Instigator / Pro
1
1500
rating
4
debates
87.5%
won
Topic
#4176
Resolved: DebateArt.com should eliminate the Four Points point system.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Winner
1
1
After 2 votes and with the same amount of points on both sides...
It's a tie!
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
1
1587
rating
182
debates
55.77%
won
Description
I will call for the abolition of the Four Points point system. I will debate that this hypothetical action is good. Con can either defend the status quo, separate competitive advocacies, or kritik the resolution. If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask in the comments.
Round 1
Pro
#1
I want to thank Sir.Lancelot for accepting this debate, and hope they have the time to participate in it.
Background
For those of you who are unaware, there are two points systems for how debates are evaluated. The first is the winner selection system, where a judge simply decides a winner. The second is the four points system, where there are four categories to get points in, argumentation worth three, sources worth two, conduct worth one, and grammar worth one. Ties in any category go to both debaters, and winning one of the categories wins you those points.
Thus the resolution, DebateArt.com (Dart) should eliminate the Four Points point system.
Framework
1. Debates are ranked and feed into a win rate and a rating. These systems translate into social esteem in the community, with the best/most active debaters being seen as more prominent members of the community. This means that if there is an unfair/bad way debates are happening, it doesn’t just affect those who opt in, but the community at large, and therefore must be accounted for.
2. Dart and debate as a concept is a unique place where differing viewpoints are able to be placed against one another and arguments can be made that foster education and are fun to be apart of. This education and recreational benefit, however, only happens if the space is accessible. This means that making the space easy to access for newcomers/different identity groups is a prerequisite question to even what makes a debate “good”.
Contention 1: Sources
1. The win loss metric can already take this into account. If someone doesn’t provide sources, then argumentation saying you shouldn’t buy their arguments should be enough. If they are utilizing bad sources, the other debater should use that to call them out and discredit the argument, therefore, winning them the debate.
2. Giving points to sources automatically prioritizes sources as important to a conversation, but this a uniquely harmful way to engage in discourse. As Big Bill Haywood said, “I’ve never read Marx’s Capital, but I’ve got the marks of capital all over my body.” While this is a socialist conceptualization, it stands to the original point that reading the source material for an idea isn’t a necessity for the millions who experience the issues we discuss. As a user of the community, with two previous accounts, one debate, and 25 debate votes behind me, I don’t need sources to validate my understanding of how the site works to engage in this debate. A requirement for sources actually skew out those who don’t have formal/in depth research skills through education, which is usually caused by a lack of formal debate in their past that may be a symptom of poverty or a low infrastructure areas like rural America.
Contention 2: Grammar
1. The win loss metric can also take this into account. If the grammar is unintelligible, then don’t weigh those arguments. If the argument is understandable and the opponent wants to make it an issue in the round, they can and it can be voted on as any other argument. If the argument is understandable and the opponent understands it, then it is good to engage with those.
2. Grammar policing is the most explicit form of exclusion as it directly affects those who are less formally educated as a reflection of poverty or circumstance, or those who are non-native English speakers, usually minority populations, or those who suffer from some neurodivergencies like dyslexia. This kind of exclusion directly stops new ideas from those populations from being heard and accepted in the this space, which stops us from having educational and recreational debate because of a slowly shrinking and dying community.
Contention 3: Conduct
1. The win loss metric can take care of conduct by normalizing voting down debaters who engage in bad conduct, especially when it is shown in round to have a negative effect. Those who engage in bad faith or make the space inaccessible stop people from wanting to debate on Dart, which not only kills the site, but stops the only real value we get from this site, education and recreation. If this space is not educational or recreational, then there is no value to it, so preserving that must come before any hypothetical resolution. A normalization of this process also adds another layer to debates, instead of being resolutional and kritikal only, there is now a theoretical level where we debate the purpose of this space and how we can all best engage it.
2. Conduct metrics can be exclusionary to certain cultural norms or neurodivergencies like autism that come of as normative rudeness, when it is people trying to engage in good faith. This exclusionary process stops these people from engaging in this space. Cross apply framework 2, grammar 2, and my previous conduct point for why exclusion bad.
