Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

In-depth Voting Guide

bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2015 1:10:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
== DDO Voting Guide ==

This is a guide to voting on DDO. Bsh1 also put together a voting guide for the 7 point system which can be found here: https://docs.google.com...

Bsh1's guide covers when it is permissible to award points like spelling and grammar, conduct, and sources. This guide covers mostly how to evaluate who had better arguments and what will get your vote removed by a moderator.

Offense and defense

Unlike football, for debate the best offense is not a good defense. The best and only offense is a good offense.

An offensive argument is a reason to vote for your side. A defensive argument is one that mitigates your opponent"s case. For example, imagine the topic: the US should adopt an assault weapons ban. You are Con. An offensive argument would be that assault weapons empirically act as a crime deterrent, so banning assault weapons would increase crime. A defensive argument would be that past assault weapons bans have failed to significantly reduce crime. The former argument is a reason that an assault weapons ban is bad. The latter argument is merely a reason that an assault weapons is not as good as Pro might claim.

Voters should only be voting for offensive arguments. Defensive arguments, on their own, cannot logically form a basis for decision because they only mitigate the opponent"s case. They don"t provide an actual reason to vote for a particular side.

Impact analysis

A good offensive argument has a link and an impact. A link is the explanation of how the argument relates to the resolution. An impact is the reason to vote for your side. Take, for example, the topic: Iran poses a greater threat to the United States than North Korea. You are Pro. You run an argument about Iran cutting off the Strait of Hormuz. The link is that Iran has the military capability to cut off all access to the Strait of Hormuz and has threatened to so in the past. The impact is that if Iran cut off the Strait of Hormuz, the US would lose access to Middle Eastern oil, which would cause a large uptick in oil prices.

In contrast, Con argues that North Korea might launch nuclear weapons at the United States. The link is that North Korea has operational nuclear weapons and has threatened to use them against the United States in the past. The impact is that a nuclear explosion in Los Angeles would kill 10 million Americans.

As the judge, you have to weigh Pro"s Strait of Hormuz argument against Con"s nuclear attack argument. For impact analysis, you are supposed to consider probability and magnitude. Probability is the likelihood that the impact will happen. Magnitude is the total size of the impact. A nuclear attack has a greater magnitude because 10 million lives is a much bigger impact than higher oil prices. However, given that the United States would retaliate against North Korea using nuclear weapons, North Korea would likely be deterred from launching a nuclear attack, so the probability of this impact is low. In contrast, Iran is far more likely to cut off the Strait of Hormuz given that the current Revolutionary Government has shown a willingness to resort to extreme tactics, such as when it took over the United States embassy in Iran. So the judge could still vote Pro, even though the magnitude of the impacts are smaller, because the probability of Iran harming the US by cutting off the Strait of Hormuz is much higher.

A good RFD should engage in impact analysis and consider both probability and magnitude.

If you cannot fit your RFD within the 1,000 character limit, say "RFD in comments," and leave your RFD in the comments section of the debate.

[A more extensive explanation of offense/defense and impact analysis can be found here: http://www.debate.org...]
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2015 1:12:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
What makes an RFD so bad that it will be removed by a moderator?

There are a few general things that will get your vote removed:

(1) Failing to explain every single point you award.

If you award conduct and argument points and explain why you awarded arguments, but fail to explain why you awarded conduct, your vote will be removed.

(2) Failing to explain *why* you awarded a point

This is slightly different than #1. You may have mentioned every single point category you awarded in your RFD, but you failed to explain why you awarded that point. If you say, "Con had much better arguments," you are merely reciting that Con had better arguments; you have failed to explain why Con had better arguments. An RFD is meant to give valuable feedback to the debaters, so you need to explain why you awarded a particular point.

(3) Failing to be specific enough

If your RFD could be copy-pasted into any debate and it would still make sense, you are not being specific enough. If you say, "Con had better arguments because Pro used some straw man arguments, Con didn"t have very good rebuttals, and Pro had a strong case," then you are being too generic in your RFD. You need to explain which of Pro"s arguments were straw men and why these arguments were important in the debate, such that Pro losing those arguments cost Pro the debate. You need to explain why Con"s rebuttals were bad, and which of Pro"s arguments were insufficiently refuted, and why those arguments swayed you to Pro"s side. And you need to explain which arguments in Pro"s case were strong, and why those arguments convinced you to vote Pro.

(4) Voting based on personal bias

If your RFD mentions that you voted for the side you agreed with before the debate, your vote will be removed. Debate is an intellectual exercise. You are supposed to vote for the side that performed better in the debate, not the side you happened to agree with beforehand. To do this, you are supposed to be a tabula rasa judge. "Tabula rasa" means "blank slate." You are supposed to evaluate the debate from the perspective of an unbiased third party who has no opinion about the topic and has no prior knowledge about the subject matter of the debate. Vote the way that a reasonable non-biased third party would vote. So if your RFD references that you found one side more persuasive because you were already predisposed to believe that side, your RFD will be removed because you are not giving the debater whose side you already disagreed with a fair chance in the debate.

