Voting is based on preconceived bias rather than substantive debate

In the short time that I've been here, I see that there is one major problem with Debate.org. The issue that I see has to do with how votes are accrued, and how it is ambiguous as to what is being voted for.

Lets make a hypothetical scenario so you might understand what I am talking about better. Let us say there is an argument on Capitalism. And let's say that the person against capitalism makes some great points. Lets say that she is eloquent, thorough, articulate, etc, and details all the reasons why capitalism is not in the best interests of any given society.

On the opposite end, we have someone defending capitalism. But this guy sounds like a 3rd grader, makes no logical points beyond "cuz its so kewls! LoL! LOL!" Now, even though I might defend capitalism in my private life, should I vote on my own ideological preferences, or am I supposed to vote on the debate itself?

I'll give you another for instance. Most avowed evolutionists can't stand Kent Hovind. But like it or not, the man came prepared to debates. His detractors sounded flustered, could not connect one point to the next, lacked any substance in the debate, etc, whereas Hovind carefully dismantled his opponent.

But lets say that what Hovind was debating on is patently false, and even though his opponents didn't do a good job at explaining their position, lets say they are still nonetheless correct.

Are we debating on the content or the debate skill itself? When the header reads, "Who won the debate," by what estimate are we voting on -- a preconceived allegiance to a particular ideology, or the skill of the debate?

I submit that Debate.org should provide a way to vote for two different categories. One category deals with who won the debate, and the second on which ideology you find parity with.

i believe that even if a person sounds like a third grader, it does not matter..i think that if that third grader have a great argument then am voting for him. and i think that it should not matter on how well the person can right..as long as his point get across.

My opponent says, "believe that even if a person sounds like a third grader, it does not matter..i think that if that third grader have a great argument then am voting for him. and i think that it should not matter on how well the person can right..as long as his point get across."

But would you vote for him because of what he is saying or how he presented his argument?

For instance, lets say that you think baseball is the best sport ever. And someone comes along with a post talking about how baseball is the greatest sport ever. But the opponent in the debate thinks that basketball is better, and gives stronger points on why it is better. Lets say the guy who thinks basketball better just had a better debate.

Would you vote for the person who like baseball because you also like baseball, or would you vote for the person with better argument?

i would have to knock you on this one.....for starters, on that type of situation, debating would not be worth it...now if the topic was to be who is the better president bush or clinton....then you would have a debate...but even on this, if the third grader come out and say bush is better because he made opportunity's that no one made. and his opened say clinton made it so single mother would not have to struggle..and for anything the only opportunity he made was for war...then of course the opponent will win...cause we both know that bush is the worst pres. we ever had.....but if the opponent just came out and said bush mad war and clinton was the best cause he didn't...then of course the third grader would win....just for the fact his statement make a better argument and that's makes more a of a debate.

"but if the opponent just came out and said bush mad war and clinton was the best cause he didn't...then of course the third grader would win....just for the fact his statement make a better argument and that's makes more a of a debate."

Then it seems we are actually in agreement. When I vote on a debate, I am voting on who made better points, even IF I think they are ultimately wrong.

I don't believe that is the case with many people. I think more people would be apt to vote for things they personally like, rather than basing their decision upon the skill of a certain debater. And in a way, I guess I'm asking on what criteria we are supposed to voting on. It seems unclear to me.

Are we voting for people on their ability to debate, or whether we agree that either Bush or Clinton is better?

well in this case yes are right. but then again even if the person is a great debater he can debate u to the fat lady sing...but if he does not have a clear message then what the point...but if a person does not have good debating skills, but still has a clear message ...the who will win....
so u tell me what we are debating on