Contention 4: What is debate?
1. If a debater has better sources, grammar, and conduct but loses argumentation, they will still be winning 4-3 on points if there is one vote. Debate is the ability to win argumentation. Being good at research, essay writing, and being nice, while good skills and interesting competitions, that is not the purpose of debate. It would be like giving points in a Soccer game to the fastest, hardest kicker, and most observant, and that outweighing who actually scored the most goals. This means that competitors who win these categories are not winning debates, but winning these secondary competitions.
Conclusion,
For all of the points, here is the question. If you think that people are getting wins on something that isn’t the proper way to engage in a debate, remember that is not a standalone issues as the ranking system glorifies these positions. Also, if you are buying that I’m creating a more inclusive place through the advocacy, that is the prerequisite to what good debate is.
Con
#2
Thank you, Pro, for delivering a very persuasive first speech.
Preamble:
As the description states, I will be defending the Status Quo and arguing that DebateArt should NOT remove the four-point system.
BOP
The Burden of Proof requires Pro to demonstrate that DebateArt should remove the 4-point system.
He can only do this in two ways.:
- Objectively weigh the pros and cons and declare that the cons outweigh the pros.
- Prove the need to abolish it.
Conversely, I win if I prove that it is either unnecessary or that we shouldn’t.
Needs for the 4 Point System
- Improve Debate Quality.
- Assess and fix shortcomings.
- Promote accountability.
- Encourage objectivity.
- Discourage bad behavior.
Fundamentally, it is not one thing that makes a quality debate. It is a variety of things, and each must be considered. Abolishing the 4 Point System directly undermines each of these attributes. Debaters must be rewarded for areas they are strong in and punished for areas they are lacking, so they can work to improve the next time.
If you take that away, debaters will put less effort into grammar & spelling, proving sources, and can get away with being rude or condescending and still win, by virtue of having the superior argument. There is no longer any way to determine that voters will judge based on all of these areas.
Potential Risks
- Lazy debates.
- More ad hominem attacks.
- Less evidence pertaining to peer-reviewed research.
- Sloppy writing
- Biased voting.
Should we wish to undermine integrity, abolishing the 4-point system is the perfect thing to do. Debates can now be judged by measure of Popularity Contests. Now since we have taken away sources, debaters are no longer required to prove their arguments which means voters can decide to give them the win, so long as they are more convincing.
The Lack of a Need
- Debaters can already choose between 4 Points or Winner Selection.
- If it isn’t broken, don’t fix it.
There is no need to abolish it simply because Pro feels like it. He doesn’t have to accept debates if it is Winner Selection and he can always create debates with the same resolution, opting for Winner Selection if he feels that strongly about it.
Rebuttals:
l. Sources
“1. The win loss metric can already take this into account. If someone doesn’t provide sources, then argumentation saying you shouldn’t buy their arguments should be enough. If they are utilizing bad sources, the other debater should use that to call them out and discredit the argument, therefore, winning them the debate.”
- It isn’t sufficient because it isn’t always obvious to voters.
- Debaters can lie and voters are no longer expected to fact-check, so may take the lazier option.
Saying you don’t buy their arguments isn’t a good rebuttal because they can simply bullshit their way to victory and ramble on about why you’re wrong.
ll. Grammar
“1. The win loss metric can also take this into account. If the grammar is unintelligible, then don’t weigh those arguments. If the argument is understandable and the opponent wants to make it an issue in the round, they can and it can be voted on as any other argument. If the argument is understandable and the opponent understands it, then it is good to engage with those.2. Grammar policing is the most explicit form of exclusion as it directly affects those who are less formally educated as a reflection of poverty or circumstance, or those who are non-native English speakers, usually minority populations, or those who suffer from some neurodivergencies like dyslexia. This kind of exclusion directly stops new ideas from those populations from being heard and accepted in the this space, which stops us from having educational and recreational debate because of a slowly shrinking and dying community.”
- These are excuses. Having dyslexia or other mental disorders is not a justification for bad grammar. There are plenty of systems to help you out like Spelling & Grammar Check. Some systems require you to only copy and paste your text, and will fix the mistakes accordingly.
