DDO Should also Use My Voting Standards Guide

The main reason that I posted this is to get a better understanding of the debating and voting process on DDO. While you list several great factors to consider when voting on a debate, I believe that mine is the only voting guide that includes an in depth discussion of determining who has the BoP when it has not been addressed by the Instigator. The reason that my voting guide should also be used on DDO is because there are conflicting ideas about who has the BoP. Some argue that the BoP is always shared while others (rightfully so, in my opinion) ascertain that the BoP naturally falls on the Instigator since he or she writes the resolution and initiates the debate. My formulas for calculating BoP in the event that the resolution is a negative statement shows how the BoP automatically falls on the instigator when he takes the con position. I will need to revise my OP if DDO were to actually consider also using my voting guide. The order that arguments are presented in affect the outcome of a debate, so the instigator has a greater BoP in my opinion given that he or she can establish claims first, and needs to defend those claims through all rounds of the debate. Having said that, I also understand the BoP can only ever be equal when the resolution is a positive statement or when the Instigator takes the pro position in a debate when the resolution is a negative statement. My “Equations for Awarding Argument Points,” explains why the BoP cannot be shared when the resolution is a negative statement. I realize now that I have partially erred in my calculations, and have shown my corrections in the table below. After assigning numbers to these factors: Resolution (positive + or negative - statement) times pro ½ the resolution + or con ½ the resolution - ,+ or - these factors = Equilibrium 0 or Not Equilibrium any number other than 0, I realized my error. I am basing my calculations on the idea that both debaters should be arguing the resolution, not just stating claims (instigator) and making counterclaims. In order for there to be discourse the discussion needs to address the resolution by both sides and that is impossible for the contender if he is con when it is a negative statement because his arguments would become a double negative and end up the opposite of the resolution. A negation of a negative is a positive. If the contender is Pro in a debate with a resolution that is a negative statement, he still can share burden of proof with the instigator because the equation is in equilibrium. I apologize to the judges and to my opponent for not assigning actual numbers to my theory until now, but I ask that my self correction be taken into consideration when judging this debate and to vote with leniency for the effort that I put into this topic, as well as my willingness and ability to correct my own errors. (10) Resolution / Positive Statement (5) Instigator / Pro (-5) Contender / Con + + - (-10) Resolution / Negative Statement (5) Instigator / Pro (-5) Contender / Con - + - 10r x 5p = 50rp 10r x -5c = -50rc 50 + -50=0 Products are added since resolution is positiveEquilibrium Equally share BoP -10r x 5p = 50 -10r x -5c = -50 50 - -50 = 0 Products are subtracted since resolution is negative Equilibrium Equally share BoP (10) Resolution Positive Statement (-5) Instigator / Con (5) Contender / Pro + - + (-10) Resolution / Negative Statement (-5) Instigator / Con (5) Contender / Pro - - + 10r x -5c = - 50 10r x 5p = 50 -50 +50 = 0 Products are added since resolution is positive Equilibrium Equally share BoP -10r x -5c = 50 -10r x 5p = -50 -50 -50 = -100 Products are subtracted since resolution is negative Not Equilibrium Full BoP on Con Now I will take the time to address Con’s counterclaims. I love how concise Con explains the process of judging a debate. I will apply cons factors when I vote on debates. The only thing that con errs in is this statement: “Did the participant defend their claim in the first round? ” The contestant would not need to defend their claim in the first round, they would need to [state] their claim in the first round. They wouldn’t need to [defend] their claim until their opponent has refuted any of their claims. Then they would need to [defend] their claim/s. Although I don’t disagree with any of the other criteria that Con uses to evaluate a debate, I would like to point out that he went against his own criteria for judging debates during this debate! Lol :) He didn’t address my arguments and he failed to correct my fallacies (miscalculations). He may not have even read my debate, (ignored me) that I gather by his second to last statement, “Now. I shall read your debate, “ which caused him to fail to prove me wrong. So while I have erred in my calculations, con has erred in claiming that a contestant needs to defend their claim in the first round. He also failed to apply his own voting guidelines while participating in this debate. In cons last statement, “(1 more: Did the opponent clearly not read the other's message. .. oh wait that is Trolling ** :P)” he even implies that HE is trolling. Given this seemingly friendly admittance to his probable guilt, as well as my self correction, I think I (pro) should be chosen as the winner. I’d like to thank Con for making this debate more fun, and thank the judges in advance for taking the time to read and vote on this debate. Sincerely, emmarie