Competitive debate in real life is switch-side debate, meaning the debaters have to advocate on both sides of the topic. So debates will often have to advocate for a position they disagree with. It"s unfair to penalize someone merely because they happened to be taking a position in a debate that you already disagreed with.

(5) Piggybacking off someone else"s RFD

It is impermissible to reference someone else"s RFD as the reason you voted. For example, you can"t say, "I voted Con for basically the reasons in Ragnar"s RFD." This is impermissible because: (a) you have to do your own work; your obligation is to provide independent and helpful feedback to the debaters, and (b) you are supposed to form your decision about the outcome of the debate without reading other people"s RFDs. You can read other RFDs after you have already reached a decision, but not before. You should only be reading the debate before making a decision -- you should not read comments, RFDs, or anything else that might sway you. So referencing someone else"s RFD in your own RFD leads to the inference that you were improperly persuaded by someone else"s RFD, which is unfair because if you vote Pro, it shouldn"t be because of the way someone else summed up Pro"s position in their RFD. It can only be based on things Pro said.

(6) Referencing arguments not made in the debate

You"re only allowed to vote on things the debaters actually said. You shouldn"t be using your own arguments to rebut something a debater said, or as a reason to vote for a particular side. Raising your own arguments means you are not being a tabula rasa judge. A tabula rasa judge is supposed to be an unbiased third party with no outside knowledge of the topic. If you make your own arguments, you are allowing your outside knowledge to sway you.

(7) Your RFD just doesn"t make sense, says something that is objectively false, contradicts itself, or you voted for the wrong side

This should be self-explanatory. If your RFD"s reason for voting just doesn"t make any sense, claims that Pro or Con did something that they did not actually do, or says that Pro had better arguments but you accidentally voted Con, your vote will be removed.

(8) Awarding arguments, sources, conduct, or S&G for impermissible reasons

Arguments. The point is "more convincing arguments." Saying that one side had a longer argument or a better structured argument is not a valid reason for awarding the argument point. The point should be awarded for substance, not structure.

Sources. Sources should only be awarded because one side had better quality sources. Saying that one side had more sources is never going to be sufficient. If one side had so few sources that it constituted inadequate source support, then you can consider quantity. But normally, you need to show that one side had sources of superior quality.

Spelling and grammar. You need to explain with some specificity what was so bad about one side"s grammar or spelling. And you should only be awarding the point if the errors were so bad that they hurt readability. A single spelling error is not a sufficient reason to award the point.

Conduct. The violation needs to be relatively serious. You can"t award conduct just because one debater was slightly nicer. And you shouldn"t use conduct to double vote (such as by awarding conduct because one side used a logical fallacy, which should be reflected under the argument point vote).

[You can find a more in-depth explanation of my thought process when removing votes here: http://www.debate.org...]
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2015 1:16:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Loss of voting privileges

Repeated bad voting will result in your voting privileges being suspended. Your privileges an also be suspended if you are a new user and you issue a vote that is so bad that it is clear you are not aware of the site standards for voting (e.g. placing only a single "." in the RFD field for a seven point vote). You can gain privileges back at the moderators' discretion only when we become convinced that you have educated yourself about how to properly vote on the site. That includes, at a minimum, reading this guide and leaving a sufficient RFD in the comments section of a qualifying debate (a traditional debate, with 3 full rounds of at least 4,000 characters of arguments, and no forfeits).

You can also read my Terrible RFD of the Week series to see what makes a good and bad RFD. I go through other people"s RFDs and analyze them and explain what makes them good or bad.

TRW Week 1: http://www.debate.org...

TRW Week 2: http://www.debate.org...

TRW Week 3 (by guest contributor Whiteflame): http://www.debate.org...

TRW Week 4: http://www.debate.org...

I also recommend you read through some RFDs by former competitive debates (like me and whiteflame) to see how to write a good RFD. You can look through our voting histories here:

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

Me: http://www.debate.org...
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2015 1:29:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
[Disclaimer: This guide is not exhaustive. Users often seem to find new and creative ways to vote in manners that are unfair, inadequate, or strategic. Just because your vote doesn't fall into one of the eight categories listed above does not necessarily mean it will not be removed. But if you generally vote in a good faith effort to provide legitimate and specific feedback to the debaters and you vote honestly - without fudging a point here and there to try to make your vote count for more - then you should be fine.]
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2015 1:42:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/11/2015 1:33:09 AM, Wylted wrote:
I'll be sending a copy of this guide to anyone who votes against me for now on.

