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

RFD: Reason For Decision Rebuttals 3. Adverbial Clause Con is grasping at straws with his “adverbial clause” argument. As you’ll notice, some variation of “before voting” was included each time I quoted Con’s statements about his proposed disqualification system, making it clear that Con prefers something be done about conduct before voting. It was not necessary to include “during the voting period” in Con’s quote about conduct votes, both because it is obvious that a conduct vote would take place during the voting period, and because his quotes about disqualification make it obvious that he wants it to take place before voting. The resolution itself includes the phrase “when voting”. It’s clear what’s being debated without having to include it in a quote. Whether the disqualification happens before or during the voting period is beside the point, anyway. Con’s argument that judging conduct over arguments is ad hominem should have nothing to do with what time the judgment occurs. Ad hominem is ad hominem, before, during, or after the voting period. Which brings us again to the question: 4. Conduct Votes = Ad Hominem? Con continues to argue that conduct votes are ad hominem. He states, "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.” This statement is incorrect. While it is possible that the winner of the debate could be decided by conduct votes, the “better total argument” is not. Debater 1 could receive 10 conduct points and 0 argument points, while Debater 2 receives 0 conduct points and 9 argument points. Who had the better argument? According to the judges, Debater 2 had the better argument, even though he lost the debate. On the other hand, Debater 1 could receive 10 conduct points and 0 argument points, while Debater 2 receives 0 conduct points and 30 argument points. In this case, Debater 2 has won the debate as well as having the better argument, in spite of every judge giving conduct to his opponent. It’s clear that winning the debate is not the same thing as having the “better total argument”. Conduct votes and argument votes are separate, and each must be supported by its own, separate RFD. While poor conduct can potentially cost you the win, it is considered separately from your arguments, allowing a good argument to still shine through and potentially win the debate. Let's contrast this with Con’s Disqualification Alternative. Debater 1 has poorly constructed, weak arguments, but has been courteous and composed during his rounds. Debater 2 has solid, strong arguments, but, while typing his final round, makes the mistake of laughing at the weakness of his opponent’s arguments and insulting Debater 1’s intelligence through a few unnecessary jabs. Under Con’s proposed system, Debater 1 could report Debater 2’s final round, leaving his opponent at the mercy of the Administration. The Administration, upon examining Debater 2’s final round, determine that he did indeed insult his opponent several times, and disqualify him, removing him from the debate and giving the win to Debater 1. All of Debater 2’s solid, well-constructed arguments, that took much time and effort to put together and type out, are thrown out due to a few poorly chosen words from a single round. On the other hand, under the current system of Conduct Votes, judges could note Debater 2’s barbs in his final round, award his opponent conduct points, encouraging Debater 2 to think twice next time, and then still award well-deserved argument points to Debater 2 for all of his hard work on his superb arguments. It’s obvious which system is more fair and considerate to both debaters’ arguments. How can Con continue to claim that conduct votes are somehow ad hominem while disqualification is not? Conduct votes give more consideration to arguments than Con’s alternative, meaning that if anything can be accused of ad hominem, Con’s alternative certainly can. 5. Community Decision Con states, "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.” So, instead of the non-violator worrying about irrelevant reactions to their personal behavior from voters, they get to worry about irrelevant reactions to their personal behavior from a single member who decides to push the “report” button. How is this better? Whereas with conduct votes, one member can vote against a debater’s poor conduct while other members ignore conduct and award arguments, under Con’s Disqualification Alternative, as soon as one member reports the poor conduct to the Administration, the debater is disqualified with no chance for other community members to redeem him. Instead of the power being in the hands of the community in general, which can choose to ignore or disagree with any single voter’s disapproval of a debater’s conduct, the power is in the hands of that single voter, who can, on his own and without consensus, report the debater to the Administration for disqualification. The Administration, in the interest of fairness, must be impartial and disqualify the debater if his conduct violates any one of a set of clear, specific rules. The community will no longer police itself. Instead, it will be policed by a few conduct sticklers who have memorized the rule book, and go trigger-happy on the report button. 6. Checks and Balances Going hand-in-hand with my last point, while placing power in the hands of a single conduct report will remove the power of the community in general to “check and balance” conduct votes, it will also remove another helpful check and balance.A great thing about the current voting system is that every point awarded must be explained in a thorough RFD. If a voter awards a point for conduct without thoroughly and clearly explaining why, his vote can be reported and removed by the Administration. In the same way, if a voter states in his RFD that he has awarded argument points for conduct reasons (which would actually be ad hominem, unlike separate conduct and argument points), his vote can be reported and removed. This system provides a dual layer of protection for the debater: a check and balance. If a debater or other community member believes that a voter’s RFD is unfair or inaccurate, they can report it to the Administration for checking and balancing. Con’s Disqualification Alternative removes this check and balance. If the Administration decides that a debater has broken a conduct rule, he has no appeal. There will be no RFD, and there is no one to check and balance the Administration’s opinion. Both the reporting of the round and the decision of the Administration all happen behind the scenes, and do not give the same level of fairness and balance that the current Conduct Vote system provides. Summary To summarize, here is a chart comparing and contrasting the advantages of the Conduct Vote system with the advantages of Con’s Disqualification Alternative: ---------------------------------------------------Conduct Vote-------Disqualification Encourages Good Conduct---------------Yes--------------------Yes Allows Redemption By Arguments------Yes--------------------No Gives Community the Power-------------Yes--------------------No Allows Checks & Balances----------------Yes--------------------No Conclusion Con has failed to uphold his challenge to the status quo. While he has shown that disqualification would encourage good conduct and possibly lead to quality debates, he has not shown that it is better than the established system of community-judged conduct votes. Conduct votes allow for arguments to be considered separately and possibly take the win in spite of poor conduct, while disqualification has no regard for arguments and throws them out along with the poor conduct. Conduct votes give the community as a whole the power to decide the fate of each debater, while disqualification gives the power to a single member and the Administration’s rule book. Conduct votes require thorough RFD’s and allow votes with incomplete or absent RFD’s to be checked and balanced by the Administration, while disqualification allows the Administration to directly remove the alleged offending debater with neither RFD nor check and balance. In conclusion, Con’s dream "that one day on every debate platform etiquette infractions will never outweigh solid logic” will not be brought to life by his proposed system of disqualification. The current system of conduct votes is a far better system for insuring that arguments outweigh conduct.