Resolved, debates should not end with a no-vote tie
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
Resolved, debates should not end with a no-vote tie. Currently as of this date, [06/13/2020, two months shy of 2 years of debating on DebateArt.com], 1,150 debates on DART have been finished. Of these, 45 have ended with no votes cast, yielding an automatic tie. Also currently, there are 17 debates in voting status with 3 of those with no votes cast. While that only represents 4.1% of all finished and in-voting status, each one is likely a disappointment to the pair of debaters who have engaged the debate.
By initiating or accepting a debate, I’ll wager that even the most callous member of the site has a care to have their time involved in debate recognized, at least, if not appreciated, else why are we here? It is a fact that about 100 more of us prefer the forum section than debate, but the fewer of us who do debate do so with the hope that our debates are attended by sufficient interested parties by whatever motivation attracts us. 23,944 comments of debate observers have been created as of this date on 1,202 total debates engaged in nearly two years; an average of 19.9 per debate. And yet, those interested sufficiently to comment leave 45 debates without a vote. The average votes cast by each member is but 13.3 votes, each.
I conclude that voting on debates needs incentive to do so, just as there is incentive to initiate, accept, and comment on debates. The only other activity that is measured by DART relative to debate is voting, yet no incentive exists to do so beyond counting our individual votes. The time has come to actively rate in ELO by votes cast, not only by count, but additionally, by willingness to prevent a debate from finishing with a no-vote conclusion. I suggest a voluntary membership position of Debate Rescue Volunteer; a select group of members, whose count need not be limited but only by their willingness to participate, dedicated to the proposition that no debate be allowed to finish in a no-vote status.
I am grarteful Rational Madman has agreed to this debate.
I.a As noted in Description, 4% of all debates on DART result in finished debates of no-vote, resulting in a tie. I am not opposed to debates ending in a tie in which there are multiple votes, but to allow a debate to dwindle in interest such that there is no member or moderator vote after the voting phase has reached its calendar end countdown is a shame and a disservice to both participants.
I.b I recognize that some debates concern subjects that are either disagreeable, absurd, whimsical, offensive, unpopular, and other adjectives, but if a member has proposed a debate that passes the muster of DART debate policy, and another member has agreed to debate the subject, I believe the debate ought to attract the concern of at least one other member/moderator sufficient to want to see a worthy outcome for the participants’ effort.
I.c In the process of accruing the stat of no-votes for the 1,150 finished debates [45 voteless debates], I noted as well approximately 180 – 200 debates having just 1 vote, making this issue more like in excess of 15% with very limited voting. I do not necessarily argue against one-vote debates, but I am in favor of imposing that no debate conclude in a no-vote tie.
II. Argument Solution: Debate Rescue Volunteers
II.a My solution is simple: establish a new quorum of members on a strictly voluntary basis, called Debate Rescue Volunteers [DRVs] Who would, by personal responsibility, agree to observe any debate in danger of concluding a voting phase without a vote registered, and rescue that debate with a vote using all the current parameters by policy that constitute a proper vote, i.e. consideration of arguments, sourcing, spelling and grammar, and conduct. Only members qualified to vote can be DRVs.
II.a.1 We currently have a system in place to offering warning of a debate about to conclude its designated voting phase duration [established by Instigator] by use of the red icon beneath the green debate status “Voting” that indicates a 3-day period to end of voting [scrolling over the icon indicates the graphic meaning.] At least one DRV [preferably more] would agree to address such coded debates to rescue that debate from the default tie.
II.b The action of DRVs ought to earn incentive rating value for stepping up to rescue otherwise doomed debates to the oblivion of a default tie. This would be earned by acting to rescue debates, not merely for volunteering. It would improve voting skills, never a bad consequence, and, as a result, also improve the debate skills of members volunteering to be a DRV.
II.b.1The debate in need of rescue would delay beyond the original expiration of the voting phase in voting status until rescued, or, by agreement of both participants in comments, allow the debate to expire as a no-vote tie. This would allow debate participants the freedom to accept a debate rescue with a definitive winner and loser, or agree to the status quo of a tie.
II.c As a sign of good faith, I volunteer to be a Debate Rescue Volunteer, and hope that others would join the effort.
I surrender the floor to RationalMadman.
to allow a debate to dwindle in interest such that there is no member or moderator vote after the voting phase has reached its calendar end countdown is a shame and a disservice to both participants.