Lol.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Biodome
Posts: 138
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2015 2:29:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/11/2015 1:12:43 AM, bluesteel wrote:
If your RFD mentions that you voted for the side you agreed with before the debate, your vote will be removed.

It is very often the case, at least with me, that I will have an initial opinion on the topic of a debate. However, I don't see why it necessarily means that my vote would be biased and should be removed. I would still vote objectively, trying to meet the requirements of the RFD, and I could certainly vote for either position, as I would be taking into account reason and quality of the arguments, rather than opinion.

Do you suggest that I should only vote for debates where I have no initial opinion at all? Because this would severely limit my participation in voting, because, as I have said, such debates are quite rare. Also removing such votes would be an incentive to act dishonestly and tick "Tied" options for opinion.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2015 3:01:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/11/2015 2:29:29 AM, Biodome wrote:
At 5/11/2015 1:12:43 AM, bluesteel wrote:
If your RFD mentions that you voted for the side you agreed with before the debate, your vote will be removed.

It is very often the case, at least with me, that I will have an initial opinion on the topic of a debate. However, I don't see why it necessarily means that my vote would be biased and should be removed. I would still vote objectively, trying to meet the requirements of the RFD, and I could certainly vote for either position, as I would be taking into account reason and quality of the arguments, rather than opinion.

Do you suggest that I should only vote for debates where I have no initial opinion at all? Because this would severely limit my participation in voting, because, as I have said, such debates are quite rare. Also removing such votes would be an incentive to act dishonestly and tick "Tied" options for opinion.

An RFD is a place to explain your "reason for decision." It's all the things that helped you decide. There's really no reason to mention that you voted for Pro and you happen to also agree with Pro, unless that formed part of your basis of decision.

I'm not saying that you can only vote on debates you have no opinion on. Just be tabula rasa, and don't let your personal opinion enter into your RFD (including there's no reason to mention it in your RFD at all).
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Biodome
Posts: 138
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2015 5:05:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/11/2015 3:01:38 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 5/11/2015 2:29:29 AM, Biodome wrote:
At 5/11/2015 1:12:43 AM, bluesteel wrote:
If your RFD mentions that you voted for the side you agreed with before the debate, your vote will be removed.

It is very often the case, at least with me, that I will have an initial opinion on the topic of a debate. However, I don't see why it necessarily means that my vote would be biased and should be removed. I would still vote objectively, trying to meet the requirements of the RFD, and I could certainly vote for either position, as I would be taking into account reason and quality of the arguments, rather than opinion.

Do you suggest that I should only vote for debates where I have no initial opinion at all? Because this would severely limit my participation in voting, because, as I have said, such debates are quite rare. Also removing such votes would be an incentive to act dishonestly and tick "Tied" options for opinion.

An RFD is a place to explain your "reason for decision." It's all the things that helped you decide. There's really no reason to mention that you voted for Pro and you happen to also agree with Pro, unless that formed part of your basis of decision.

I'm not saying that you can only vote on debates you have no opinion on. Just be tabula rasa, and don't let your personal opinion enter into your RFD (including there's no reason to mention it in your RFD at all).

Ok, this makes sense now. I've been assuming that you should choose your opinion option even if it does not impact your vote, as it's worth 0 points anyway.

So, if I understand correctly, you should only use that option only if it impacts the vote? Would anyone actually cast such a vote, knowing that it would be deleted? Or are there exceptions to that?
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2015 6:31:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/11/2015 5:05:08 AM, Biodome wrote:
At 5/11/2015 3:01:38 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 5/11/2015 2:29:29 AM, Biodome wrote:
At 5/11/2015 1:12:43 AM, bluesteel wrote:
If your RFD mentions that you voted for the side you agreed with before the debate, your vote will be removed.

It is very often the case, at least with me, that I will have an initial opinion on the topic of a debate. However, I don't see why it necessarily means that my vote would be biased and should be removed. I would still vote objectively, trying to meet the requirements of the RFD, and I could certainly vote for either position, as I would be taking into account reason and quality of the arguments, rather than opinion.

Do you suggest that I should only vote for debates where I have no initial opinion at all? Because this would severely limit my participation in voting, because, as I have said, such debates are quite rare. Also removing such votes would be an incentive to act dishonestly and tick "Tied" options for opinion.

An RFD is a place to explain your "reason for decision." It's all the things that helped you decide. There's really no reason to mention that you voted for Pro and you happen to also agree with Pro, unless that formed part of your basis of decision.

I'm not saying that you can only vote on debates you have no opinion on. Just be tabula rasa, and don't let your personal opinion enter into your RFD (including there's no reason to mention it in your RFD at all).

Ok, this makes sense now. I've been assuming that you should choose your opinion option even if it does not impact your vote, as it's worth 0 points anyway.

So, if I understand correctly, you should only use that option only if it impacts the vote? Would anyone actually cast such a vote, knowing that it would be deleted? Or are there exceptions to that?

