Resolved, debates should not end with a no-vote tie
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 1 vote and 3 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
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 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.