On DART, the "winner selection" system is superior to the "four points" system.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 5,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Superior in terms of what? Accuracy and reliability when deciding the winner. Quality of votes. So on and so forth.
Voters must be delighted by performance in four specific area points: argument, sourcing, spelling & grammar, and conduct. That exemplifies delight.
Fauxlaw says:supports my claim that the precision of seven separate point values that a voter can award to debate arguments, sources, spelling & grammar, and conduct is a far more accurate, reliable, qualified, and thus superior award than a mere win, or denial of those points to lose a debate
One need merely read through the Dart Voting Policy recommendations on voting with the four-point system to realize the simplicity of addressing each of the four points to determine whether Pro or Con has the superior use of these points.
Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debateDirectly evaluate at least one source in particular cited in the debate and explain how it either bolstered or weakened the argument it was used to supportMust explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's
Give specific examples of S&G errorsExplain how these errors were excessiveCompare each debater's S&G from the debate
any debate can be challenged by anyone eligible to vote by reported appeal to the Mods in order to address perceived bad votes.
while “argument” is mentioned eight times, “source” is not mentioned at all.
a separate environment [and not arbitrary] than real life
Forward:
I tend to defend categorical votes. I don't think I've actually had any debates on it. And right now I am pretty tired of voting in general so should be almost neutral (further this debate isn't a proposal that either sucks or needs to be gotten rid of, so I'm having no emotional response to the subject). I'm also used as evidence in this debate, so I confirmed with both participants before casting a vote.
Gist:
Con won by a decent bit. However, as a recent business graduate, certain language he used was very easy for me to follow in a way that might not be so for someone else.
The pro case could have been greatly improved with more examples of bad votes, consistent formatting between rounds, and chiefly not asking us voters to act like con is arguing for 1000 categories instead of just 4.
R1 pro
Pro opens with an appeal to tradition, followed by pointing out fluff votes which can only happen under categorical. Followed by a Trump analogy focused on one type of polling (this was self sabotaged due to the link provided doing 7 questions, not just one). One of my votes is used as an a strawman example (perhaps I'm brushing past this in an equally strawman fashion, but I'll call it justified to not overly bog down the vote in defense when the point probably isn't even continued). And finally pro states he doesn't understand why give points to sources at all, and declares winner selection to require more thought. ... Key takeaway is pro identifies point justification as arbitrary.
Okay from here there's clear contention headings to follow...
I Rebuttal: So on and so forth
Con seem to object to dangling prepositions.
Pro gives a non-response.
II Rebuttal: Accuracy
Con explains how properly assigned elements raise accuracy.
Pro points back to fluff votes, which may harm the accuracy of the result.
III Rebuttal: Reliability
Con argues categorial votes understand the need for precision in measurements in a scientifically repeatable experimental fashion.
Pro proposes that con should propose a different voting system (which seems to be getting into off topic special pleading...), before making declarations about poor voter satisfaction under that system con has not proposed...
III Rebuttal: Quality of votes
Just going to quote con: "Voters must be delighted by performance in four specific area points: argument, sourcing, spelling & grammar, and conduct. That exemplifies delight. These are the evidence of superior accuracy, reliability, and quality. Winner selection can only offer a non-descript satisfaction by comparison." Followed up by improved learning with greater emphasis on why.
Pro does a defense using the paradox of too many choices, and uses it to conclude exactly one choice is best (as a recent business graduate, I know how twisted this is, and yet if unchallenged it is still a great use of sources).
Con defends with a source analysis to differentiate voters from toilet brush shoppers, and references route cause analysis for the four categories.
IV. Drops
Pro listed items he believes were dropped, and con defends them. A key take away was a reminder of the report function to delete obvious bad votes (con could have strengthened this point greatly with pro's own words about how poorly justified a 7 point vote could be), such as for the S&G vote over 15 vs 12 errors, when the rules specify that's not enough.
Regarding the kudos suggestion, It occurred to me that a kudos award belongs in argument rather than conduct because it would be a compliment for an above-the-rim argument, after all. Same conditions would apply; that is, an added fourth point for argument when deserved, leaving the other three categories at their current 2, 1, 1 points. Therefore, with kudos added, an 8-point award for a participant, by one voter's assessment, if all four factors are awarded their maximum points that one participant.
Thank you for voting
At one time, I thought S&G was a weak sister in the quad, but I've changed my mind because there have actually been debates wherein I thought a participant made truly incoherent argument. I originally thought it ought to be replaced with a "kudos" for a truly exemplary and above-the-rim argument. I would still lobby to include a kudos award, but only if truly deserved as an added points award [which could potentially be awarded to both participants in a truly outstanding debate], and make it an expansion on conduct, thereby keeping the four points, but enhancing Conduct. I suggest an added point for kudos, making Conduct a value of 2 points, but only if really deserved.
Are there any changes you would suggest to the categories and/or their point applotments?
Sure. Try not to be too biased
I have no objection to either a vote or feedback
Before I read this, do either of you object to me casting a vote? If there is an objection, please also state if you would still like any feedback regardless.
he's from debate.org, he's not here.
Nope. Never ran across that person here on site. Former member, or is there another username?
RoyLatham
Sorry, don't know anyone by "Roy." Must know by a different name. Who is Roy. I enjoyed the debate. Hope you did too.
you know, I'm surprised Roy didn't think of your arguments. But I think he was thinking offensively with Ice skating being similar to the 7 point system, which is flawed. You played your cards trickier and more defensively than Roy.