If someone did such an amazing job, that you think they objectively won the debate *and* convinced you to change your own position, feel free to check the boxes showing that. It still shouldn't impact your RFD, which should just focus on why arguments were objectively convincing, not why it swayed you and answered some of your preconceived notions. Debaters by no means have an obligation to answer arguments that were never made but exist in your own mind. If they merely happen to do so, that's happenstance.

People do blatantly admit in their RFDs sometimes that they voted Pro because, e.g., Con is just wrong, the Bible says so. Stuff like that. Why do they admit it even though it's forbidden? Ignorance of the rules. Not caring this is a debate site - wanting to punish someone for even deigning to take the position they did.

Are there exceptions? Not really. Your RFD shouldn't refer to what your personal opinion is. In rare cases, the RFD won't be removed because of that (e.g. the person says that they agreed with Pro before and after the debate, but voted Con or the person says they are pro-life, but claims that didn't affect their decision and does an extremely good job justifying why the pro-life debater won).
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 6,564
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2015 10:33:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The only aspect I disagree with in bsh's 7-point voting guide is the S&G. It asks "Who had better spelling and grammar?" If Pro had 12 errors, and Con had 13 errors, I am giving the point to Pro, as Pro had *BETTER* S&G.

Go ahead. Hate on me.
Suh dude

"Because we all know who the most important snowflake in the wasteland is... It's YOU, champ! You're a special snowflake." -Vaarka, 01:30 in the hangouts

"Screw laying siege to Korea. That usually takes an hour or so." -Vaarka

"Crap, what is my religion again?" -Vaarka

I'm Rick Harrison and this is my pawn shop. I work here with my old man and my son, Big Hoss, and in 23 years I've learned one thing. You never know what is gonna come through that door.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2015 10:57:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/11/2015 10:33:55 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
The only aspect I disagree with in bsh's 7-point voting guide is the S&G. It asks "Who had better spelling and grammar?" If Pro had 12 errors, and Con had 13 errors, I am giving the point to Pro, as Pro had *BETTER* S&G.

Go ahead. Hate on me.

No?

-The number would be different if different grammars are consulted (split infinitives, prep. at the end of a sentence, coordinating conjunctions at the beginning of a sentence...)
-What if Pro makes serious mistakes that seriously hinder readability (e.g. the Pro on http://www.debate.org... - no offence to the user who posted it, since it happens to everyone) but Con only made small mistakes that scarcely hinder readability, like occasionally missing apostrophes, poorly punctuating relative clauses or confusing because of/due to?
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 6,564
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2015 11:03:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/11/2015 10:57:59 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 5/11/2015 10:33:55 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
The only aspect I disagree with in bsh's 7-point voting guide is the S&G. It asks "Who had better spelling and grammar?" If Pro had 12 errors, and Con had 13 errors, I am giving the point to Pro, as Pro had *BETTER* S&G.

Go ahead. Hate on me.

No?

-The number would be different if different grammars are consulted (split infinitives, prep. at the end of a sentence, coordinating conjunctions at the beginning of a sentence...)

I am a grammar nazi; I know how to identify all of the ins and outs of punctuation and grammar, so that is not an issue with me.

-What if Pro makes serious mistakes that seriously hinder readability (e.g. the Pro on http://www.debate.org... - no offence to the user who posted it, since it happens to everyone) but Con only made small mistakes that scarcely hinder readability, like occasionally missing apostrophes, poorly punctuating relative clauses or confusing because of/due to?

I mean, if readability is not affected, and one debater had more errors than the other, then I will vote for the other.
Suh dude

"Because we all know who the most important snowflake in the wasteland is... It's YOU, champ! You're a special snowflake." -Vaarka, 01:30 in the hangouts

"Screw laying siege to Korea. That usually takes an hour or so." -Vaarka

"Crap, what is my religion again?" -Vaarka

I'm Rick Harrison and this is my pawn shop. I work here with my old man and my son, Big Hoss, and in 23 years I've learned one thing. You never know what is gonna come through that door.
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2015 11:03:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/11/2015 10:33:55 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
The only aspect I disagree with in bsh's 7-point voting guide is the S&G. It asks "Who had better spelling and grammar?" If Pro had 12 errors, and Con had 13 errors, I am giving the point to Pro, as Pro had *BETTER* S&G.

Go ahead. Hate on me.

This would hardly be the only reason people have to hate on your voting.

#passiveaggressive
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 6,564
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2015 11:08:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/11/2015 11:03:57 AM, Zaradi wrote:
At 5/11/2015 10:33:55 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
The only aspect I disagree with in bsh's 7-point voting guide is the S&G. It asks "Who had better spelling and grammar?" If Pro had 12 errors, and Con had 13 errors, I am giving the point to Pro, as Pro had *BETTER* S&G.

