The Voting System For Debate.org Has Many Avoidable Mistakes

1 Con has misunderstood my view and argued beside the point. I never said that the first two questions are irrelevant in themselves. I think they are both very relevant and interesting in themselves. I agree with Con that they allow voters to specify their views and provide useful feedback for the debaters. This does not matter. My argument was that they are irrelevant to the voting system. They have no bearing on who wins or loses. Con has not addressed this point. I never said that they should not be asked or answered, only that they should not be placed, so to speak, “on all fours” with the other questions. Do presidential ballets contain questions like “Who did you agree with before/after the campaign”? No. That question is important and so it is asked on news shows and polls, but it is kept separate from the actual voting questions, as it should be. Also, there is nothing to prevent voters from lying about with whom they agreed/disagreed before/after the debate. I’m glad Con is a strong theist. I am a strong theist myself. 2 Con has misstated my views. I never said that these factors should not contribute to debates. I definitely think they should, and I completely agree that reading a debate is much more enjoyable when the when opponents have invested effort in it. What I said is that they should not contribute to the voting system of the debate (they should not affect who is declared the winner of the debate. Just because I believe that these factors should not affect one part of a debate (the voting part) does not mean that I believe that they should not affect other parts (such as the arguments). I therefore agree with most voters. (Con used an appeal to popularity here “…in the opinion of most voters…”. This is fallacious, but I won’t push it because, as I just explained, he is only using this fallacy against something I never said.) My point about the irrelevancy of conduct, spelling and grammar to voting remains without a response. The number of points (or lack thereof) for each question appear in parenthesis next to the questions in the voting section but not on an actual page of a debate.Why the inconsistency? Con offers no argument for his belief that the best way to penalize voters for bad grammar/conduct is in the voting. He just asserts it. Again, grammar has nothing to do with proving an opponent wrong, so it should not be a factor in the voting. 3 The importance of reliable, necessary and relevant sources can be incorporated into the most convincing argument question, and voting tie is a superficial way to solve the solution. 4 Con’s says that inappropriate reasons given for votes are being combated. I gladly concede to this, however, see my response to #6. Con brings up the issue of poorly written reasons by people lacking intelligence and says that this problem is not directly avoidable or solvable, and asks if I have a solution to it. But I did not bring up this issue, HE DID! (again he argues against something I never said). I do not have to come up with a solution because I do not believe it really has a solution. I agree with Con that it may indeed be an unavoidable problem. Con says that as a precaution, new debaters are not allowed to vote unless they complete a definite number of (the FAQ said three) debates. How this prevents “vote-bombs” is still a mystery. It seems discriminatory in that it assumes that new voters will be bad voters. The FAQ section said that is ensures that each vote belongs to a single individual. The logic here is also a mystery to me. I tested out the claim that you must have partaken in three debates in order to vote, and it is true, but noticed another mistake in the process. On a debate page itself, one’s vote is simply asked for, regardless of whether he has partaken in three hundred debates, three debates, or no debates. It is only when one actually fills out the criteria, provides a reason and clicks “cast my vote” does it tell you that you must complete 3 debates (if you have not already done so.) Why isn’t there something that simply says something like "You do not yet qualify to vote” for unqualified voters on the debate pageitself, instead of the words “vote here” which may lead voters on and falsely imply that they can vote when they cannot? 5 Con says that this used to be true, but that it no longer is. I gladly concede to this point, however, see my response to #6. Con mentions that this change was made due to suggestions by users of the site. I guess I’m not the only one who believes that this was a foolish move by the creators of the website. 6 Con’s response to this is the same as the one above, that it used to be true but no longer is. I gladly concede to this as well; however I would like to note a few things: Referring to 4,5,and 6: There is nothing on the site explaining that people used to be able to vote for themselves but no longer can due to suggestions from voters. It just says that debaters cannot vote for themselves, so if a member finds that he cannot vote for himself but that others (in the past have) this will understandably strike him as an inconsistency. The same is true of indefinite voting periods. The site simply says that instigators get to choose the voting period, and it gives them several finite options, but never explains that the reason why debaters may find indefinite voting periods on some debates is because of a discontinued rule. As for the combating of nappropriate voting reasons (or inappropriate arguments in debates for that matter) I can find nothing on the site that explains what happens to a debater if he does not comply with the conduct rules, only the implication that he should comply with the code of conduct. I’m not denying it, I just wish there was some concrete evidence to support it. It seems that the real way that one knows the information that Con knows is by being experienced on the site. This is unfair. The information should be public and for all to see. Without this information, one cannot be faulted for being puzzled and seeing these features as mistakes. The fact that the website waits for people to make complaints about features before fixing them is irresponsible. It can and should anticipate that certain features will cause problems and create the website so that it is free of them in the first place. The fact that these features were changed does not support the present aspect of my contention, so I must ultimately drop them, but Con’s responses to the previous two issues actually support my larger point. It supports my belief that they were mistakes (otherwise why would voters complain) and it supports my belief that and that they were avoidable (otherwise how could they be changed).My timing was just off. 7 I’ll admit that this last mistake is not as significant as the others, but I reject Con’s unsupported claim that it is simply not a significant issue. If my debate statistics say that I won a debate (because I have the most points so far in the voting period) and then things change (and my opponent starts getting more points than I), then the debate statistics will have to take the point away, add it to my losses, and it will mean that a falsehood had been displayed earlier. Bottom line: Honesty is important, and winners should not be declared winners unless they are actually the winners. We all know from sports that one team may be doing horribly atfirst and then pull off a miracle at the end (the most recent example would be the St. Louis cardinals being 10.5 down against the wild card and then winning the world series in 2011.) It ain’t over till it’sover! The debate statistics chart should keep its pants on until things are actually finished. Issue #7 deals with the logic of time, and how what is true at one time is not necessarily true at another time. If Con does not see the significance of this, then he should drop his response to five and six. Thanks for debating.