Instant Loss Due to Forfeiture Feature
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 3,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
In edeb8, there's an interesting feature where you can let the debate loser be the person who forfeits first (if it occurs).
I will be supporting this feature to implement on DART, assuming zero economic costs. Con will argue that it should not be implemented.
- Instant - "To happen as soon after"
- Loss - "To fail the process of debating"
- Forfeiture - "To not submit an argument before the allotted time is run out, in debateart.com debates
- The position my opponent is taking can be summarized as such: "Debateart.com should implement the feature which results in instant loss upon forfeiture." Such an interpretation is gathered implicitly from the comments and debate description.
- The actual resolution "Instant Loss Due to Forfeiture Feature" Is not descriptive in the realm of establishing BoP, therefore it is the responsibility of both debaters to establish the burden of proof that the other must overcome in order to win the debate.
- A demonstration that the "problem" warrants upheaving the status quo
- that the current penalty system is inadequate in penalizing forfeitures
- A demonstration that the "problem" warrants upheaving the status quo
- that the current penalty system is inadequate in penalizing forfeitures
Argument: Pro’s argument is couched in the common misconceived justification for action: because we can, we should. Since Pro’s Resolution is not at all a construct of a non-live debate, there is no other justification for the Resolution but a matter of convenience, as Pro says in R1, to “stop wasting time of the debaters.” In fact, Pro further says in R1, citing Con [apparently from an earlier debate or forum comment], “just because the instant loss feature can be done, does not mean it should be done,” which is exactly this voter’s point in the Pro Resolution; it has not other compelling justification. Con’s argument that DebateArt is not a live debate successfully rebuts Pro’s position attempting another justification, “With the stronger push to write out your argument, you also prepare yourself for real life debating.” This may be Pro’s intent of being a DebateArt member, but not all members align with this justification, and Pro does nothing to support his claim that DebartArt should change its policy regarding forfeiture just to accommodate the Resolution.
Further, Pro argues in R2, “…it is hard to see why the virtues of being punctual and keeping your dedication would be frowned upon.” Con, again, successfully argues that since DebartArt is not a live event, whereas life does have a way of encroaching on one’s time availability [as mentioned in Con’s R1], it is absurd to expect that the conditions of online debating that is not live should yet impose life conditions on a non-live debate that literally can extend over days, weeks, and months. It is an absurd expectation. Con’s argument earns the points.
Sourcing: Neither participant engaged in sourcing that would support arguments, though outside sources are discussed. This is an optional voting feature: tie.
Legibility: Both participants offer understandable text. Tie
Conduct: Both participants offer reasonable treatment of each other. Tie
Pro forgot something important. In his Description, he laid out a plan for this feature to be optional. It literally says this is to be the equivalent of an optional debate setting for debate-initiators on edeb8.
Him forgetting this is the only reason why his autowin was lost. He forgot this and it was the only sufficient rebuttal to Con's impact case regarding debates where the superior debater forfeits a Round.
The reason I myself didn't accept this debate is that I saw Pro had autowin because it would be an optional setting that both debaters consent to (like character count and time per argument).
For the reason that Pro never brought up the optional aspect of it, Con's case holds much more water than it should have and Con won the debate. The reason Con wins is because Pro essentially admits what happened to the forfeiting side in the showcased debate, shouldn't have been a loss. He calls it an edge-case and says it doesnt happen often enough to matter.
I know personally that I am the single best andost frequent user to win debates where I forfeited a Round or two but I am am enigma and Con doesn't focus on me at all so I ignore this. Nonetheless, I do not think Pro realises what he admitted. He admitted that in these fringe cases his idea falls apart and he then tries to focus on punctuality mattering more than debating ability which he doesn't expand enough on for me to buy into.
Completely understandable, and while I do disagree that one forfeit should result in autoloss - I would say that if your opponent forfeited a *majority* of the rounds, then that should be an auto loss - for example - if someone forfeited 1 out of 2 rounds, 2 out of 3 rounds, 3 out of 4 rounds, 3 out of 5 rounds, 4 out of 6 rounds, and so on and so forth - which would stop the problem AND give people who are honestly just unavailable the time they need.
I think I misunderstood the idea coz I just quickly read about it on the go, I will properly dive into it and we can discuss it later, sorry for the confusion.
course not. Would be pretty embarrassing if I managed to beat you lol
I don't intend to lose this debate Selidora
I think this is a terrible idea. For multiple reasons - this isn't a live debate - and the comparisons to it aren't cogent.
Consider my attention captured.
Quite awhile ago I had a debate proposing a similar system: https://www.debateart.com/debates/803-default-auto-loss-on-forfeit
While I'm way too busy for active debating these days, I would argue a default auto-loss is preferable to an instant loss. As much as when the margin of forfeiture increases, there would be some gain in not having such a debate sit around in the voting window.
It would be ironic if someone forfeit this debate. If I had time, I’d take this debate. I think the person who forfeits first shouldn’t always lose. If a 5v5 basketball game occurs and one of the players from team A misses the game, it’s still possible for team A to win; it’s just harder.
I was guilty of several forfeitures last year and I rightfully lost. It would be a scandal if I did not.
If I forfeit a round then there should be some kind of penalty. If it is instant loss, so be it.
It is not fair I get any advantage out of forfeiting and that was an opportunity for my opponent to get me on the ropes lost.
If I have to leave to go to work then it is my fault for having taken on the debate in the first place.
But if I forfeit it could also mean I was simply too slow, especially if it is a two hour quickfire debate. The whole point of setting the timer to 2 hours or 1 day is to make it more difficult for the opponent and it is not within the nature of sport to think it is ok to let them off because they were too slow or did not have enough time for corrections.
But a forfeiture feature suits me to the ground as I always play quickfire even if I am involved in a two week debate. I rarely spend much time fixing errors and I feel I am cheating if I do.
This should apply to full forfeits though, why should it apply to just one round of forfeit?
Looks like DebateArt has taken the challenge out of the "debate."
I strongly advocate forfeit=auto loss. No real world debate would move on after one debater has failed to show.
Why would anyone want the forfeiter to win? Implementing this is almost equivalent to auto-loss at forfeit.
It's not a problem to implement it and I will
Or perhaps a Forfeiture ruling within the Parameters with a choice of either Instant win/loss, or 1 point per round, per vote, penalty.
This is the 3000th debate...
The biggest reason to justify it's not worth implementing is ruled out in your debate description.