Go ahead. Hate on me.

This would hardly be the only reason people have to hate on your voting.

Explain.


#passiveaggressive
Suh dude

"Because we all know who the most important snowflake in the wasteland is... It's YOU, champ! You're a special snowflake." -Vaarka, 01:30 in the hangouts

"Screw laying siege to Korea. That usually takes an hour or so." -Vaarka

"Crap, what is my religion again?" -Vaarka

I'm Rick Harrison and this is my pawn shop. I work here with my old man and my son, Big Hoss, and in 23 years I've learned one thing. You never know what is gonna come through that door.
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2015 11:13:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/11/2015 11:08:44 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 5/11/2015 11:03:57 AM, Zaradi wrote:
At 5/11/2015 10:33:55 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
The only aspect I disagree with in bsh's 7-point voting guide is the S&G. It asks "Who had better spelling and grammar?" If Pro had 12 errors, and Con had 13 errors, I am giving the point to Pro, as Pro had *BETTER* S&G.

Go ahead. Hate on me.

This would hardly be the only reason people have to hate on your voting.

Explain.

If you really want me to explain, you're free to PM me and we can discuss it. This isn't really a conversation to be had in public, though.


#passiveaggressive
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2015 11:13:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/11/2015 11:03:53 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 5/11/2015 10:57:59 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 5/11/2015 10:33:55 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
The only aspect I disagree with in bsh's 7-point voting guide is the S&G. It asks "Who had better spelling and grammar?" If Pro had 12 errors, and Con had 13 errors, I am giving the point to Pro, as Pro had *BETTER* S&G.

Go ahead. Hate on me.

No?

-The number would be different if different grammars are consulted (split infinitives, prep. at the end of a sentence, coordinating conjunctions at the beginning of a sentence...)

I am a grammar Nazi; I know how to identify all of the ins and outs of punctuation and grammar, so that is not an issue with me.

Fixed. :P

My point is that your own biases will be significant. For instance, do you accept a sentence fragment in a debate setting? Do you accept Roman numerals in lieu of writing out in full for the numbers between 11 and 20? There are more prescriptivist rules that differ from style guide to style guide.

Let's say, for example, that you do accept prepositions at the end of a sentence, but don't accept split infinitives. It turns out that Pro put two prepositions at the end of a sentence, and Con split an infinitive. Then if I accepted split infinitives but not prepositions at the end of a sentence, Pro would have made 14 errors for me, and Con merely 12.

My point is that when the difference between the two numbers is so small, the difference can be accounted for disagreements in grammatical matters, so to claim that one party has a grammatical edge over another because of this small difference is essentially meaningless.

-What if Pro makes serious mistakes that seriously hinder readability (e.g. the Pro on http://www.debate.org... - no offence to the user who posted it, since it happens to everyone) but Con only made small mistakes that scarcely hinder readability, like occasionally missing apostrophes, poorly punctuating relative clauses or confusing because of/due to?

I mean, if readability is not affected, and one debater had more errors than the other, then I will vote for the other.

If readability is not affected, I see no reason to vote one over another over such a minute difference. Had Con got an extra hour of sleep before posting that argument in the third round, she might have made 11 mistakes instead.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 6,564
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2015 11:18:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/11/2015 11:13:48 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 5/11/2015 11:03:53 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 5/11/2015 10:57:59 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 5/11/2015 10:33:55 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
The only aspect I disagree with in bsh's 7-point voting guide is the S&G. It asks "Who had better spelling and grammar?" If Pro had 12 errors, and Con had 13 errors, I am giving the point to Pro, as Pro had *BETTER* S&G.

Go ahead. Hate on me.

No?

-The number would be different if different grammars are consulted (split infinitives, prep. at the end of a sentence, coordinating conjunctions at the beginning of a sentence...)

I am a grammar Nazi; I know how to identify all of the ins and outs of punctuation and grammar, so that is not an issue with me.

Fixed. :P

I will never capitalize "nazi." lol


My point is that your own biases will be significant. For instance, do you accept a sentence fragment in a debate setting? Do you accept Roman numerals in lieu of writing out in full for the numbers between 11 and 20? There are more prescriptivist rules that differ from style guide to style guide.

I see.


Let's say, for example, that you do accept prepositions at the end of a sentence, but don't accept split infinitives. It turns out that Pro put two prepositions at the end of a sentence, and Con split an infinitive. Then if I accepted split infinitives but not prepositions at the end of a sentence, Pro would have made 14 errors for me, and Con merely 12.

I see.


My point is that when the difference between the two numbers is so small, the difference can be accounted for disagreements in grammatical matters, so to claim that one party has a grammatical edge over another because of this small difference is essentially meaningless.

I see.