- Deducting points based on atrocious grammar and spelling motivates debaters to put effort into their writing.
- Readability and legibility don’t necessarily make or break your debate, but they are prioritized.
We don’t want to create a system of complacency by devaluing the very thing that forces people to put effort into their arguments. Should we do this, there runs the risk of trying to read through every argument and failing to keep track. The difficulty of this will discourage voters long-term.
Debaters shouldn’t feel entitled to be lazy and then rely on lame excuses to get away with this.
lll. Conduct
“1. The win loss metric can take care of conduct by normalizing voting down debaters who engage in bad conduct, especially when it is shown in round to have a negative effect. Those who engage in bad faith or make the space inaccessible stop people from wanting to debate on Dart, which not only kills the site, but stops the only real value we get from this site, education and recreation. If this space is not educational or recreational, then there is no value to it, so preserving that must come before any hypothetical resolution. A normalization of this process also adds another layer to debates, instead of being resolutional and kritikal only, there is now a theoretical level where we debate the purpose of this space and how we can all best engage it.2. Conduct metrics can be exclusionary to certain cultural norms or neurodivergencies like autism that come of as normative rudeness, when it is people trying to engage in good faith. This exclusionary process stops these people from engaging in this space. Cross apply framework 2, grammar 2, and my previous conduct point for why exclusion bad.”
- Autism isn’t a free pass for ignorance. If they fall short of social expectations, voters can explain this, and the debater can improve by following custom the next time.
- Conduct isn’t as important as arguments and sources, but it is still a priority.
There are customs to follow, and conduct is one of them. Using autism as a defense serves to undermine this very important tradition we have of encouraging civility between opponents.
People take civil and peaceful discussions seriously. If there are personal attacks, there is no longer a requirement for voters to hold them accountable.
We need Conduct to encourage tactful diplomacy.
Conclusion
Pro has not shown a very convincing need to abolish the 4 points system whereas I have both proven why it is unnecessary and why we shouldn’t.
Round 2
Pro
#3
Preamble
I will answer/extend my case, and then answer my opponent’s points.
Pro Case
Framework
1. Extend that debates are ranked and individual debates affect the whole site by how they are decided and these cause more or less respect to people. This was dropped.
2. Extend that accessibility is the root question to all other claims and benefits of debate. This was dropped.
Contention 1: Sources
1. My opponent has two answers to this, point, but none answer the original claim.
A. It isn’t sufficient because it isn’t always obvious to voters.
I. If this is true, sources are an optional place to vote, meaning voters would ignore this anyways.
II. It is not the job of a voter/judge to pick everything up in a debate. It is the job of the debater to point about bad/flawed sources or lack of sources.
B. Debaters can lie and voters are no longer expected to fact-check, so may take the lazier option.
I. Sources are optional, so they wouldn’t vote here anyways if they’re lazy.
II. Voters aren’t expected to fact-check. That is intervention. Debaters are expected to fact-check and weigh it for the judges.
III. Debaters can lie now. The only difference is if they are successful in their lie, they can win debates, even if they lose the argumentation.
C. In general, this doesn’t answer that the win loss metric checks back for these by making them an issue on the table.
2. Extend that sources exclude the voices of those who are directly in the way of violence, prioritizing the academy. This prioritization means those with privilege (catch all word for wealth/access to education) speak for those without privilege. This means that those who are poorer or have less education have less access. Cross apply framework 2 that shows how accessibility is the most important question.
Contention 2: Grammar
My opponent grouped the answers, so I’ll extend my points and then answer their individual off.
1. Extend my first point that says that win loss metrics can take this into account. This means that grammar is still checked and there is no unique offense for keeping it.
2. Extend my second point that shows how it is exclusive to the less formally educated, non-native English speakers, and those with neurodivergencies.
3. Having dyslexia or other mental disorders is not a justification for bad grammar.
A. If my opponent advocates spell checkers, then we’re not testing grammar, but the ability to utilize software. This isn’t worth evaluating at all.
B. In regard to words that are homophones like affect/effect or sole/soul, spellcheckers can’t meet the burden because they won’t always pick up mistakes. These can also really be a struggle for people with dyslexia.
