Conduct Should Be Considered When Voting On Debates On Debate.org

To see what it's like to assume that there is only one way to regulate conduct, see my opponent's round 1 arguments (1st 10,000 characters). To see what it's like to hedge your bets from such an assumption see my opponent's round 2 arguments (2nd 10,000 characters). Ahhh, the adverbial clause. Though many forget about it, it still tells us when things occur and therefore can drastically change the meaning of a statement. For example: When I was young, I wet the bed. WHEN I WAS YOUNG, would be the adverbial clause, because it shows when I wet the bed... Suppose you were to quote me here, and remove the adverbial clause. You could quote me as actually saying "I wet the bed." This is of course now in the indicative tense, and it would seem from this adverbial clause-less quote that I regularly wet the bed...or I more recently just wet the bed. Now suppose you were an honest person, and actually quoted me for exactly what I said, including the adverbial clause. WHEN I WAS YOUNG, I wet the bed. Now my position is accurate. It's kind of like when Pro tried to demonstrate a contradiction on my part by misquoting me in the 2nd round (2nd 10,000 characters). *Pro misquoted me as saying "I have a dream...that one day debaters of all types and abilities...will not be judged by their debating behavior." Pro then referenced me saying "poor conduct should be a disqualification before voting." This looks like I'm using a contradiction: "judging conduct is bad, we should disqualify conduct." *In Pro's misquote, for the second ellipsis, Pro intentionally left out the adverbial clause "during the voting period" that I had actually written in the 2nd round (2nd 10,000 characters). See for yourself. *The direct quote should be* I have a dream that debaters of all types and abilities DURING THE VOTING PERIOD will not be judged by their debating behavior. So it is not a contradiction to say "Judging conduct DURING VOTING is bad, so poor conduct should be disqualified BEFORE VOTING." During and before are mutually exclusive terms. Why the dishonesty Pro? This can be verified by going back and reading the debate. So just like in the resolution, where it says WHEN VOTING, the adverbial clause matters. Let's be clear. WHEN VOTING, judging conduct requires committing a logical fallacy, ad hominem, because you're choosing the better total argument with a consideration for your reactions to someone's personal behavior rather than the value of their position. Conduct is obviously paramount to quality debates, but judging conduct, when voting, plays an illogical role in selecting a better argument. The better argument is decided during the votes, not before the votes. https://www.google.com... Which is why pre-vote disqualifications for bad conduct make more sense than voting points for good conduct. I must use the UFC as an example, not because I believe that debating is like fighting...I believe that debating on DDO is a competition like fighting is a competition in the UFC. Say what you will about the UFC, they have the highest quality competitions in their sport. How do they deal with conduct in a formal organized competition where conduct can run a muck? In the UFC, judges only score fights, much like on DDO, judges only score debates. For disqualifications, it's the referee who motions to the match official for a disqualification of a fighter...and do you know who the referees are on DDO? We are. Yep, like Pro says he wants "the community to be "adults" and police themselves" I agree. Give us, the referees of our own "adult" debates, the power to motion to an official for a disqualification for conduct, using the report buttons, so that if the motion warrants disqualification, the violator can be disqualified, and the debate can be removed. If the motion to the official doesn't warrant disqualification, then the perceived poor conduct did not negatively affect the quality of the debate, thus, WHEN VOTING, said conduct needs not be considered, because the quality of the debate based on conduct would have already been considered without choosing a better argument and committing an ad hominem logical fallacy. Pro also said "So, Con claims that he wishes for debaters to be judged for their arguments and not for their conduct, then proposes and promotes a system of disqualification that would not only judge a debater's conduct, but would do so without consideration for the value of the debater's arguments." By disqualifying a debater, DDO takes no position on who had the better argument. There is no selecting a better debater with a disqualification; there is just a winner by disqualification. Disqualifications don't need to consider an argument's validity to regulate misconducts that negatively affect debate quality. Thus the consideration of the debater's conduct for a disqualification, pre voting, is not being used to say one argument is worse than another based on a fallacy. It's also not contradictory to my position. Issuing a disqualification, DDO simply says that this debater did not qualify for voting. There is no fallacy, and there exists quite a discouragement to write garbage in debates. Conversely, non violators need not worry about the irrelevant reactions to their personal behavior from voters, because the quality of the debate based on conduct has already been considered by us, the referees. This responds to Pro saying "I'm curious how disqualification will help a debater stop worrying about 'saying please and thank you.'" With enough disqualifications, members can lose access to DDO. This would discourage debaters from flying off the handle, making personal attacks, or becoming overly vulgar in fear of losing privileges...like debating in quality debates. Once all of the referees, we, are filtered from the egregious conduct violators, fewer and fewer motions for disqualifications will occur, and DDO will only have high quality competitors; high quality competitors make for high quality debates. There are also cases where both participants' conduct is so bad that both get disqualified. Either way, the debate is trashed, and needs not waste voters', as Pro says, "precious time carefully considering the philosophical musings of two shitt-diapered toddlers screaming at each other over a stolen cheerio." When voting, conduct should not be considered, because, by doing so, voters' ad hominems play a role in selecting a better argument. When deciding whether or not someone should be disqualified, you need not choose a better argument, therefore the ad hominem does not apply. Being disqualified does not mean you have a poorer argument. Regarding my claim that casting a point in favor of the debater who had better conduct is committing an ad hominem fallacy, Pro says "[the ad hominem fallacy] would be true if arguments points were awarded for better conduct... arguments and conduct are separate votes with separate values." The better argument in total is awarded in part due to conduct. I don't care if conduct is separate from a voting parameter that has the word argument in it. The voting consideration is still an ad hominem fallacy, because the better total argument is being partially determined by a reaction to a debater's behavior rather than the debater's position. You want to talk about separate? How about conduct doesn't play into judging a better argument at all? Acceptable conduct is rather a qualification to enter the voting round. Pro also states "One may not like that conduct, spelling and grammar, and sources are part of the total score, but that does not change the fact that arguments are in their own category." Judging a debater's sources for relevance is relevant to the position of the debater that cites sources for their position. Errors in grammar, though seemingly trivial, can change the intended meaning of a debater's position which is relevant to the position of the debater. Please see my adverbial clause example above. Conduct can make an opponent or voter mad, happy, or offended. What does this have to do with the position of the debater? Ad hominem just means irrelevant. Determining the meaner/less appropriate debater is irrelevant to determining the worse argument. Summary Pro knowingly omitted an adverbial clause to make my arguments appear contradictory. Judging conduct when voting is my actual qualm with the current system. Pro misunderstands that disqualifying a debater is not selecting a better argument. Judging conduct for DQ does not a fallacy make because there is no choosing a better argument in a disqualification. Pro thinks "the current system remains superior, encouraging good conduct." Pro believes debaters would be more encouraged to have good conduct, because the current system awards 1 point to them. I think that debaters would be more encouraged to have good conduct, because a disqualification for poor conduct would mean a loss, and potential removal from the site. Pro claims that conduct is a separate consideration from who had the better argument. The total vote chooses the better argument, and conduct is currently a part of this total vote. Conduct is being used in part to select a better argument in total, and this fallacious consideration should incite change in the way DDO votes on debates. Ad hominem fallacies don't make for quality votes, which serve to choose exemplars of quality debaters on DDO. "Who had better conduct?" should not be considered when voting on debates on DDO, rather conduct should be considered before voting, so that we, as self referees, may motion to disqualify true violators, by way of the report button, to filter egregious poor conduct, and maintain fallacy free, high quality voting. I maintain that this system would lead to higher quality debates with higher quality debaters and votes.