-What if Pro makes serious mistakes that seriously hinder readability (e.g. the Pro on http://www.debate.org... - no offence to the user who posted it, since it happens to everyone) but Con only made small mistakes that scarcely hinder readability, like occasionally missing apostrophes, poorly punctuating relative clauses or confusing because of/due to?

I mean, if readability is not affected, and one debater had more errors than the other, then I will vote for the other.

If readability is not affected, I see no reason to vote one over another over such a minute difference. Had Con got an extra hour of sleep before posting that argument in the third round, she might have made 11 mistakes instead.

I see.
Suh dude

"Because we all know who the most important snowflake in the wasteland is... It's YOU, champ! You're a special snowflake." -Vaarka, 01:30 in the hangouts

"Screw laying siege to Korea. That usually takes an hour or so." -Vaarka

"Crap, what is my religion again?" -Vaarka

I'm Rick Harrison and this is my pawn shop. I work here with my old man and my son, Big Hoss, and in 23 years I've learned one thing. You never know what is gonna come through that door.
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 6,564
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2015 11:20:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/11/2015 11:13:10 AM, Zaradi wrote:
At 5/11/2015 11:08:44 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 5/11/2015 11:03:57 AM, Zaradi wrote:
At 5/11/2015 10:33:55 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
The only aspect I disagree with in bsh's 7-point voting guide is the S&G. It asks "Who had better spelling and grammar?" If Pro had 12 errors, and Con had 13 errors, I am giving the point to Pro, as Pro had *BETTER* S&G.

Go ahead. Hate on me.

This would hardly be the only reason people have to hate on your voting.

Explain.

If you really want me to explain, you're free to PM me and we can discuss it. This isn't really a conversation to be had in public, though.

Aight. I won't pester you with constant PM notifications, so I'll just figure it out myself. :P



#passiveaggressive
Suh dude

"Because we all know who the most important snowflake in the wasteland is... It's YOU, champ! You're a special snowflake." -Vaarka, 01:30 in the hangouts

"Screw laying siege to Korea. That usually takes an hour or so." -Vaarka

"Crap, what is my religion again?" -Vaarka

I'm Rick Harrison and this is my pawn shop. I work here with my old man and my son, Big Hoss, and in 23 years I've learned one thing. You never know what is gonna come through that door.
Lee001
Posts: 3,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2015 12:12:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
It's ridiculous when you get your vote removed because you didn't explain your S&G. For example, why would I give pro a point for better S&G? Maybe because Con had terrible spelling.. -.-
"Condoms are societal constructs created by the government to restrain 'Murican freedom!"-SolonKR

"But I jest and digress (sick rhymes, yo); every boob is equal in the eyes of the Lord."- SolonKR

"Oh Hey, Seeing Artichokes Makes Me Want to Have Sex."- SolonKR

"Yep, but anyone who touches my hair immediately ascends to the heavens..You're already an angel, so touching my hair can do nothing <3" -SolonKR

My hubby Hayd <3 <3
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2015 12:15:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/11/2015 10:33:55 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
The only aspect I disagree with in bsh's 7-point voting guide is the S&G. It asks "Who had better spelling and grammar?" If Pro had 12 errors, and Con had 13 errors, I am giving the point to Pro, as Pro had *BETTER* S&G.

Go ahead. Hate on me.

My point is that that's just insanely petty. If one person has 12 errors and another has 13, then they obviously put int similar effort in terms of keeping their grammar error-free. I mean, that is way too harsh. It doesn't impede your ability to understand the round, nor does it impact the flow of the speech. Plus, you could essentially be awarding a point based on luck--that when one person reviewed his round for errors he happened to miss a misspelled word. It didn't mean he put in any more or less effort, it just means he was unlucky. You want to award the point based on skill, not on sheer, dumb luck.

There is also the possibility that people may disagree on what errors are. Should an American penalize a Brit for spelling "plow" and "plough"? Should a person be penalized from using a word that spell check doesn't think is a word--this does happen (e.g. universizeable)? Other grammar rules are just to squishy for most people to agree on, e.g. comma usage, split infinitives, etc. And, when you're dealing with a website that has young teens and foreigners (who are arguably not as good spellers), I think you have to be lenient in determining what is or is not a grammar error.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 6,564
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2015 12:17:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/11/2015 12:15:34 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 5/11/2015 10:33:55 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
The only aspect I disagree with in bsh's 7-point voting guide is the S&G. It asks "Who had better spelling and grammar?" If Pro had 12 errors, and Con had 13 errors, I am giving the point to Pro, as Pro had *BETTER* S&G.

Go ahead. Hate on me.

My point is that that's just insanely petty. If one person has 12 errors and another has 13, then they obviously put int similar effort in terms of keeping their grammar error-free. I mean, that is way too harsh. It doesn't impede your ability to understand the round, nor does it impact the flow of the speech. Plus, you could essentially be awarding a point based on luck--that when one person reviewed his round for errors he happened to miss a misspelled word. It didn't mean he put in any more or less effort, it just means he was unlucky. You want to award the point based on skill, not on sheer, dumb luck.