C. This doesn’t answer non-native English speakers or those with less than formal education, so extend that accessibility is still harmed.
4. Deducting points based on atrocious grammar and spelling motivates debaters to put effort into their writing.
A. Cross apply my opponent’s argument that said that debaters will just use software and they don’t actually get better at grammar.
B. No, those who struggle as non-native English speakers, the less than formally educated/impoverished, and neurodivergent have barriers and don’t struggle to get better but simply leave the site.
5. Readability and legibility don’t necessarily make or break your debate, but they are prioritized.
A. I don’t quite understand this point, but if this is true, then it should only be a question if you win argumentation, if it doesn’t massively affect debate.
6. On my opponents under view of the points, they say this will make voting more difficult.
A. If this is true, they’ll stop anyways because not only do they have to judge argumentation but feel pressured into having to spell check for the ballot. 4 point system makes the issue you describe worse.
B. Cross apply my framework 2, debater accessibility is the most important issue, meaning if I prove even a minor amount of inaccessibility for debaters, you evaluate that first.
Contention 3: Conduct
Same as previously, I’ll extend my points and then answer my opponents.
1.Extend that the win loss metric can take conduct into account by making them an issue of deserving the ballot as accessibility comes before the individual resolution.
2. Extend that conduct metrics are exclusionary to people of different cultures and the neurodivergent.
3. Autism isn’t a free pass for ignorance.
A. The point of accessibility is to understand some people struggle with certain issues and that they deserve accommodation. This isn’t to justify their actions, but to not punish them so harshly. If it is brought up in a debate round, then there is a question of the value of these, but the conduct point takes this out of the hands of the debates and puts it in the hand of judge intervention.
B. Even if my opponent is right, this doesn’t answer people from different cultures, so extend that accessibility is still harmed.
4. Conduct isn’t as important as arguments and sources
A. Then why should it have the ability to override argumentation? It shouldn’t.
Contention 4: What is debate?
Extend that my opponent dropped this. This says that debate is purely the question of argumentation and everything is a separate skill that should be measured in a separate way. This wasn’t answer, so extend that they don’t defend “debate” but these secondary competitions.
Opponent’s Case
1. Needs for the 4 point system (None of these were warranted, so they have no reason to say that the 4 point system fixes these, but I’ll disprove them anyways)
A. Improve Debate Quality
I. No, it allows good debaters with good argumentation to lose because of other issues. These issues can be solved through argumentation, meaning that by separating them, they deprioritize argumentation/good debating.
B. Assess and fix shortcomings
I. If there is a issue with sources/grammar/conduct that isn’t called out by the other team to be evaluated in argumentation, the voter can still comment it as a note of improvement in the round. This can happen under a win loss metric.
II. It disincentivizes getting better at arguing/debating, but trying to out source, grammar, and conduct the opponent.
C. Promote accountability
I.Judges can literally give the win to debaters if that are worse at argumentation and justify with judge intervention on source quality, knit picking grammar, and saying that being a little snarky is bad conduct. This destroys accountability
D. Encourage objectivity
I. Cross apply my previous argument. No objectivity if judges intervene on all of these issues instead of simply weighing arguments about them.
E. Discourage bad behavior
I. Cross apply Contention 3 argument 1, these issues can be fixed under a win loss metric.
2. Potential Risks (None of these were warranted either)
A. Lazy debates
I. Cross apply contentions 1, 2, and 3 first argument that all show how those metrics are still evaluated.
II. Debates get better, because instead of relying on a judge to intervene on your behalf, debaters have to call out grammar, conduct, and sources.
B. More ad hominem attacks.
I. Cross apply the Best.Korea debate that shows this happens in the status quo.
II. Losing the debate instead of a conduct point from another debater pointing that our has more of an effect.
C. Less evidence pertaining to peer-reviewed research
I. Extend across contention 1 that shows how research is still accounted for. Also cross apply that the focus on evidence to the detriment of the voices of people who experience this makes a hyperfocus on the “educated” over the experienced.
