Instigator / Pro
4
1644
rating
64
debates
65.63%
won
Topic
#2753

THBT On Net Balance, Google Should Uphold Users' Privacy

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
0

After 1 vote and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...

RationalMadman
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
6
1697
rating
556
debates
68.17%
won
Description

Pro will argue that Google should stop tracking people, their browsing history, etc. thus upholding the users' right to privacy.

Con will argue otherwise.

Burden of proof is shared.

I actually would remove faux law's vote because it insufficiently explained the tied arguments. I think his conduct vote was fine and I avoid falsely accusing my opponents of 'essentially conceding' unless I can objectively explain why and how.

-->
@MisterChris

thanks for the reviewed vote. I may have still lost, but I think it's important to establish standards.

-->
@fauxlaw

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 0:1, 1 point to CON
>Reason for Decision: See Comments
>Reason for Mod Action:

Ragnar asked for me to review his decision and do as I see fit with it. In fact it seems he's changed his mind on this issue.

Upon my evaluation, this vote does not properly ground their conduct allocation.

Citing our own Voting Policy:

"Awarded as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, such as extreme unsportsmanlike or outright toxic behavior which distracted from the topical debate. Common examples are repeatedly using personal attacks instead of arguments, committing plagiarism or otherwise cheating.
The disrespect of even a single forfeiture necessitates this penalty unless there is reason to withhold it. Repeated forfeitures are grounds for casting conduct only votes without any consideration to arguments (continued in Forfeitures).

Invalid if: Both sides had similar types and/or magnitude of misbehavior, or it is too minor for a reasonable person to be significantly distracted from the topic. Further, a conduct penalty is not warranted for mere dislike of the topical contentions or weak argumentation."

The voter ignored a forfeit, instead assigning points against the non-forfeiting side. This would be fine if PRO's infraction was serious enough to be considered excessively abusive, outright toxic, or distracting from the topic. However, what PRO did wasn't a serious enough infraction (a rhetorical exaggeration at worse, a common one in the debate realm at that) to warrant conduct allocation against them even without the forfeit.

Ragnar now echoes this sentiment: " It might pass if con did not indicate a link between security and privacy (which would make pro have massively misrepresented con). However, ultimately I think I was wrong, due to the dangerous precedent if a single turn of phrase allowed not mere assignment of conduct, but to such a degree as to even override a forfeiture."

Argument: This was a frustrating debate to read, mostly due to what was not said in argument over what was said, and that critique is shared by both parties, Pro and Con. Since one cannot vote beyond what is actually said, I can only judge on the basis of the content present, and not what a voter might wish was there. Both parties left unused arguments on the table. I could possibly lean to Con because Pro did not link the Topic statement with what appears to be the definitive resolve in Description, as well as that Pro fails to define his terms in Description such that both parties have a set of "rules" at least by syntax. However, even though Con does offer a definition of "privacy" in R1 the subsequent arguments vary on adherence to that definition. Both parties dance around that definition, and neither adequately settle it to this voter's satisfaction. Tie vote.

Sources: Both parties offer adequate sources, and sources do justify arguments, but no argument plus sources sways either way relative to source material offered. Tie vote.

Legibility: adequate on both sides to understand their positional statements. Tie vote.

Conduct: Pro loses this point by the R4 claim that Con "essentially conceded" when no round's argument by Con had any statement that might be construed to agree with Pro's claim. Even if somehow, Con's statements in "Comments" might have alluded to the possibility of concession, and though another member effectively makes the accusation to Con, following a comment by Con [and this exchange is within the timing of Con's R3 posting], Con's comment says nothing of the sort. And, to be clear, the Comments section is outside the parameters of the debate, so any comment there, short of notation of sources, is irrelevant. Further, although Con forfeited R4, the single forfeiture does not figure into any decision against Con. Therefore, point to Con.

-->
@RationalMadman

No problem. Got to keep this one short for once.

-->
@whiteflame

Thanks for the vote.

-->
@Undefeatable

It's also my specialty, though I rarely do it and more usually take your side but Google in particular I have found is the most unfairly demonised of the tech companies. It's a genuine antihero and you can say and do more on YouTube than any other equivalent platform that has the reach it has.

