Total Posts:10|Showing Posts:1-10
Jump to topic:

Some questions about voting...

TheJuniorVarsityNovice
Posts: 223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2015 1:03:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
These are a few questions I have been wondering about, as both a voter and a player in debates, if you know the answer to any of them, then I'd love to know:


A.) Do voters have to follow criteria which an instigator might tell them to vote on in the first round in debate rules or later on in the debate...such as 'voters must consider fairness as the primary objective in the match'...or 'please do not punish the opponent for his forfeit last round'...or 'the opponent and I have agreed to?

B.) Is a voter required to give a reason for each point assigned? Specifically, can you leave a given point as 'tied' without justifying why its tied? Many people do this on ff debates but even on regular debates people will just put 'conduct point for ff in 3rd round' but shouldn't the be obligated to tell why the arguments were left as 'tied'?

C.) How do you weigh a dropped argument?

D.) Is plagiarism allowed? If not, why not?

E.) If a player presents an obviously untrue argument as true, and the opponent does not respond, OR grants it for some reason, then do you have to consider it as true? For instance, ' there is a positive correlation between the number of people on earth and the expansion of outer-space and thus the the increase of people increases the distance of space' well clearly this isn't true yet if the opponent says nothing OR grants the argument should it be considered true?

F.) Do you have to cover every single argument, if so to what extent? Example: In a debate where there the proven impact of not doing the plan is 1 billion lives, and the PRO has successfully established that the loss of even one human life means the voter votes for them, do we have to evaluate the other 12 sextillion arguments by the CON about, for instance, how the plan could possibly endanger the rare and elusive Alaskan Sea Unicorn Turtle Mammoth, or about how the plan causes .0000001% inflation of the US dollar which might hurt US hegemony 35 years from now? Those arguments are clearly insufficient, isn't my only job to show why the winner won, if so why can't I do so in the most efficient way?

G.) Is an argument valid if it has no sourcing; can a judge say that they will not accept it? Think of it like this, a debater says that 'it is an empirically scientifically proven fact that god exists according to new studies' or simply says something like 'plastic causes cancer', am I to accept this as true if there is no sourcing yet no arguments against it? In the court of law for instance, if the prosecution says that the individual in question was at the scene of the crime just 10 minutes from the time of death of the victim and yet they have no proof it will not be accepted. but lets assume this is not challenged, then are we to accept it?
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2015 1:57:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/7/2015 1:03:47 PM, TheJuniorVarsityNovice wrote:
These are a few questions I have been wondering about, as both a voter and a player in debates, if you know the answer to any of them, then I'd love to know:


A.) Do voters have to follow criteria which an instigator might tell them to vote on in the first round in debate rules or later on in the debate...such as 'voters must consider fairness as the primary objective in the match'...or 'please do not punish the opponent for his forfeit last round'...or 'the opponent and I have agreed to?

*technically* no, but why wouldn't you if both debaters have agreed to it?

B.) Is a voter required to give a reason for each point assigned? Specifically, can you leave a given point as 'tied' without justifying why its tied? Many people do this on ff debates but even on regular debates people will just put 'conduct point for ff in 3rd round' but shouldn't the be obligated to tell why the arguments were left as 'tied'?

No. In terms of moderation they don't really care if to don't explain a non-point since the doesnt really affect the outcome. In terms of just voting in general, you don't have to but it would increase the quality of your vote if you did.

C.) How do you weigh a dropped argument?

Depends on the argument dropped.

D.) Is plagiarism allowed? If not, why not?

Why *would* it be allowed?

E.) If a player presents an obviously untrue argument as true, and the opponent does not respond, OR grants it for some reason, then do you have to consider it as true? For instance, ' there is a positive correlation between the number of people on earth and the expansion of outer-space and thus the the increase of people increases the distance of space' well clearly this isn't true yet if the opponent says nothing OR grants the argument should it be considered true?

Yes. If I say that 1 = 2 and my opponent doesn't contest this and completely drops the issue, then to go back and say that it isn't true would be to be making arguments for the debater as the voter which is a) unethical from a voting perspective and b) unfair to me as the debater.

F.) Do you have to cover every single argument, if so to what extent? Example: In a debate where there the proven impact of not doing the plan is 1 billion lives, and the PRO has successfully established that the loss of even one human life means the voter votes for them, do we have to evaluate the other 12 sextillion arguments by the CON about, for instance, how the plan could possibly endanger the rare and elusive Alaskan Sea Unicorn Turtle Mammoth, or about how the plan causes .0000001% inflation of the US dollar which might hurt US hegemony 35 years from now? Those arguments are clearly insufficient, isn't my only job to show why the winner won, if so why can't I do so in the most efficient way?