D. Sloppy writing
I. My sibling in Christ, you wrote 5 bullet points hoping something will stick.
II. This is a classist position that is to make the space inaccessible to those with no professional education.
E. Biased voting
I. There is less bias when debaters have to call out sources, conduct, or grammar as bad as opposed to the judge intervening and deciding themselves.
F. Popularity contests
I. If someone is more convincing, then they should win the debate? That’s what the competition is. Posting “true” sources is not the goal. This isn’t a research-a-thon, but a debate.
3. The lack of a need (These will answer the general idea)
A. Extend my first framework point. This is a direct answer. Even if I never accept four point system debates, the people I’m competing in ranking and compare myself to in popularity on the site are benefitting from as worst debaters skirting through.
B. It is broken. All of my original offense about accessibility shows it’s broken.
Conclusion
Con is behind from the get go when they are listing points that they are giving no analysis for, meaning you should on face not believe them. On top of this, not dealing with the framework means you will be analyzing the round through these lens only.
Con
#4
Currently, there have been no demands to abolish the 4 Points System. If it were seen as problematic, then there would be more people urging for it to be removed. Notice the absence of complaints of the 4 points system in the forums. If there are any, they are far and few between.
The majority of DART users favor the 4 points system. We know this because just about every debate that gets posted, very rarely does the instigator opt for the Winner Selection option. So the question ultimately becomes,
“Why should DART prioritize the wants of Pro over the preferences of the user majority?”
The answer is that those who prefer the 4 Points System should have the freedom to use the 4 Points System and those who prefer Winner Selection should also have that option as well.
Banning the 4 Points System is just taking away a person’s right to choose.
Which is curbing the population to an already dying platform.
l. Fairness & Equality
“1. Debates are ranked and feed into a win rate and a rating. These systems translate into social esteem in the community, with the best/most active debaters being seen as more prominent members of the community. This means that if there is an unfair/bad way debates are happening, it doesn’t just affect those who opt in, but the community at large, and therefore must be accounted for.2. Dart and debate as a concept is a unique place where differing viewpoints are able to be placed against one another and arguments can be made that foster education and are fun to be apart of.
- The framework presumes that fair debates and the 4 points system are mutually exclusive.
- The space is easy to access and newcomers also have the freedom to engage in 4 Points and Winner Selection. It doesn’t need to be limited to just one option.
- As for what makes a debate good, the 4 Points System currently offers the most objective way of determining that.
ll. Value System
- The 4 Points option is used to determine the importance of each individual piece that makes up a debate. If you take the 4 Points away, each of these things lose their value.
- And without value, there is no framework by which to objectively assess which parts of a debate perform well and where they fall short.
“I. If this is true, sources are an optional place to vote, meaning voters would ignore this anyways.II. It is not the job of a voter/judge to pick everything up in a debate. It is the job of the debater to point about bad/flawed sources or lack of sources.”
Correct, but irrelevant. The responsibility of voters is to ensure that both sides are providing proof of their arguments, as some voters do fact-check sources. Encouraging someone to post sources minimizes their ability to mislead people with information.
“I. Sources are optional, so they wouldn’t vote here anyways if they’re lazy.II. Voters aren’t expected to fact-check. That is intervention. Debaters are expected to fact-check and weigh it for the judges.III. Debaters can lie now. The only difference is if they are successful in their lie, they can win debates, even if they lose the argumentation.”
- Since a lot of voters like WeaverofFate, AustinL, and Public-Choice do fact-check, then it stands to reason that removing the 4 Points System is a very terrible solution.
- Therefore, if you get rid of it, more debaters are more likely to be successful in their lies.
“C. In general, this doesn’t answer that the win loss metric checks back for these by making them an issue on the table.2. Extend that sources exclude the voices of those who are directly in the way of violence, prioritizing the academy. This prioritization means those with privilege (catch all word for wealth/access to education) speak for those without privilege. This means that those who are poorer or have less education have less access. Cross apply framework 2 that shows how accessibility is the most important question.”
- The point of a debate site is to promote growth. The only way to grow is ultimately to face challenges and deal with criticism.
Googling peer-reviewed articles is the simplest way to gain access to sources. Removing the accountability factor for not sourcing claims means that the uneducated are more likely to stagnate than they are to grow. Extend my point about complacency.