What we want to change is not to prevent punishing for ties, that's how ELO works and if you tied with a player that has much lower rating than you, you lose your rating and the other way around, but we want to kinda disable this when there are no votes, so it's simple as that.
Okay, so I have changed the implementation to the one mentioned before, all forfeits OR no casted votes make the debate failed and prevent the rating change.
Generally, a market is called a place where sellers sell their goods and service in exchange for money. The market can differ on the basis of products or services sold or on the basis of other factors like government regulation, taxes, legality of exchange, price ceiling, buyers target, etc. and the simplest meaning od word competition is when two or more parties try to gain competitive gain or win over one another.In competition when one party wins then automatically another party loses. By understanding the terms market and competition, we can deduce that market competition is where two or more companies or organization strive to gain profit by competing with one another using various tactics.
I.a Frankly, I appreciate the arguments RationalMadman presents. I am unaware of much his arguments, particularly with regard to how ratings actually work. However, in some respects, I am lost in the weeds even though I do understand the foundation of his argument in several modes: that a debate is a marketable product, that the debate crowd and the forum crowd are after different, uh, rewards, not to stress the word by oversimplification. In that regard, debate is certainly more of a product, whereas forum seems a better service-oriented feature of conversation, if I can use product vs. service in the context of conversation. And, thirdly, that the responsibility of the debate participants is not only to sell their respective burdens of proof by argument with credible sourcing, but to sell the language of argument itself. I completely understand the relevance of marketing as a debate tactic.
I.a.1 So, reward becomes a germane issue in debate regardless of the lack of monetary worth. As a result, we are wired to win. The object of debate is not just to argue a point, but also to argue it successfully in the eyes of others, swayed, or not, by one’s argument. As such, reward by acclamation of others is it’s own reward. When that reward is denied by loss, the reasons are generally obvious, and we can learn lessons from loss if we’re practical in our approach to failure.
I.b However, a tie, which has no effect on ELO rating, is a loss of far more insidious nature to a debate participant, particularly when that tie is due to a no-vote result, as opposed to a voted tie. I will explain the psychology of both in reverse order.
I.b.1 A tie by voted results still offers the lessons-learned opportunity to debate participants because the voters are still obligated to their RFD by description of their judgment of argument, sourcing, spelling & grammar, and conduct. While there are flaws in all of these features of judgment, particularly committed by voters being too general, or worse, lacking specific critique whereby lessons are learned, they still have the potential of offering good advice for future debates, thereby strengthening debate skill.
I.b.2 However, a tie by no vote offers no such reward of lessons learned, which is why I contend that, although having no effect on rating, the debate concludes with no lesson at all by which to improve future debates. To my thinking, this is worse than a voted loss.
I.c Con provides a valid argument that the marketing of the no-vote debate may have been completely lacking. No votes because there is no interest in the debate as presented. However, a no-vote condition will leave the debater totally clueless with regard to what it was about the debate that did not attract attention. I get it; some people have no skill stringing words together on a page. We all sometimes struggle with that boredom in presentation; I certainty do, and I am a published writer by profession. “Writer’s block is a real condition. Additionally, we all may have an idea for a debate that is simply a stink bomb of a subject. I recognize having those bombs in my personal history as a writer and a debater. However, the alternative to just stop writing is not acceptable to me. Others may feel differently, and we certainly have the record of members who drop out to demonstrate that particular failure.
I.d I contend, and conclude, that while the practicality of the rating system being unaffected by ties, the debater is defeated twice over by no-vote debate conclusions. I reject the notion that all no-vote debate conclusion are due to content marketing failure, mainly because the nature of marketing is such that there are very few products for sale that interest everyone, just as there are few products for sale that interest no one.
I conclude my round 2
I.a This is a bold claim by my opponent from his round 1 argument, regarding Rating. Unfortunately, the argument stands unsupported by evidence. It is merely an opinion of one of a number of future possibilities of my proposal to make no-vote debate outcomes a violation of policy. I never said “…we as a culture [would]begin voting purely for the sake of it,”as argued by Con subsequent to the quote above. It is an assumed future predicted by Con, but again, without supporting evidence. Since Con addresses a malleable rating system [“it evolved”], I must conclude that it either will evolve capably, or not. There is a feature of process analysis, with which I am professionally familiar known asFailure Modes and Effects Analysis,which is a structured study of current process, and what failures currently plague it, and by what specific means it can be modified to both correct existing failures, and prevent future failures should they occur. This is not a guessing game, there are specific means to address a process by analysis of what the failures are, at what frequency they occur, and what mitigating factors exist to correct and prevent current potential failures, and by that analysis, create process modifications that will address future failure potential by either in-process correction, or, better, by in-process prevention. Such an analysis of the current voting and rating processes can prevent Con’s predicted failure modes.