Your job as the voter is to explain why you decided in the way that you did. If an argument doesn't weigh into your decision, you don't have to mention it. OF COURSE the more feedback you provide debaters (I.e. Why those arguments weren't sufficient and what they could've done to make them sufficient) the better your vote becomes.

G.) Is an argument valid if it has no sourcing; can a judge say that they will not accept it? Think of it like this, a debater says that 'it is an empirically scientifically proven fact that god exists according to new studies' or simply says something like 'plastic causes cancer', am I to accept this as true if there is no sourcing yet no arguments against it? In the court of law for instance, if the prosecution says that the individual in question was at the scene of the crime just 10 minutes from the time of death of the victim and yet they have no proof it will not be accepted. but lets assume this is not challenged, then are we to accept it?

If I make any claim, any claim at all, and my opponent doesn't contest it, then that argument becomes fact in terms of the debate. Of course having a source and not having a source has an impact on the strength I an argument and it's something that your opponent can call out against you as a reason to not buy the argument, but not having a source doesn't inherently mean that the argument is bad.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
Posts: 223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2015 2:50:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/7/2015 1:57:14 PM, Zaradi wrote:

No. In terms of moderation they don't really care if to don't explain a non-point since the doesnt really affect the outcome. In terms of just voting in general, you don't have to but it would increase the quality of your vote if you did.

idk, I feel like people shouldn't do that. Saying that the arguments are tied is a lie if they really aren't. If enough people just ignore the arguments and vote conduct then it will cause one side to win because the voters were lazy or selectively voted to boost their friend's debate


Depends on the argument dropped.

hmm, do you have a few examples maybe?

D.) Is plagiarism allowed? If not, why not?

Why *would* it be allowed?

Legally for instance, if something is not a law then the police cannot enforce it. Likewise, how can a voter enforce something that is not a rule? I have no opinion on the subject, but ragnar's debate got me wondering what the answer would be, I see both sides of the discussion.


If I make any claim, any claim at all, and my opponent doesn't contest it, then that argument becomes fact in terms of the debate. Of course having a source and not having a source has an impact on the strength I an argument and it's something that your opponent can call out against you as a reason to not buy the argument, but not having a source doesn't inherently mean that the argument is bad.

Let's say the opponent does contest the unsupported argument, but contests its reasoning and not its sourcing, so that in the example we can't simply say it was dropped. But as the voter, can I say that I don't consider that as an argument because it was utterly unsupported, or would that be inserting my own argument? Assuming I cannot disallow an argument lacking citation, to how far does this go?

Another question, is a dropped argument a conceded argument, such as in policy debate where 'silence is compliance'?
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2015 3:27:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/7/2015 1:03:47 PM, TheJuniorVarsityNovice wrote:
These are a few questions I have been wondering about, as both a voter and a player in debates, if you know the answer to any of them, then I'd love to know:


A.) Do voters have to follow criteria which an instigator might tell them to vote on in the first round in debate rules or later on in the debate...such as 'voters must consider fairness as the primary objective in the match'...or 'please do not punish the opponent for his forfeit last round'...or 'the opponent and I have agreed to?

They should. If both sides are agreed from the outset as to the rules or emphases, then voters should employ that knowledge in their RFDs. That doesn't mean that, if one side asserts something to be true, it will be true throughout the debate, but if it's set as a rule in R1, voters should take it as such.

B.) Is a voter required to give a reason for each point assigned? Specifically, can you leave a given point as 'tied' without justifying why its tied? Many people do this on ff debates but even on regular debates people will just put 'conduct point for ff in 3rd round' but shouldn't the be obligated to tell why the arguments were left as 'tied'?

There's no reason to specify why you gave someone a tie. A tie doesn't allocate points, so there's no reason to specify it because they don't favor any specific side. If they feel that arguments are tied, or they just don't want to vote on them, they can without saying anything.

C.) How do you weigh a dropped argument?

Depends on the voter. I give it its full weight. Any weight that the debater applied to it is what I apply to it. If they didn't apply any weight, well, then they're dependent on my interpretation to give it weight. Unless that argument is so dramatically illogical in some aspect that I can't accept it in some regard, that's how I look at it.

D.) Is plagiarism allowed? If not, why not?

No, it's not. You need to quote any line of text coming from a source outside of yourself, or paraphrase and then cite. It's exceedingly unethical to represent words that are not your own as your own work.