There is also the possibility that people may disagree on what errors are. Should an American penalize a Brit for spelling "plow" and "plough"? Should a person be penalized from using a word that spell check doesn't think is a word--this does happen (e.g. universizeable)? Other grammar rules are just to squishy for most people to agree on, e.g. comma usage, split infinitives, etc. And, when you're dealing with a website that has young teens and foreigners (who are arguably not as good spellers), I think you have to be lenient in determining what is or is not a grammar error.

I know. @Diq_Cun already explained all that.
Suh dude

"Because we all know who the most important snowflake in the wasteland is... It's YOU, champ! You're a special snowflake." -Vaarka, 01:30 in the hangouts

"Screw laying siege to Korea. That usually takes an hour or so." -Vaarka

"Crap, what is my religion again?" -Vaarka

I'm Rick Harrison and this is my pawn shop. I work here with my old man and my son, Big Hoss, and in 23 years I've learned one thing. You never know what is gonna come through that door.
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2015 12:18:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/11/2015 12:17:08 PM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 5/11/2015 12:15:34 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 5/11/2015 10:33:55 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
The only aspect I disagree with in bsh's 7-point voting guide is the S&G. It asks "Who had better spelling and grammar?" If Pro had 12 errors, and Con had 13 errors, I am giving the point to Pro, as Pro had *BETTER* S&G.

Go ahead. Hate on me.

My point is that that's just insanely petty. If one person has 12 errors and another has 13, then they obviously put int similar effort in terms of keeping their grammar error-free. I mean, that is way too harsh. It doesn't impede your ability to understand the round, nor does it impact the flow of the speech. Plus, you could essentially be awarding a point based on luck--that when one person reviewed his round for errors he happened to miss a misspelled word. It didn't mean he put in any more or less effort, it just means he was unlucky. You want to award the point based on skill, not on sheer, dumb luck.

There is also the possibility that people may disagree on what errors are. Should an American penalize a Brit for spelling "plow" and "plough"? Should a person be penalized from using a word that spell check doesn't think is a word--this does happen (e.g. universizeable)? Other grammar rules are just to squishy for most people to agree on, e.g. comma usage, split infinitives, etc. And, when you're dealing with a website that has young teens and foreigners (who are arguably not as good spellers), I think you have to be lenient in determining what is or is not a grammar error.

I know. @Diq_Cun already explained all that.

So, is your mind changed?
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 6,564
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2015 12:19:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/11/2015 12:18:54 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 5/11/2015 12:17:08 PM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 5/11/2015 12:15:34 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 5/11/2015 10:33:55 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
The only aspect I disagree with in bsh's 7-point voting guide is the S&G. It asks "Who had better spelling and grammar?" If Pro had 12 errors, and Con had 13 errors, I am giving the point to Pro, as Pro had *BETTER* S&G.

Go ahead. Hate on me.

My point is that that's just insanely petty. If one person has 12 errors and another has 13, then they obviously put int similar effort in terms of keeping their grammar error-free. I mean, that is way too harsh. It doesn't impede your ability to understand the round, nor does it impact the flow of the speech. Plus, you could essentially be awarding a point based on luck--that when one person reviewed his round for errors he happened to miss a misspelled word. It didn't mean he put in any more or less effort, it just means he was unlucky. You want to award the point based on skill, not on sheer, dumb luck.

There is also the possibility that people may disagree on what errors are. Should an American penalize a Brit for spelling "plow" and "plough"? Should a person be penalized from using a word that spell check doesn't think is a word--this does happen (e.g. universizeable)? Other grammar rules are just to squishy for most people to agree on, e.g. comma usage, split infinitives, etc. And, when you're dealing with a website that has young teens and foreigners (who are arguably not as good spellers), I think you have to be lenient in determining what is or is not a grammar error.

I know. @Diq_Cun already explained all that.

So, is your mind changed?

Yes.
Suh dude

"Because we all know who the most important snowflake in the wasteland is... It's YOU, champ! You're a special snowflake." -Vaarka, 01:30 in the hangouts

"Screw laying siege to Korea. That usually takes an hour or so." -Vaarka

"Crap, what is my religion again?" -Vaarka

I'm Rick Harrison and this is my pawn shop. I work here with my old man and my son, Big Hoss, and in 23 years I've learned one thing. You never know what is gonna come through that door.
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2015 12:19:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/11/2015 11:03:53 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 5/11/2015 10:57:59 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 5/11/2015 10:33:55 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
The only aspect I disagree with in bsh's 7-point voting guide is the S&G. It asks "Who had better spelling and grammar?" If Pro had 12 errors, and Con had 13 errors, I am giving the point to Pro, as Pro had *BETTER* S&G.

