Instigator / Pro
0
1417
rating
158
debates
32.59%
won
Topic
#2626

On DART, the "winner selection" system is superior to the "four points" system.

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Winner
0
1

After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...

fauxlaw
Parameters
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
Contender / Con
1
1702
rating
77
debates
70.13%
won
Description

Superior in terms of what? Accuracy and reliability when deciding the winner. Quality of votes. So on and so forth.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:

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.