E.) If a player presents an obviously untrue argument as true, and the opponent does not respond, OR grants it for some reason, then do you have to consider it as true? For instance, ' there is a positive correlation between the number of people on earth and the expansion of outer-space and thus the the increase of people increases the distance of space' well clearly this isn't true yet if the opponent says nothing OR grants the argument should it be considered true?

Depends on the judge. Sometimes, judges go pure blank slate, and in those cases, they would accept it. However, I don't think that way. I'm not going to believe an argument that is blatantly false on the basis that it wasn't addressed or was even granted. In the latter case, I might still give it some weight because the debater is actively subverting themselves, but that's about it.

F.) Do you have to cover every single argument, if so to what extent? Example: In a debate where there the proven impact of not doing the plan is 1 billion lives, and the PRO has successfully established that the loss of even one human life means the voter votes for them, do we have to evaluate the other 12 sextillion arguments by the CON about, for instance, how the plan could possibly endanger the rare and elusive Alaskan Sea Unicorn Turtle Mammoth, or about how the plan causes .0000001% inflation of the US dollar which might hurt US hegemony 35 years from now? Those arguments are clearly insufficient, isn't my only job to show why the winner won, if so why can't I do so in the most efficient way?

No, you don't. That's true of policy debate and Parli, but not of debate on DDO. Your goal is to have the stronger arguments, not to make sure you have a response to everything your opponent says. If that can be done with a single argument without ever addressing any of your opponent's arguments, then you could do that. It's not incredibly common, but it does happen. Know which arguments matter most and spend your time there. Little drops won't break you.

G.) Is an argument valid if it has no sourcing; can a judge say that they will not accept it? Think of it like this, a debater says that 'it is an empirically scientifically proven fact that god exists according to new studies' or simply says something like 'plastic causes cancer', am I to accept this as true if there is no sourcing yet no arguments against it? In the court of law for instance, if the prosecution says that the individual in question was at the scene of the crime just 10 minutes from the time of death of the victim and yet they have no proof it will not be accepted. but lets assume this is not challenged, then are we to accept it?

An argument CAN be valid if there is no sourcing. A pure assertion like your examples would probably not go over well with judges. They certainly wouldn't go over well with me. But those aren't what I'm getting at. If you're stating that the evidence shows something to be true, then you have to provide that evidence. You cannot assert its existence. If, however, your argument is logical and the evidence would only bolster it, then there's not a need for that evidence.
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2015 3:46:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/7/2015 2:50:01 PM, TheJuniorVarsityNovice wrote:
At 7/7/2015 1:57:14 PM, Zaradi wrote:

No. In terms of moderation they don't really care if to don't explain a non-point since the doesnt really affect the outcome. In terms of just voting in general, you don't have to but it would increase the quality of your vote if you did.

idk, I feel like people shouldn't do that. Saying that the arguments are tied is a lie if they really aren't. If enough people just ignore the arguments and vote conduct then it will cause one side to win because the voters were lazy or selectively voted to boost their friend's debate

Of course. I was under the assumption we were talking about things like s&g and conduct. You should always be explaining your argument points in general because that's literally the debate.


Depends on the argument dropped.

hmm, do you have a few examples maybe?

I mean it really just depends on the weight and implications of the argument. If I make an argument that says "if you affirm the redolution we save 1 billion lives a year" and you drop it, you might as well be voting aff yourself. But if you drop an argument that says "negating doesn't actually help the economy *that much* his impacts are overstated" and I drop it, then at worst one of my arguments gets weaker but that doesn't necessarily mean the debate is over. It really just depends on the argument and how that argument affects the debate.

D.) Is plagiarism allowed? If not, why not?

Why *would* it be allowed?

Legally for instance, if something is not a law then the police cannot enforce it. Likewise, how can a voter enforce something that is not a rule? I have no opinion on the subject, but ragnar's debate got me wondering what the answer would be, I see both sides of the discussion.

Here's the problem with that analysis: there is no hardback "code" to how to gore and how not to vote. Just as there really aren't any rules to debate other than speaking order and speaking times. The only two things that you have to worry about as a voter to ensure the debate is legitimate is a) are you being objective as possible and b) is the debate fair. Then ask yourself if you can really consider plagiarism fair.


If I make any claim, any claim at all, and my opponent doesn't contest it, then that argument becomes fact in terms of the debate. Of course having a source and not having a source has an impact on the strength I an argument and it's something that your opponent can call out against you as a reason to not buy the argument, but not having a source doesn't inherently mean that the argument is bad.

