DDO should only have a "more convincing arguments" point

== Response to Round 2 == DDO should mirror real life debate My opponent"s only response here is the assertion that online debate is somehow different from real life debate. However, the only way my opponent claims that online debate is different is that people are anonymous online, so they would have worse conduct. There are three problems with this. First, my opponent drops sources and grammar. He fails to ever explain why judges would pay attention to grammar and sources when considering who made better arguments during an offline debate but would ignore these same factors in the online context. A judge is rarely going to consider a debater to be the more "convincing" when that debater uses terrible evidence or bad grammar. Grammar does affect how convincing one"s speaking is in an offline debate (e.g., the statement "is our children learning" made G.W. Bush look pretty foolish in his remarks about the state of our education system). My opponent"s arguments are disproven by real world experience. Competitive debate does not award points for conduct, grammar, and sources, and yet competitive debaters are generally respectful, articulate speakers, who make well-sourced arguments [and those who aren"t tend to lose and lose often]. Second, my opponent falsely assumes that DDO is "anonymous." While some people don"t post their real name, your username garners a reputation on the site. If you are too rude, you will get banned (like izbo10). I challenge my opponent to point to any debate on the site where a serious conduct violation has occurred, and the person was properly punished by losing tons of conduct points (as opposed to getting banned). Losing a single point is not much disincentive. If conduct is generally good here, it"s because people are here to debate, not to be malicious to each other. Third, my opponent"s main objection is that judges would ignore the other three categories because they wouldn"t be aware of their importance. However, my opponent concedes that these three categories are implicit to persuasion. He concedes, "I would agree . . . [r]eal-world judges implicitly take into account sources and conduct." Because persuasion implicitly requires good grammar, conduct, and sources, judges cannot help but to consider these factors. In addition, the site could still make it explicit that judges can consider those three factors in their decision, under a totality of the circumstances, when deciding who "debated better." TUF and I discussed a system where only "best argument" is awarded points, but there is still a place to award sources, conduct, and S&G [just with no attached points]. These latter categories would not be worth points, but would serve as a reminder that sources, conduct, and S&G are important as "soft" variables in the ultimate decision. The voting layout might look as follows: The better debating was done by: ____________ [Vote Pro or Con] (3 points) [indent] This debater had better sources (no points) [indent] This debater had better conduct (no points) [indent] This debater had better presentation (such as spelling, grammar, and formatting) (no points) My opponent says something about "fact checkers" being "real world," except most voters on this site and most people who watch the presidential debate don"t immediately fact check everything they hear. The burden is on the person"s opponent to challenge any specious sources or claims made in the debate. If the opponent lets a bad source slip through unnoticed, that"s bad debating. Vote bombing // One person, one vote My opponent explains how this problem could be addressed by a moderation system with a "report" button. However, we already have such a system on DDO. In my interactions with Airmax (who is the site"s moderator), he made clear that he had no power to remove a vote as long as any explanation was given for each point. So the following is considered a sufficient RFD to pass moderation: "I was more convinced by Pro"s arguments in general, and I think he had better sources too, and Con was a tiny bit rude. Arguments, sources, and conduct to Pro." It makes sense that Airmax can"t require better RFD"s because once he starts considering the sufficiency of the explanation, that"s a slippery slope to massive flame wars over voting and raising the requirements for RFD"s so high that some of the less experienced and articulate members of the site can"t even vote. My problems with people strategically awarding Garett more points happened under a system in which that debate was already being heavily scrutinized by a moderator. I would like to share two quotes Airmax gave in regard to our discussion about moderation. Airmax said, "I also agree that it is worth changing the point system. I believe in general, it causes more problems than it solves." [1] Airmax also said, "Sources points have to be the most misused category for voters . . . its very rarely justified and when it is, it"s done so for [bad] reasons ("Pro had more sources," etc)." [2] Airmax said he is powerless to remove such votes, but he wishes the system would be changed to award only argument points because the other categories are constantly abused. Thus, at best, moderation solves only explicit vote bombs, but not implicit bias or attempts to make one"s vote "count for more" in a close debate because Airmax cannot police the more subtle forms of point-abuse. My opponent"s "moderation" argument also fails to answer my "one person, one vote" argument. Even assuming no one ever voted strategically: Why is my opinion of who debated better worth less in determining the final outcome than someone else who thinks the other side debated better and had better sources? In such a scenario, my opinion is worth 3/5"s of my opponent"s opinion about who should win. This is no more fair or ethical than the "Three-Fifths Compromise" from American history. Returning briefly to each category: S&G and sources: these are redundant with "better argument." You will never see a legitimate RFD that says, "Con"s writing was barely coherent and his sources were fabricated and didn"t back up any of his claims, but he made the better argument." If these points are redundant with "better argument," their existence only creates the potential for strategic voting. In close debates, voters will stretch their RFD"s to award more points. Conduct: turn. If really bad conduct can lose someone the whole debate, that would be more of a disincentive for acting badly than simply losing one point per judge. The single point makes judges feel like it"s okay to punish a serious conduct violation with only the loss of one point. Removing the conduct point forces harsher punishments when they are actually deserved [i.e. a full loss of the debate or a ban from DDO]. [1] http://oi57.tinypic.com... [2] http://oi57.tinypic.com...