence RFDs, but they don't really explain why that certain debater won?

Here's an example of a bad RFD

"I agreed with pro before and after the debate. Pro's arguments were respectful. S&G were great for both sides but Pro used his words better. Pro used basic logic to support his arguments and it was merely common sense"

Like, seriously? I kept on reporting a vote like this, and it never got removed.

Lol this is tyler5362's vote.

I think Airmax is leaving this up as it cancels out with ChosenWolff's vote, since that vote was also extreme.

But Airmax did want to remove it yes.

The problem is if he removes it, then he is capable of just voting again.... And he did vote again after his previous one was removed.

I agree it's an unacceptable vote given the size of huge debate.

LOL yes, this is Tyler's vote. I just changed the words a bit because I didn't want to plagiarize.

Anyway, if Airmax doesn't want chosenwolf's vote to be there, then he should remove it. If he is using Tyler's vote as a counter, then Airmax would be contradicting himself since he personally messaged me that there is no reason why you would need to countervote. Also, he is capable of voting again, but he could have his voting privileges revoked.

I guess so, the situation is a bit more complicated than this though... Given how the close the debate is and the volatility of those 2 voters. Basically it would suck if they were both removed and then they just revote just before the time limit expired and end up deciding the debate.

Also we have some history with the voters...

Also, what is wrong with Sagey? I think he gave a bad RFD too. He did the same with my debate!

He did the same thing to me a while ago: there was a clear BOP for my opponent which he didn't fulfill, yet he awarded him a whopping 6 points because he agreed with him. He's one of the worst voters on the site. Heck, he's an argument for setting ELO restrictions.

Is my suspicion that sagey's vote won't be removed (despite reporting it many times) true?

It's unfortunate, but, by the site's standards, his vote could be considered "valid" even if you, I, and any reasonable person disagrees with it. That's why I think the voting system needs to be revamped. There are a lot of awful votes on both your debates and on others, but there isn't an awful lot to do about most of them.
~JohnMaynardKeynes

"The sight of my succulent backside acts as a sedative for the beholder. It soothes the pain of life and makes all which hurts seem like bliss. I urge all those stressed by ridiculous drama on DDO which will never affect your real life to gaze upon my cheeks for they will make you have an excitement and joy you've never felt before." -- Dr. Dennybug

Founder of the BSH-YYW Fan Club
Founder of the Barkalotti
Stand with Dogs and Economics
GOP
Posts: 453
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 2:17:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 2:04:33 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 6/19/2014 2:03:01 PM, GOP wrote:
At 6/19/2014 2:01:54 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 6/19/2014 2:00:07 PM, GOP wrote:
At 6/19/2014 1:29:20 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/19/2014 1:27:03 PM, GOP wrote:
At 6/19/2014 1:23:06 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/19/2014 10:40:25 AM, GOP wrote:
So, don't you just hate it when people give three sentence RFDs, but they don't really explain why that certain debater won?

Here's an example of a bad RFD

"I agreed with pro before and after the debate. Pro's arguments were respectful. S&G were great for both sides but Pro used his words better. Pro used basic logic to support his arguments and it was merely common sense"

Like, seriously? I kept on reporting a vote like this, and it never got removed.

Lol this is tyler5362's vote.

I think Airmax is leaving this up as it cancels out with ChosenWolff's vote, since that vote was also extreme.

But Airmax did want to remove it yes.

The problem is if he removes it, then he is capable of just voting again.... And he did vote again after his previous one was removed.

I agree it's an unacceptable vote given the size of huge debate.

LOL yes, this is Tyler's vote. I just changed the words a bit because I didn't want to plagiarize.

Anyway, if Airmax doesn't want chosenwolf's vote to be there, then he should remove it. If he is using Tyler's vote as a counter, then Airmax would be contradicting himself since he personally messaged me that there is no reason why you would need to countervote. Also, he is capable of voting again, but he could have his voting privileges revoked.

I guess so, the situation is a bit more complicated than this though... Given how the close the debate is and the volatility of those 2 voters. Basically it would suck if they were both removed and then they just revote just before the time limit expired and end up deciding the debate.

Also we have some history with the voters...

