Amazon.com Widgets

Do debates on DDO prove the voting rules are flawed?

Asked by: GWL-CPA
  • Too Much Confirmation Bias in Debate Voting

    Is anything really accomplished or proved by debates at this site because of how points are awarded and how pre-polling positions are ignored; and should debates with less than 25 voters be counted? There is too much confirmation bias based on the limited number of voters and their pre-debate pro or con positions.
    (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias)
    There is no pre-debate audience defined, except that the debates are open to all members and all members can vote. But, from what I can see so far, very few members actually vote and very few members actually take the time to read all the sources put forth as evidence by either the Pro Position (The Instigator) or the Con Position (Contender). Most already have an opinion and they aren’t going to change it, which would be fine if a pre-debate poll were taken and used in the calculations of a winner; but, that is ignored.

    For example, if 25 members agree to vote on a debate, and 20 of them already hold the Pro-Position, the Pro-Position will always win, nothing is proven about either of the debaters’ debating skills. The votes of people who are already pro or con pre-debate who do not change their minds after the debate should not count in the voting. That is like going to a Catholic Church on Sunday and having and open debate with the Catholic Priest in front of the congregation about the benefits of converting to Mormonism; you will always lose that debate with an audience predisposed to Catholicism.

    Then there is huge bias problem in debate results caused by too few voters. Despite thousands of members and many viewers of many debates, the actual number of members that actual vote is ridiculously low. I took a random sample of 100 debates just to gather statistics on numbers of voters and viewers. I realize that a sample of 100 is relatively small but I think it proves my point. I am continuing the sample until I reach a 1,000 and will publish those results when I finish; but here are results based on the first 100.

    The average number of voters was 4, the mode or most frequent number of voters was 3.

    53% of the debates had 4 or fewer voters, 83% of the debates at 8 or fewer voters, 90% of the debates had 10 or fewer voters.

    However, the average number of viewer was 2,342, which can be somewhat misleading because the two debaters can view their debates frequently and some voters post comments to further explain the points they awarded. But, many members view the debates but don’t bother voting, which is too bad.

    The voting requirements for these debates need to be changed with a min of 25 voters, and pre-debate polls taken.

  • The actual debates? No

    People vote on debates according to the strengths of ones arguments, the conduct of both sides, the grammar of both sides, and the quantity or quality of sources provided to back up the arguments on both sides. There are also rules that prevent against votebombing as well, which to me means that the debates themselves prove the voting rules are flawed. If anything, its biased people who bullsh*t their way around the system that makes voting rules flawed, but not the debates themselves

  • No, not at all.

    No, the voting rules are not flawed. The system, in and of itself, is fair, and I don't see what the problems with it might be. It is definitely possible, however, that people are making their choices and voting in an unfair way. This is something that can happen in any voting system, though.

  • No, not at all.

    No, the voting rules are not flawed. The system, in and of itself, is fair, and I don't see what the problems with it might be. It is definitely possible, however, that people are making their choices and voting in an unfair way. This is something that can happen in any voting system, though.

  • It is a stretch to say they are flawed.

    I fail to see why it is that the debates on DDO have anything to do with proving that the rules of voting are flawed. Are the rules of voting considered perfect and above reproach? I would say not, but it is a stretch to say that they are flawed.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
GWL-CPA says2013-03-01T21:44:13.017
Imabench misses the point about too few voters and confirmation bias. Not sure he understands what confirmation bias is? Do you Imabench?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Imabench indicates that there are rules against vote bombing, which has nothing to do with what I am discussing.

And, then I guess he is insulting me with his comment “If anything, its biased people who bullsh*t their way around the system that makes voting rules flawed, but not the debates themselves.”

And, I never said anything about the debates, just the voting and confirmation bias.

I am not bull crapping my way around anything. The voting system used here is flawed because it ignores confirmation bias. Again, the votes of voters who are pro or con on the issue being debated before the debate and after the debate should not be counted. And, debates where less than 25 members bother to vote are meaningless. Declaring a winner in any of these debates is meaningless. It should be just like at the “Opinion” section, the percent that agree versus disagree should be all that is shown.

It appears that everyone at this site in on an ego trip to see if they can win a debate, even if the win is meaningless.
GWL-CPA says2013-03-01T22:00:19.920
Part II
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
I love the fact that one point can be awarded for grammar and spelling. That is a joke! There are many spelling and grammatical errors in most of these debates, including those I write. I am not a grammarian, nor are but a few at this site. Very few have 4 year degrees in English at this site. Take his using ‘its’ incorrectly versus ‘it’s’, which means it is. If they want to awards points on grammar and spelling that should be done by experts working for this site, not the voters. It would probably be best to do away with that category completely. But, I am more concerned with confirmation bias, which is why this voting system needs to be changed.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
I can’t see any real definition of “vote bombing” at this site except for debate # 8102 “Vote bombing is an abuse of the voting system on Debate.org.” where the instigator mongeese lost with 37 votes against the contender Tatarize with 65 votes, with 17 voters. Here was the Pro Issue

“Vote bombing - An action taken by members of Debate.org who make their votes on debates based off of information not pertinent to the debate at hand. Also, "when a user (often times with multiple accounts) maliciously votes down all seven points to all of a rival's open debates."”
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
I loved the adult comments made by Tatarize “Hey, votebombers…Mongeese is talking smack about you. GET HIM.” I am not surprised at his immature comments; he is a stoner who is Pro Drug Legalization and Pro Medical Marijuana. How many 30-year-old men, stoners or not, like that? He is most likely a stoner and video gaming addict.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
A better definition is found at the Urban Dictionary “Vote Bomb”

“v. the democratic hijacking of an open vote by a partisan group who have little interest in the issue at hand, other than publicizing their own cause.”
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=vote%20bomb