Instigator / Pro

the voting system here is flawed, people simply vote their bias, not by fair merit


The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics

After 12 votes and with 12 points ahead, the winner is...

Publication date
Last updated date
Number of rounds
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
Voting period
Six months
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Contender / Con

The voting system here is flawed beyond mention, people vote against you simply because they don't like you, debates should be decided by an elite or respected elders

Round 1
I think that since voting is restricted here anyways it should be limited in a proper way, if it is not to be universal suffrage , perhaps it should be the way it was in old days limited to elites who could show they have superior qualities . I have been disenfranchised for the dumbest reasons because i did not follow some arbitrary rules. I know the real reason . I'M AN AVOWED SOCIALIST and  as such people pretend to be fair and vote their bias cleverly . Debates would be decided by judges, AND ONLY honest experts . People who have been here a long time with a reputation for being fair regardless of ideology , only they should vote on the outcomes of debates, its a joke other wise people vote a way because they don't like you personally , or because they disagree with your politics, what a sham, what a sham
Re: the opening assertion
The voting system is not flawed, at least not in the way pro asserts. People do not simply vote their bias as was seen in my debate with billbatard regarding 0.999... = 0.

Oromagi insisted that my claim was incorrect and that he could have done a better job (i disagree as my claim is a clear cut fact), but still voted for me based on the merit of my arguments.

My opponent suggests that the only proper options are universal suffrage or elite rule as in the old days. Universal sufferage has never been the norm. Children, convicted felons, and non citizens are forbidden from voting in almost every country. Sensible restrictions are always a good thing. The rules on this website are quite logical and reasonable. A brand new account cannot, and should not, be allowed to vote. Otherwise I will just make a ton of fake accounts and arguments will be decided based on who has more time to make fake accounts. That is in no way good.

As for the elites suggestion.... did that ever work out for the better in the past? What do you even mean by elites? Experts are only experts in narrow fields, and throughout most history, especially when elites held sole sufferage, their elite status had nothing to do with expertise but money and lineage, which resulted in elites who served themselves and no one else. No thank you.

Furthermore, how is this site to maintain a sufficient membership of elites? They will require compensation. Where will DART find money to pay these elites? What will happen if many elites decide to do other things besides judging votes on a website?

And finally my opponent claims persecution because he is a socialist. Considering past debates, it appears his definition of socialist is amongst the most moderate, if valid at all, and by which definition I may also be considered a socialist, openly advocating for public assitance and government intervention. I have felt no such repression based on my political beliefs on this site.

Although i think the criteria for a valid vote is much to high, resulting in few votes on most topics, but a rush of votes for coveted FF, no explaination needed debates. The criteria for being allowed to vote are very reasonable. I certainly understand the reasoning behind expecting detailed voter prescriptions, but i think the resulting consequences speak for themselves. Those requirements should be relaxed *slightly*.
Round 2
i have experienced first hand people being biased because they dont like me so i know this to be a self evident fact it is the cons burden to convince me otherwise since i a first hand witness to it happening to me  i have direct evidence through life experiences the burden is on you to show i am wrong

i think it is also your burden to refute my solution which is to elect or appoint judges who have special qualities such a expertise and strong character records

face it this is a brilliant idea!
My opponent misinterprets "self evident" as "evident to himself", as opposed to something that requires no evidence.

If that is the case then all religious experiences and drug induced hallucinations are all true by default and it is on us to disprove something that which currently exists only in your head.

It is irrefutable that many have been voting against you, but your claim that it is for personal or political reasons is your opinion. I have already debunked the political claim, perhaps it is possible your not making the best arguments?

For example: your claim about professional "elite" judges was contended with questions of implementation, compensation, and bias. None of these were addressed, they actually seem to be actively ignored. The voters see this.
Round 3
self evident and evident to myself are the same thing because i'm smart
dont mention religion we arent talking about religion this is an example of a bad analogy 
False analogy is an informal fallacy. It applies to inductive arguments. It is an informal fallacy because the error is about what the argument is about, and not the argument itself. An analogy proposes that two concepts which are similar (A and B) have a common relationship to some property.
False analogy - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia › wiki › False_analogy

  • Not needing to be demonstrated or explained; obvious.

A smart person would not make up false claims that can be easily debunked. 

You also dont seem to understand what the word analogy means. Your emotional assumption is in your head and not provable externally. Religious experiences and hallucinations are experiences that are also only in ones head and not provable externally. The 2 are very much analogous.

You seem to be completely dismissing the possibilities that you lose the vote because your arguments are weaker then your opponents. Which is something i can attest to even on subjects i agree with you on. There is a difference between having the correct stance, and being able to properly defend it.
Round 4
Ragnar always votes against me every single time every time  how can that be right?
Although statistically unlikely, it is possible if your opponents consistently made stronger cases, it would be the logical outcome.

Can you name any specific debates in which he voted against you when you feel you should have won?
Round 5
I am too smart to be treated this way, it is obviously bias
It certainly is obvious.