Also, what is wrong with Sagey? I think he gave a bad RFD too. He did the same with my debate!

He did the same thing to me a while ago: there was a clear BOP for my opponent which he didn't fulfill, yet he awarded him a whopping 6 points because he agreed with him. He's one of the worst voters on the site. Heck, he's an argument for setting ELO restrictions.

Is my suspicion that sagey's vote won't be removed (despite reporting it many times) true?

It's unfortunate, but, by the site's standards, his vote could be considered "valid" even if you, I, and any reasonable person disagrees with it. That's why I think the voting system needs to be revamped. There are a lot of awful votes on both your debates and on others, but there isn't an awful lot to do about most of them.

Wow, that must be a nice way to make people mad.
Sagey
Posts: 51
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2014 7:05:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 2:03:52 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 6/19/2014 2:00:07 PM, GOP wrote:
At 6/19/2014 1:29:20 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/19/2014 1:27:03 PM, GOP wrote:
At 6/19/2014 1:23:06 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/19/2014 10:40:25 AM, GOP wrote:
So, don't you just hate it when people give three sentence RFDs, but they don't really explain why that certain debater won?

Here's an example of a bad RFD

"I agreed with pro before and after the debate. Pro's arguments were respectful. S&G were great for both sides but Pro used his words better. Pro used basic logic to support his arguments and it was merely common sense"

Like, seriously? I kept on reporting a vote like this, and it never got removed.

Lol this is tyler5362's vote.

I think Airmax is leaving this up as it cancels out with ChosenWolff's vote, since that vote was also extreme.

But Airmax did want to remove it yes.

The problem is if he removes it, then he is capable of just voting again.... And he did vote again after his previous one was removed.

I agree it's an unacceptable vote given the size of huge debate.

LOL yes, this is Tyler's vote. I just changed the words a bit because I didn't want to plagiarize.

Anyway, if Airmax doesn't want chosenwolf's vote to be there, then he should remove it. If he is using Tyler's vote as a counter, then Airmax would be contradicting himself since he personally messaged me that there is no reason why you would need to countervote. Also, he is capable of voting again, but he could have his voting privileges revoked.

I guess so, the situation is a bit more complicated than this though... Given how the close the debate is and the volatility of those 2 voters. Basically it would suck if they were both removed and then they just revote just before the time limit expired and end up deciding the debate.

Also we have some history with the voters...

Also, what is wrong with Sagey? I think he gave a bad RFD too. He did the same with my debate!

Sagey always awards the atheist side more points. I honestly don't even think he reads the debates.

No, not always, it depends on the arguments, and I do read them, but I also judge on how much their arguments deal with reality, if their arguments don't measure up to common knowledge, such as some naive people think the Big Bang was an explosion sourced from nothing, which is wrong to anybody and an argument from ignorance, they lose my respect for not doing their homework.
That is how I judge, did they do their homework, as in constructing a debate, I expect debaters to do research.
If they show no sign of doing research and spout from the top of their heads, they lose my respect for their arguments.
Yes, I have voted for Theists in Theist vs Atheist debates, because the Atheist did not do their homework and were beaten by clever Theists who bothered to do research.

If people want my vote, they have to show that they have done some research.
Throwing an argument up with out research is only asking for trouble.

Besides, not many people are bothering to vote on DDO.
So they should be thankful that at least somebody bothered.
In some cases I have tied the debate because nobody made any sense nor did their homework.

If you are a clever Creationist like CreationTruth, and show some good logic and good research/sources, you may get my vote against some of the lazy Evolutionists who really don't understand what they are trying to support.
Many evolutionists I've seen in DDO, actually don't understand evolution.
They are as naive as many creationists.
I respect Creationists who really have studied the opposition and know evolution better than many of the Evolutionists on DDO.
9spaceking
Posts: 4,213
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2014 7:15:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
there was a time where ppl could vote for themselves in their debates. I really want Roy to win his debate about industrialization which happened in such a time, and his opponent gave all 7 points unfairly to himself. but the mod's don't seem to really don't care about such an old debate.... :/
Equestrian election
http://www.debate.org...

This House would impose democracy
http://www.debate.org...

Reign of Terror is unjustified
http://www.debate.org...