-->
@whiteflame

I see. I have a good idea why privacy is important, but that seems to be more morality/philosophy based. Ironically, TheWeakerEdge may have done better than me in this debate. There's some computer science related information here, but I'm never good at grasping at very vague ideals. A well deserved lost.

-->
@Undefeatable

Being outdated isn't really the problem, nor is the evidence, per say. I tend to start every debate with a little bit of burdens analysis to frame the discussion, and I think that could go a long way in your case. Even better here would have been to include just a little bit of what the actual policy would be, e.g. "Google will make a public acknowledgement that its privacy policies have been bad, and will take x, y and z steps to address them." Apart from that, it's difficult to establish precisely why privacy matters without getting too slippery, but you could always talk about why it's good for their bottom line and how it is likely to shape the industry. The notion that personalized ad experiences have generally been good, a point that RM made, is contrary to what most people in the US probably think about it. Beyond that, you could just talk about how it reshapes the industry to address differences in perspective on privacy worldwide. You mentioned the EU, but it never really factored as an impact. Why does it matter that the EU has a different perspective on their practices, and how would they perceive a proactive effort on the part of Google to change how it acts to better suit that market? Not everything has to be sourced, but you can give persuasive reasons why these changes would have meaningful impacts for the company as well as just enhancing trust in a system that many of us rely on daily.

-->
@whiteflame

any extra tips? I noticed that even my cited experts seemed to mostly resort to slippery slope related arguments. Or are the 2010~2016 articles too outdated, and there needs to be more evidence? I couldn't find any more recent articles negating Google's bottom line. The journals could only talk of how Google was breaking European laws and such, rather than the fundamental ideals being wrong.

-->
@RationalMadman

well done... you defeated me in my expertise, computer science -- privacy is one of the related subjects!

(I should probably stop playing devil's advocate though, I widely agreed that Google is doing better and that the user's choice of consent is more important than the actual "privacy without question" that the premise gave the illusion of arguing)

Quoting from the Voting policy relative to Conduct: "Awarded as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, such as extreme unsportsmanlike or outright toxic behavior which distracted from the topical debate." I perceived a penalty against Pro for declaring a concession by Con when that concession was not offered. I considered the charge as excessive sportsmanship abuse. It simply was a matter of violation, it did not need to be said and would have made the vote a tie had it not been said. I find that to meet the criteria of a Conduct vote. Mod Ragnar agreed with my justification, so everyone just be still and learn by experience. Such declarations when not warranted will bite the arse that does it.

-->
@Barney

Are you SURE a slightly exaggerated claim of “concession” violates conduct point? I see Oromagi claiming dropped arguments all over the place, and I don’t think my strategy was all that different. We’re allowed to claim our opponents said one thing and explain why we think their argument essentially defeats their own argument. It’s like saying we were on the same side all in all.

-->
@MisterChris
@Intelligence_06
@Sum1hugme

come one, come all, feel free to vote on this.

-->
@Barney

I never claimed you exceptionally biased, I said "biased" that's all, no more no less. You responded with bare assertions. The fact that you've failed to even slightly rebuke my example is clear enough to me. You are biased, by what? Could be a number of things, against me? Not necessarily. You could be biased in favor of someone else and then I'd lose out at neutral standings with you, could be the opposite way around - see I didn't claim one way of the other just that you were.

-->
@Theweakeredge

Lets see, I'm so overwhelmingly biased that I can't consider anything outside my bias to have merit.

I dislike RM so much, that I left a vote mildly in his favor in place...

I hate forfeitures so much, that when a voter considers something else to be worse (even in a case where I disagree), I leave the votes in place if they justify it...

How are either of these examples of me being controlled by bias?

You can argue the vote should be removed on many grounds, but claiming it's only left in place due to my well documented bias against forfeitures is crazy.

-->
@Barney

You can think what you think, I believe that using logic is how we should evaluate such claims, and considering what's happening here in terms of everybody aside from you and Fauxlaw thinking the conduct point is not allowed here. The counter argument is very clear.

-->
@Theweakeredge

> "biased"

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/you-keep-using-that-word-i-do-not-think-it-means-what-you-think-it-means

-->
@Sum1hugme

By all means, you can disagree with my vote, and, by all means, vote, yourself, but not merely because you oppose mine. You have to justify how you vote, as I did.