Let's say the opponent does contest the unsupported argument, but contests its reasoning and not its sourcing, so that in the example we can't simply say it was dropped. But as the voter, can I say that I don't consider that as an argument because it was utterly unsupported, or would that be inserting my own argument? Assuming I cannot disallow an argument lacking citation, to how far does this go?


You can use the fact that there's no source backing up the argument as a reason to give the argument less weight, especially if they spend time refuting the argument.

Another question, is a dropped argument a conceded argument, such as in policy debate where 'silence is compliance'?

You can certainly argue as much.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
Posts: 223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2015 3:47:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/7/2015 3:27:12 PM, whiteflame wrote:
At 7/7/2015 1:03:47 PM, TheJuniorVarsityNovice wrote:
These are a few questions I have been wondering about, as both a voter and a player in debates, if you know the answer to any of them, then I'd love to know:


A.) Do voters have to follow criteria which an instigator might tell them to vote on in the first round in debate rules or later on in the debate...such as 'voters must consider fairness as the primary objective in the match'...or 'please do not punish the opponent for his forfeit last round'...or 'the opponent and I have agreed to?

They should. If both sides are agreed from the outset as to the rules or emphases, then voters should employ that knowledge in their RFDs. That doesn't mean that, if one side asserts something to be true, it will be true throughout the debate, but if it's set as a rule in R1, voters should take it as such.

B.) Is a voter required to give a reason for each point assigned? Specifically, can you leave a given point as 'tied' without justifying why its tied? Many people do this on ff debates but even on regular debates people will just put 'conduct point for ff in 3rd round' but shouldn't the be obligated to tell why the arguments were left as 'tied'?

There's no reason to specify why you gave someone a tie. A tie doesn't allocate points, so there's no reason to specify it because they don't favor any specific side. If they feel that arguments are tied, or they just don't want to vote on them, they can without saying anything.

C.) How do you weigh a dropped argument?

Depends on the voter. I give it its full weight. Any weight that the debater applied to it is what I apply to it. If they didn't apply any weight, well, then they're dependent on my interpretation to give it weight. Unless that argument is so dramatically illogical in some aspect that I can't accept it in some regard, that's how I look at it.

D.) Is plagiarism allowed? If not, why not?

No, it's not. You need to quote any line of text coming from a source outside of yourself, or paraphrase and then cite. It's exceedingly unethical to represent words that are not your own as your own work.

E.) If a player presents an obviously untrue argument as true, and the opponent does not respond, OR grants it for some reason, then do you have to consider it as true? For instance, ' there is a positive correlation between the number of people on earth and the expansion of outer-space and thus the the increase of people increases the distance of space' well clearly this isn't true yet if the opponent says nothing OR grants the argument should it be considered true?

Depends on the judge. Sometimes, judges go pure blank slate, and in those cases, they would accept it. However, I don't think that way. I'm not going to believe an argument that is blatantly false on the basis that it wasn't addressed or was even granted. In the latter case, I might still give it some weight because the debater is actively subverting themselves, but that's about it.

F.) Do you have to cover every single argument, if so to what extent? Example: In a debate where there the proven impact of not doing the plan is 1 billion lives, and the PRO has successfully established that the loss of even one human life means the voter votes for them, do we have to evaluate the other 12 sextillion arguments by the CON about, for instance, how the plan could possibly endanger the rare and elusive Alaskan Sea Unicorn Turtle Mammoth, or about how the plan causes .0000001% inflation of the US dollar which might hurt US hegemony 35 years from now? Those arguments are clearly insufficient, isn't my only job to show why the winner won, if so why can't I do so in the most efficient way?

No, you don't. That's true of policy debate and Parli, but not of debate on DDO. Your goal is to have the stronger arguments, not to make sure you have a response to everything your opponent says. If that can be done with a single argument without ever addressing any of your opponent's arguments, then you could do that. It's not incredibly common, but it does happen. Know which arguments matter most and spend your time there. Little drops won't break you.

G.) Is an argument valid if it has no sourcing; can a judge say that they will not accept it? Think of it like this, a debater says that 'it is an empirically scientifically proven fact that god exists according to new studies' or simply says something like 'plastic causes cancer', am I to accept this as true if there is no sourcing yet no arguments against it? In the court of law for instance, if the prosecution says that the individual in question was at the scene of the crime just 10 minutes from the time of death of the victim and yet they have no proof it will not be accepted. but lets assume this is not challenged, then are we to accept it?