Raise min. wage to $10.10
http://www.debate.org...
ArcTImes
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2014 12:12:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Oh, I want to discuss about this. I know this is an old post, but now that there are 2 new comments, I'm going to ask some questions.
Sagey for example, says he votes considering the arguments of each debaters, and I try to do the same, but to what point. How should we vote? Here is an example.

Imagine that debater A and debater B are ... debating (what a surprise).
The point is that A uses bad logic to make his arguments and claims that he fulfilled his burden.
B doesn't attack the logic but tries to rebut the thing as if it was a good and sourced argument, and he is not able to.

How should we vote here? Should we consider the bad logic and don't count the points for A or should we consider the debating skills of both debaters and see that B didn't do anything to win the debate.

This is an exaggeration of what happens all the time. It's not that people use bad logic but, do things that could be heavily exploited or claim things that are not sourced.
What if there is a debate and someone claims that the sun orbits earth. It doesn't matter what's true, if B writes his round like accepting the claim, what should we consider as true?

This are things that I can see in my own debates. When someone writes his RFD, they notice claims that I didn't prove, but didn't have to because my opponent accepted them.

I ask because I want to improve my votes. Thanks.
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2014 1:13:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Before I get started going through these examples, just note that I'm providing my perspective on voting, and not necessarily the only reasonable one available. One can hope for every debate they judge to be straightforward, but that's not going to happen. Debaters aren't always going to make the decision clear. Even if both debaters are fantastic, the complexity of the debate can simply increase and thus the difficulties in voting can as well.

But what you've focused on here is just on the end of what the debaters did. There's an element involved with regards to how judges perceive debate. As I see it, judges can regard each argument through the lens of possibility or plausibility. You don't have to choose one or the other for all arguments, but you will have to select one or the other for each. A bad argument built off of terrible logic may still be possible, however faintly, whereas such an argument may be as implausible as it gets. Depending on the perspective of the voter, the interpretation of that argument may change dramatically.

Imagine that debater A and debater B are ... debating (what a surprise).
The point is that A uses bad logic to make his arguments and claims that he fulfilled his burden.
B doesn't attack the logic but tries to rebut the thing as if it was a good and sourced argument, and he is not able to.

Generalizing like this can be tough, and it depends partially on how bad the logic is and on how effective the rebuttal is against that logic, even if it misses the mark on a potential better argument. If the rebuttal is completely off base or fails to fully tack back the original argument with its bad logic, then the concern continues to exist, and now we'd have to worry about whether the logic stands on its own and will be accepted by the judge. In most instances, if the rebuttal is insufficient and debater B does not present any offense of his/her own, I'd say the debate goes to A. Bad as the argument may be, it would be the only positive argument in the debate, and without being fully mitigated, it remains the sole important point and therefore the winner. That is, unless the logic is so bad that it's obviously contradictory or nonsensical.

What if there is a debate and someone claims that the sun orbits earth. It doesn't matter what's true, if B writes his round like accepting the claim, what should we consider as true?

There's a term used by some judges to describe their voting styles called "tabula rasa" or "clean slate," which basically means that they come in with no assumptions about the world. The reality is that there's no one who could feasibly be tabula rasa, and anyone who claims to be is either lying or deluding themselves, and the reason is because we cannot distance ourselves from the facts of the world around us completely. Making an argument that goes against the basic facts (e.g. the Sun orbits the Earth) requires substantive evidence in order to change the minds of not only the debater's opponent but the judges' as well. My perspective is that the debater who makes the claim is responsible for proving it, and thus the lack of proof is on them, not on their opponent. Should their opponent decide to accept that argument, they may have a harder time winning the debate all the same, but that particular point is already lost to the original debater. It's his BoP, not his opponent's.
ArcTImes
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2014 9:52:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/12/2014 1:13:23 AM, whiteflame wrote:
Before I get started going through these examples, just note that I'm providing my perspective on voting, and not necessarily the only reasonable one available. One can hope for every debate they judge to be straightforward, but that's not going to happen. Debaters aren't always going to make the decision clear. Even if both debaters are fantastic, the complexity of the debate can simply increase and thus the difficulties in voting can as well.