-->
@fauxlaw

Yes, it is rude to falsley claim the opponent conceded, but it is actually warranting a conduct point if a debater forfeits a round. I don't think the former is more justified deducting a conduct point than the latter.

-->
@Sum1hugme

It makes sense when Pro claims Con conceded before Con forfeited. In debate, when Pro is the initiator, Pro is, comparative to baseball, the away team, which plays in the top frame of each inning. Con is the home team, playing in the bottom frame of innings. Four innings in this game. Pro cited Con's concession in the top frame of the last, fourth inning. Con did not forfeit until the bottom frame, apparently assuming he had argued sufficient in 3 innings to win the game. But, how did Pro know Con would forfeit in the bottom frame? In my vote, I disagreed, the difference being the premature call of concession. Con simply did not concede; he assumed his 3-inning arguments sufficed. It was a simple misplay of chronology.
After all, forfeiting a single round in a four-round debate is not an automatic loss, and does not deserve loss of the conduct point. No, but Pro's premature claim of concession does lose it. Ragnar agreed.

-->
@MisterChris
@Theweakeredge

Ragnar is biased in more ways than one.

Regardless, I don't want to win by that vote alone. Feel free to vote, I am not ashamed of my performance in this debate, I played very defensive and strategic, I believe.

Soooooo I'm actually going to have to break ranks and agree that the conduct point wasn't really justified. Ragnar's judgement supersedes mine though. I'll probably vote myself if I get the chance.

It makes no sense to give conduct to the debater that forfeited a round.

-->
@Barney

You know, I'm starting to see why other people find you biased. I usually agree with Fauxlaw's votes, they are very good at delivering insightful reviews of a debate; however it is extremely loose to say that Undefeatable saying that Rationalmadman essentially conceded was unwarranted.... especially because he literally forfeited the last round, and at the same time - delete my vote for not being super specific which argument was brand new in the last round... uhuh, justifiable, sure.

-->
@Undefeatable

I'll try to get something going. It's been a hectic week, but if I do get one up, it'll be closer to the deadline. Please remind me.

-->
@whiteflame
@MisterChris

Anyways. Would appreciate a vote

-->
@Barney

How was my mere exaggeration with “essentially conceded” unsportsmanlike or toxic? Sure, it’s fancy but it’s no different from oromagi’s usual “list of dropped points”.

-->
@fauxlaw

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: conduct to con
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Arguments as tied is well justified. Conduct, while the voting policy specifies even a single forfeiture as calling for it unless there is some reason not to... Indeed a reason for the inverse of the presumptive award is listed and expanded upon.

The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.

There are three types of tied votes:
(1) Ones which allot zero points. They have no meaningful impact on the debate outcome, and are thus only moderated if warranted for other reasons.
(2) Ones which cancel themselves out. While the category assignments may serve as feedback to the debaters, there is no still meaningful impact for moderation consider. These are in essence the same as the previous type.
(3) Votes which leave arguments tied, but assign other categories. While these need not meet the sufficiency standards for an argument vote, they must still evaluate arguments enough to justify no clear winner. There is however an exception for repeated forfeitures allowing conduct only with no further explanation.

Conduct is an optional award as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, such as extreme unsportsmanlike or outright toxic behavior which distracted from the topical debate.
**************************************************

-->
@MisterChris

Please remember tabula rasa when you vote.

-->
@gugigor

Allow me some time and I'll get back to you on it

-->
@MisterChris

hey, is this conduct point allowed? Seems a little absurd. I don't think Pro meant that con actually conceded, but that he basically dropped arguments (which I wouldn't vote conduct either way)

Bump

-->
@whiteflame
@MisterChris

Feel free to toss in a vote if you have time

-->
@gugigor

There was nothing more to say, just retireration. I had to do stuff IRL and sleep.

-->
@RationalMadman

dat forfeit... ouch.

"(some of which were actually addressed in my Round 2) "

I meant in my Round 1.

-->
@RationalMadman

Welcome back

-->
@Theweakeredge

you can argue that if you want.

-->
@Undefeatable

Is this resolution, "Google ought to stop tracking people.." etc? I'm asking if this an ethical/moral dilema.