II Rebuttal: Site admin
II.a Con’s round 1 argument referring to “Site admin” may have been language understood by site administrators, but as a debate argument, if fails Con’s own subsequent argument of marketing an argument. This one fails miserably; too deep into the weeds to follow without a site admin guide. Whom Con is quoting here is not referenced. It could be a site admin; it could be a streetwalker. I don’t know, and I have no clue to what “A day later” refers, and, therefore, I am dismissed from capability of rebutting it. Memo to Con: sale failed, my friend. Too many weeds.
III Rebuttal: “Carrot, stick, or gotta do it”
III.a Clever line, but, once again, an unsourced, therefore unsupported argument of expectation. See rebuttal I above. Same commentary. No need to repeat it.
III.b My “horrified reply” is, yet again, a good line, and a better sale than “Site admin,” but, for all color, glitz, and sound effects, the market just does not accept putting words in another’s mouth, unless one can support by evidence that it was ever said by the party alleged to have said it. That would be me, by name, in Con’s argument. Nope. I have never said the current voting policy is corrupt, and I do not think it is. Flaws can be nearly perfectly innocent, and nearly perfectly resolved without their being a hint of corruption. Even bad products can have good marketing.
IV Rebuttal: Wasted effort
IV.a Con’s round 2 rebuttal was short and sweet, declaring that I argue for “fairness.” I did not try to demonstrate fairness in this debate, and I never said it. Con is assuming my conversations again. Is that a valid argument, let alone a rebuttal? I said that no-vote debates render “disservice” to the debate participants. “Fair,” in the use of the word as expressing justice, honesty, and freedom from bias, has naught to do with service, or dis, but with reciprocal action that is open and forthright. Reciprocal, as in you debate, I vote. It seems a practical arrangement, particularly when members of DART who also engage debate also engage voting. My opponent wishes to charge that I am seeking "fairness."
IV.b I noted statistics in round 1 that are relevant to this debate. I stated in the Description that there were, as of the launch of the proposal, some 1200 debates engaged since the beginning of the site, or at least since the beginning of counting debates. In addition, there have been almost 24,000 comments, averaging almost 20 per debate. That is a sizeable number of comments for debates that, as my opponent suggests, are not marketable. While I appreciate my opponent’s marketing prowess, I am not convinced that it is a “must” ingredient. No, there is some other factor neither of us have uncovered that is the cause of some debates reaching a no-vote condition, even though only 4% of debates suffer that result.
IV.b.1 Further, given the statistics of debate and debate comments, I conclude that Con has not offered such a simple answer by concluding that I allege voters must “find interest in the debate and not the debater[s] whom must make it appealing to would-be voters.”Clearly, almost 20 comments per debate are noting sufficient interest to comment on the debate because they are drawn to the debate in the first place. This fact negates Con’s argument that some debates are not marketable. That opinion must be supported by facts of their own. Pro has not remotely explained why the debate participants must make debates appealing to would be voters.
I pass the debate to Con for his conclusions, and urge voters to vote for Pro.
I posted my R1, if you wanted to read and didn't have notifications for this.
A very good plan, I see no flaws.
RM, welcome to the debate. Thanks for accepting. I did not mention it in description, but I'm not imposing a round waiver. I've specified 3 rounds and we will debate 3 rounds. I find the other an absurd game. I'm not even a sure I would oppose new argument in round 3. I did not mention that either, but in this instance, I'm actually debating with the hope in mind of changing policy relative to the no-vote condition. Any particular thoughts you have on protocol for the debate, I'll entertain them. Best wished for a lively debate
AS RM has accepted the debate, and you did not, we'll let RM determine what may be easiest and by what justifications. This debate was not initiated as a whimsical exercise, but as a serious [to me] issue of the general lack of sufficient voting. I did not mention in description that debates with just one vote are at least 4:1 the number of no votes. That makes the issue a 15% matter. Not sure if I'll entertain the one-vote dilemma. However, to your point, until A.I. can demonstrate a facility with paronomasia, or other literary devices, let alone pure nuance of language, and not just capability of syntax and grammar, I'll opt for a human judge, thanks.
The easiest way is to implement an AI who fairly judges all the debates, and if voting is mandatory the quality will go down.