Go ahead. Hate on me.

No?

-The number would be different if different grammars are consulted (split infinitives, prep. at the end of a sentence, coordinating conjunctions at the beginning of a sentence...)

I am a grammar nazi; I know how to identify all of the ins and outs of punctuation and grammar, so that is not an issue with me.

But not everyone knows those ins and outs. It seems grossly unfair to punish someone for something they didn't know, like using a split infinitive. Plus, what about rules that are in doubt, such as using a preposition to end a sentence?

Only when grammar disparities are obvious should penalties be levied...and trust me, one or two errors are not obvious.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2015 12:19:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/11/2015 12:19:13 PM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 5/11/2015 12:18:54 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 5/11/2015 12:17:08 PM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 5/11/2015 12:15:34 PM, bsh1 wrote:
There is also the possibility that people may disagree on what errors are. Should an American penalize a Brit for spelling "plow" and "plough"? Should a person be penalized from using a word that spell check doesn't think is a word--this does happen (e.g. universizeable)? Other grammar rules are just to squishy for most people to agree on, e.g. comma usage, split infinitives, etc. And, when you're dealing with a website that has young teens and foreigners (who are arguably not as good spellers), I think you have to be lenient in determining what is or is not a grammar error.

I know. @Diq_Cun already explained all that.

So, is your mind changed?

Yes.

Cool beans.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 6,564
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2015 12:20:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/11/2015 12:19:19 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 5/11/2015 11:03:53 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 5/11/2015 10:57:59 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 5/11/2015 10:33:55 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
The only aspect I disagree with in bsh's 7-point voting guide is the S&G. It asks "Who had better spelling and grammar?" If Pro had 12 errors, and Con had 13 errors, I am giving the point to Pro, as Pro had *BETTER* S&G.

Go ahead. Hate on me.

No?

-The number would be different if different grammars are consulted (split infinitives, prep. at the end of a sentence, coordinating conjunctions at the beginning of a sentence...)

I am a grammar nazi; I know how to identify all of the ins and outs of punctuation and grammar, so that is not an issue with me.

But not everyone knows those ins and outs. It seems grossly unfair to punish someone for something they didn't know, like using a split infinitive. Plus, what about rules that are in doubt, such as using a preposition to end a sentence?

Only when grammar disparities are obvious should penalties be levied...and trust me, one or two errors are not obvious.

i no dis. Mr. Diq_Cun has 'splained dis to meh.
Suh dude

"Because we all know who the most important snowflake in the wasteland is... It's YOU, champ! You're a special snowflake." -Vaarka, 01:30 in the hangouts

"Screw laying siege to Korea. That usually takes an hour or so." -Vaarka

"Crap, what is my religion again?" -Vaarka

I'm Rick Harrison and this is my pawn shop. I work here with my old man and my son, Big Hoss, and in 23 years I've learned one thing. You never know what is gonna come through that door.
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2015 12:21:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/11/2015 12:20:55 PM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 5/11/2015 12:19:19 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 5/11/2015 11:03:53 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 5/11/2015 10:57:59 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 5/11/2015 10:33:55 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
The only aspect I disagree with in bsh's 7-point voting guide is the S&G. It asks "Who had better spelling and grammar?" If Pro had 12 errors, and Con had 13 errors, I am giving the point to Pro, as Pro had *BETTER* S&G.

Go ahead. Hate on me.

No?

-The number would be different if different grammars are consulted (split infinitives, prep. at the end of a sentence, coordinating conjunctions at the beginning of a sentence...)

I am a grammar nazi; I know how to identify all of the ins and outs of punctuation and grammar, so that is not an issue with me.

But not everyone knows those ins and outs. It seems grossly unfair to punish someone for something they didn't know, like using a split infinitive. Plus, what about rules that are in doubt, such as using a preposition to end a sentence?

Only when grammar disparities are obvious should penalties be levied...and trust me, one or two errors are not obvious.

i no dis. Mr. Diq_Cun has 'splained dis to meh.

Lol
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2015 12:31:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/11/2015 10:33:55 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
The only aspect I disagree with in bsh's 7-point voting guide is the S&G. It asks "Who had better spelling and grammar?" If Pro had 12 errors, and Con had 13 errors, I am giving the point to Pro, as Pro had *BETTER* S&G.

Go ahead. Hate on me.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why the 7 point system is horrible.

Not because your interpretation is invalid. Rather, because it *is* valid. You're right, Pro had better spelling and grammar. But should we really give him 1/3rd of the arguments points because of one less error? Absolutely not, in my opinion. Yet there's no reason my opinion is any more valid than yours...what I'm saying is, the 7 point system is just godawful and not gonna lie I judge people who still use it.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right