“Contention 2: GrammarMy opponent grouped the answers, so I’ll extend my points and then answer their individual off.1. Extend my first point that says that win loss metrics can take this into account. This means that grammar is still checked and there is no unique offense for keeping it.2. Extend my second point that shows how it is exclusive to the less formally educated, non-native English speakers, and those with neurodivergencies.”
Removing the grammar feature is depriving the disadvantaged of the tools to overcome their flaw. Using the Win-Loss isn’t giving them a fairer advantage, it’s just imposing an alternate system of punishment. One in which they can’t learn from.
At least with the 4 Points System, they won’t be immediately disqualified for bad spelling and grammar, they will just lose a point.
“A. If my opponent advocates spell checkers, then we’re not testing grammar, but the ability to utilize software. This isn’t worth evaluating at all.B. In regard to words that are homophones like affect/effect or sole/soul, spellcheckers can’t meet the burden because they won’t always pick up mistakes. These can also really be a struggle for people with dyslexia.C. This doesn’t answer non-native English speakers or those with less than formal education, so extend that accessibility is still harmed.”
- If their disability requires extra help, then a spell-checker is necessary, so it is 100% worth evaluating.
- Voters are usually forgiving of typos, so most homophone errors will go overlooked.
“Cross apply my opponent’s argument that said that debaters will just use software and they don’t actually get better at grammar.B. No, those who struggle as non-native English speakers, the less than formally educated/impoverished, and neurodivergent have barriers and don’t struggle to get better but simply leave the site.”
- Non-native English speakers can use a variety of translators + grammar check in order to write the most legible argument.
- Since there is no evidence of neurodivergent people leaving the site, treat this as an unsubstantiated claim.
“6. On my opponents under view of the points, they say this will make voting more difficult.A. If this is true, they’ll stop anyways because not only do they have to judge argumentation but feel pressured into having to spell check for the ballot. 4 point system makes the issue you describe worse.B. Cross apply my framework 2, debater accessibility is the most important issue, meaning if I prove even a minor amount of inaccessibility for debaters, you evaluate that first.”
- The 4 Points System enforces the value system. If someone with a disorder writes with atrocious grammar, the illegibility won’t disqualify them because it’s not as important as arguments.
- Using the Winner Selection gives voters the right to disregard their entire argument just because of their bad grammar & spelling which I would argue is worse than the former option.
“Contention 3: ConductSame as previously, I’ll extend my points and then answer my opponents.1.Extend that the win loss metric can take conduct into account by making them an issue of deserving the ballot as accessibility comes before the individual resolution.2. Extend that conduct metrics are exclusionary to people of different cultures and the neurodivergent.”
- Debate sites have a rule and a custom which serves as the middle ground of expectations for all cultures to adhere and abide by. People are not entitled to act how they wish because of their cultural background.
“A. The point of accessibility is to understand some people struggle with certain issues and that they deserve accommodation. This isn’t to justify their actions, but to not punish them so harshly. If it is brought up in a debate round, then there is a question of the value of these, but the conduct point takes this out of the hands of the debates and puts it in the hand of judge intervention.B. Even if my opponent is right, this doesn’t answer people from different cultures, so extend that accessibility is still harmed.”
- How are they punished harshly if Conduct falls lower on the 4 Points hierarchy? Pro is arguing that they should be held accountable but not be punished too harshly when the Winner Selection would LITERALLY disqualify them for just this alone.
- Whereas the 4 Points system would simply deduct a point.
What Is Debate?
“1. If a debater has better sources, grammar, and conduct but loses argumentation, they will still be winning 4-3 on points if there is one vote. Debate is the ability to win argumentation. Being good at research, essay writing, and being nice, while good skills and interesting competitions, that is not the purpose of debate. It would be like giving points in a Soccer game to the fastest, hardest kicker, and most observant, and that outweighing who actually scored the most goals. This means that competitors who win these categories are not winning debates, but winning these secondary competitions.”
Soccer is not a valid comparison. Debates are much more like a TKD sparring competition.
