The "Conduct" Voting Category Should be Removed or Replaced

============================================================================== An inventive to avoid petty insults, and focus on debate ============================================================================== PRO states that I'm basically insisted that "people should be expected to have 4. different interpretations of the various voting categories, and that debaters should make a conscious effort to figure out what the majority "interpretation" is. " This is only partially correct. What I'm insisting is that people should be expected to be aware of the different interpretations for the voting categories (specifically, how people determine conduct, given that this is what the debate concerns) and that they should make an effort to be aware of their audience (ideas of other DDO members) so they can be more persuasive (having an idea of how someone thinks can help you in persuading them). As for PRO's problems with my assertion: 1. PRO states that voting categories should NOT be open to wide spread interpretation. I don't necessarily agree or disagree with this assertion, however . . . I will point out that it is no consequence of what SHOULD be the case as the fact of the matter is that voting categories ARE open to wide spread interpretation (as I've already pointed out in the previous round). Individuals DO IN FACT have different connotations on vocabulary; just because you generally think of a word one way, it does not mean that everyone else adheres to your thought process. Nothing my opponent has advised will ever change this fact. Changing to "voting conduct" to clarity is simply throwing in a new term at which people will have many different interpretations of. 2. For the most part, I've covered this in #1. However, I will go on to add that nothing which my opponent is advocating shall encourage people not to have different interpretations as his plan merely involves replacing "Conduct" with "Clarity" or just removing conduct entirely (which has nothing to do with encouraging users not to possess different interpretations). A debaters best bet is the handle the situation as one would in real life (and that is through getting to know your audience so that you may appeal to their mindset or know how to change it) or to follow up on my second suggestion and have the webmaster implement a CLARIFICATION section of the terms used. And just to vanquish my opponent's position entirely, I've added in that his own interpretation could be used in this clarification section, hence rendering his case meaningless. As for voting, it generally gives the debater an idea of the number of people who were persuaded by his/her position. This helps one in developing his/her persuasion/charismatic skills. 3. Given I myself made this argument in R2 (in attempt to show how PRO's ideas could be appealed to while negating the resolution), I will take this a concession. Indeed, Phil could set a standard in depth explanation for each of the categories. This would render having to replace or remove the conduct category extremely pointless. 4. It's the trade off for expecting to win over the votes of a plethora of people whom you don't know or haven't even heard of. Sure, you can come on to this website and debate to your hearts content while hoping that people will somehow understand what you're talking about. However, if you do this, you will have little to not legitimate clue of how the votes are generally going to turn out. Sure, you may believe in your position with very high hopes, but who is to say this is the case for other users? What I've provided is a sure way method on winning over the votes of other users who may not agree with your own interpretation on what it means to win, have better conduct or present more reliable sources in a debate. BASICALLY: If you merely wish to hone your argumentation skills, critical thinking and understanding of logic, relying on debate. com voter turnouts is NOT what you should be doing. You should merely be concerned with debating (not the votes). Debating again and again and again will improve your aforementioned skills. However, if you're attempting to win over as many votes as possible, you HAVE TO BE at least somewhat familiar with how these people whom you are attempting to persuade are thinking, as once again . . . we don't all share the same thought process. PRO labels this as political training, but that is essentially what individuals are doing when they are attempting to win over numerous people to support them. You can't just run for office, appeal to your own mindset and not give a crap about how the people (whom you wish to vote in favor of you) think. As I've pointed out (and contrary to what PRO wants you to believe), this really isn't much a burden. To be familiar with the members on debate. org, you need merely participate as a member of the community. Browse through the forums, browse through the comments sections and occasionally browse through other debates and it becomes a relatively simple process. Of course, if this is too much of a burden for you, you have no business attempting to win favor with the community in the first place. =========================================================================== Don't need to remove it anyway =========================================================================== RE: "This can be done WITHOUT conduct being a *voting* category. Rather, a polling category for the interests of the debaters if they wish - just like the "I agree before this debate". This applies to my opponent's other point. If it's for the purpose of other "arenas" or "activities", then at best it should remain as a poll that does not affect the vote turnout. " Um . . . polling and voting are the same thing. They are both merely the instance of people expressing their thoughts so that the thoughts can be made up into a census concerning the thoughts of the community in question. Basically, my opponent has pretty much conceded to my argument here. RE:"Again - the only other purpose of the conduct vote is to prevent debates from turning into messy insults. A new category, such as clarity, can be implemented. As anyone should know, being clear in one's debating is great argumentative skills. " Both PRO and I have agreed that there are different interpretations of conduct. PRO has claimed that the reason leaving conduct as a voting category is bad is because of the different interpretations, hence has opted to simply use a synonym of conduct which he believes as being more specific to what users should be concerned with in terms of conduct. However, rather than waste time, the question mark box on the left of conduct (the one which contains explanations for each category) can simply be modified to merely provide an explanation concerning clarity. Once again, this would appease my opponent while upholding my side of the resolution. ======================================================================== WHY YOU SHOULD VOTE CON ======================================================================== #1. I've provided an alternative to appeases my opponents arguments while negating the resolution. This renders his case meaningless. #2. PRO conceded to #1 as can be shown in point #3 in the "An inventive to avoid petty insults, and focus on debate" section of the debate in my R3. #3. Replacing conduct with clarity is pointless given that people have different interpretations of clarity just as they have different interpretations of conduct (which PRO pointed out as a problem for conduct). These are the main three; you can find others in the debate, but I deem these as being the most important. Thanks for the debate.