But what you've focused on here is just on the end of what the debaters did. There's an element involved with regards to how judges perceive debate. As I see it, judges can regard each argument through the lens of possibility or plausibility. You don't have to choose one or the other for all arguments, but you will have to select one or the other for each. A bad argument built off of terrible logic may still be possible, however faintly, whereas such an argument may be as implausible as it gets. Depending on the perspective of the voter, the interpretation of that argument may change dramatically.

Yeah, I tried to make it simple, like if the debate had only one argument.


Generalizing like this can be tough, and it depends partially on how bad the logic is and on how effective the rebuttal is against that logic, even if it misses the mark on a potential better argument. If the rebuttal is completely off base or fails to fully tack back the original argument with its bad logic, then the concern continues to exist, and now we'd have to worry about whether the logic stands on its own and will be accepted by the judge. In most instances, if the rebuttal is insufficient and debater B does not present any offense of his/her own, I'd say the debate goes to A. Bad as the argument may be, it would be the only positive argument in the debate, and without being fully mitigated, it remains the sole important point and therefore the winner. That is, unless the logic is so bad that it's obviously contradictory or nonsensical.


So basically, there is not a rule for voting. One should find a balance on the debating skills of the debaters and how "good" their arguments are in contrast to what you know.
But, wouldn't this make debater B irrelevant in some of the arguments? I'm talking about this line "we'd have to worry about whether the logic stands on its own and will be accepted by the judge".
It can even have the problem of bias.


There's a term used by some judges to describe their voting styles called "tabula rasa" or "clean slate," which basically means that they come in with no assumptions about the world. The reality is that there's no one who could feasibly be tabula rasa, and anyone who claims to be is either lying or deluding themselves, and the reason is because we cannot distance ourselves from the facts of the world around us completely. Making an argument that goes against the basic facts (e.g. the Sun orbits the Earth) requires substantive evidence in order to change the minds of not only the debater's opponent but the judges' as well. My perspective is that the debater who makes the claim is responsible for proving it, and thus the lack of proof is on them, not on their opponent. Should their opponent decide to accept that argument, they may have a harder time winning the debate all the same, but that particular point is already lost to the original debater. It's his BoP, not his opponent's.

Well, but it doesn't need to change your mind. If it had to change your mind to be considered better than his opponent's argument, isn't that being biased?
Not necessarily with the sun orbiting earth, but what about something more controversial?
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2014 10:16:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
So basically, there is not a rule for voting. One should find a balance on the debating skills of the debaters and how "good" their arguments are in contrast to what you know.
But, wouldn't this make debater B irrelevant in some of the arguments? I'm talking about this line "we'd have to worry about whether the logic stands on its own and will be accepted by the judge".
It can even have the problem of bias.

There's always going to be some extent to which voting is subjective. But I think you're interpreting what I'm saying a little strangely here. Debater A produces an argument. That argument could have such terrible logic that there's little objective reason for anyone to consider it. If that's the case, then yes, Debater B is irrelevant, mainly because the BoP on that argument lies directly with Debater A. Debater B only has to respond if Debater A has at least initially me their burden. Yes, there is bias involved in the consideration of that logic, but I think there are objective measures that can be used to determine whether a specific form of analysis actually contains sufficient knowledge to support their case. If they're actively contradicting themselves, for example, I'd say that's straightforward.

Well, but it doesn't need to change your mind. If it had to change your mind to be considered better than his opponent's argument, isn't that being biased?
Not necessarily with the sun orbiting earth, but what about something more controversial?

It doesn't have to change your mind on whether the science could be wrong or not. It simply means that they have to address the current knowledge, and provide some logical reasoning as to why their argument should be considered alongside it. I don't think considering that argument requires bias at all - they should make it very clear why it should be considered, and if they don't, then it shouldn't be.

What do you mean by "something more controversial"? If it's an argument for something that's known to be factually wrong, then I wouldn't say it's controversial. If, however, we're talking about discussions of scientific theories that remain tense despite the evidence (global climate change, evolution), then yes, there's some possibility that bias will work its way into the decision, mainly because some people may view the threshold for establishing a decent line of logic as existing at different levels. I don't think there's much to be done about that, but good judges will allow the arguments to speak for themselves without their implicit biases playing a role in the decision.