An argument CAN be valid if there is no sourcing. A pure assertion like your examples would probably not go over well with judges. They certainly wouldn't go over well with me. But those aren't what I'm getting at. If you're stating that the evidence shows something to be true, then you have to provide that evidence. You cannot assert its existence. If, however, your argument is logical and the evidence would only bolster it, then there's not a need for that evidence.

hm, thanks whiteflame. I like your style of judging, you take what I could only call the reasonable approach, like you were an average person listening to a street debate, or a coffee table discussion.
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
Posts: 223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2015 4:10:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/7/2015 3:46:31 PM, Zaradi wrote:

idk, I feel like people shouldn't do that. Saying that the arguments are tied is a lie if they really aren't. If enough people just ignore the arguments and vote conduct then it will cause one side to win because the voters were lazy or selectively voted to boost their friend's debate

Of course. I was under the assumption we were talking about things like s&g and conduct. You should always be explaining your argument points in general because that's literally the debate.

Ohh ok. so assuming its not a forfeit debate, should we/can we report those votes to moderation.

Legally for instance, if something is not a law then the police cannot enforce it. Likewise, how can a voter enforce something that is not a rule? I have no opinion on the subject, but ragnar's debate got me wondering what the answer would be, I see both sides of the discussion.

Here's the problem with that analysis: there is no hardback "code" to how to vote and how not to vote. Just as there really aren't any rules to debate other than speaking order and speaking times. The only two things that you have to worry about as a voter to ensure the debate is legitimate is a) are you being objective as possible and b) is the debate fair. Then ask yourself if you can really consider plagiarism fair.

so its basically up to the voter to decide if its fair or not. In this case, doesn't that make the platform of voting standards shifting and perhaps less objective.

Another question, is a dropped argument a conceded argument, such as in policy debate where 'silence is compliance'?

You can certainly argue as much.

another couple of questions, in your personal opinion, is plagiarism worthy of a conduct point. Secondly, in your personal opinion, is a dropped argument usually a conceded argument?
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2015 4:29:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Why do I feel like this Q&A is going in a really weird direction?

At 7/7/2015 4:10:55 PM, TheJuniorVarsityNovice wrote:
At 7/7/2015 3:46:31 PM, Zaradi wrote:

idk, I feel like people shouldn't do that. Saying that the arguments are tied is a lie if they really aren't. If enough people just ignore the arguments and vote conduct then it will cause one side to win because the voters were lazy or selectively voted to boost their friend's debate

Of course. I was under the assumption we were talking about things like s&g and conduct. You should always be explaining your argument points in general because that's literally the debate.

Ohh ok. so assuming its not a forfeit debate, should we/can we report those votes to moderation.

I mean, you could but it would be dependent on the debate from my perspective and I'm not Airmax nor am I F-16.

Legally for instance, if something is not a law then the police cannot enforce it. Likewise, how can a voter enforce something that is not a rule? I have no opinion on the subject, but ragnar's debate got me wondering what the answer would be, I see both sides of the discussion.

Here's the problem with that analysis: there is no hardback "code" to how to vote and how not to vote. Just as there really aren't any rules to debate other than speaking order and speaking times. The only two things that you have to worry about as a voter to ensure the debate is legitimate is a) are you being objective as possible and b) is the debate fair. Then ask yourself if you can really consider plagiarism fair.

so its basically up to the voter to decide if its fair or not.

No. Plagiarism is something that just *isn't* fair. Thus it should never be allowed.

In this case, doesn't that make the platform of voting standards shifting and perhaps less objective.

....wat.

Another question, is a dropped argument a conceded argument, such as in policy debate where 'silence is compliance'?

You can certainly argue as much.


another couple of questions,

wtf are these questions? XD

in your personal opinion, is plagiarism worthy of a conduct point.

Yes.

Secondly, in your personal opinion, is a dropped argument usually a conceded argument?

Depends on when the drop occurs but generally yes.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
Posts: 223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2015 4:39:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/7/2015 4:29:11 PM, Zaradi wrote:
Why do I feel like this Q&A is going in a really weird direction?

well that pretty much answer my questions...buuut one more, how does it feel to be the Veep?? Congratulations =D
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2015 4:47:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/7/2015 4:39:18 PM, TheJuniorVarsityNovice wrote:
At 7/7/2015 4:29:11 PM, Zaradi wrote:
Why do I feel like this Q&A is going in a really weird direction?


well that pretty much answer my questions...buuut one more, how does it feel to be the Veep?? Congratulations =D

Not a whole lot has changed xD but thanks.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...