- In TKD, you get more points from striking certain areas of the body and less points if you attack the areas that don’t matter much.
- In Boxing, you don’t need to KO your opponent to win. You can win by landing more punches, even if they were soft as heck.
Conclusion
I genuinely see where Pro is coming from, but the solution isn’t to abolish the 4 Points System.
- The 4 Points System isn’t restricting the underprivileged and even if it were, they have the option to not accept debates that are using 4 Points. They have the freedom to create debates with Winner Selection in mind.
Therefore, Pro has failed to prove the need to remove the 4 Points System.
Round 3
Pro
#5
Preamble
I will answer/extend my case, then answer my opponent’s points.
Pro’s Case
Framework
I had 11k characters when I first typed out my speech, so I cut the framework arguments I made because it was just me repeating the same thing. I’m going to group my entire opponent’s framework arguments because they misunderstand the purpose of framework. I prove that the space is inaccessible in the contentions of the debate. That’s the point of the contentions. The purpose of these framework arguments is to say that:
1. If I prove inaccessibility, that is the most important issue because “good” debate that is inaccessible benefits no one, so accessibility is the most important metric
2. Opting out of using the 4 points system doesn’t solve any of my case because respect in the community is derived by rank which is derived by those who can win on the 4 point system. This means that those who benefit most from inaccessibility set the tone of the website.
My opponent has thrown everything under “value system", so I will try my best to maintain the separate points as we were discussing them.
Contention 1: Sources
1. Correct, but irrelevant. The responsibility of voters is to ensure that both sides are providing proof of their arguments, as some voters do fact-check sources.
A. This is very relevant. If Con can’t prove the world gets uniquely worse because of the resolution, then this isn’t offense. My argument is that we solve accessibility, they say sources get bad, I say they already are bad, no difference between the world of the Pro (the abolishment of the 4 point system) and the world of the Con (status quo). This means you should then focus on accessibility offense.
2. Since a lot of voters like WeaverofFate, AustinL, and Public-Choice do fact-check, then it stands to reason that removing the 4 points system is a very terrible solution.
A. No evidence. If this were true, they could link one example. (This is also an example of how sources can be evaluated in a win loss metric.)
B. Extend my II point. This is a bad model of debate because these three intervene in who they give points to by fact checking. This means that debaters get to be lazy and rely on judge intervention instead of having to call out bad evidence themselves, meaning you make debaters worse at source engagement.
3. Therefore, if you get rid of it, more debaters are more likely to be successful in their lies.
A. No, it makes debaters get better at actually engaging and weighing sources for voters. This is good because it adds another layer of argumentation to debate.
4. Googling peer-reviewed articles is the simplest way to gain access to sources. Removing the accountability factor for not sourcing claims means that the uneducated are more likely to stagnate than they are to grow.
A. None of this actually answers the argument that hyper focusing on academic sources trades off with lived experience. Con is biting into the argument that they want to systemically make this space inaccessible to those who have experienced things and want to rely on their experiences for debate as opposed to the academic sources.
B. Also, if they lose argumentation because they use bad sources, then they’ll develop these skills anyways. Instead of a having a judge intervene in determining what is or isn’t a good source, this allows that discussion to take place in the debate itself and be weighed with the rest of the debate. This means that if judges have misconceptions that about sourcing, that isn’t forced on the space, but a community norm is constructed through these debates happening.
Contention 2: Grammar
1. Using the Win-Loss isn’t giving them a fairer advantage, it’s just imposing an alternate system of punishment.
A. There’s three levels of grammar usage. Abolishing the 4 point system solves inaccessibility at the second level.
I. Perfect grammar, no issue in either model.
II. Grammar with mistakes but can be understood, is punished under the four point system through grammar points but not the win loss system, causing inaccessibility.
III. Grammar that is so bad that it can’t be understood, is punished in argumentation and grammar in the four point system and in the win loss system.
2. If their disability requires extra help, then a spell-checker is necessary, so it is 100% worth evaluating.
A. Then you don’t make people better at grammar. You make them better at copying and pasting into Grammarly. This means that evaluating grammar doesn’t solve anything.
3. Voters are usually forgiving of typos, so most homophone errors will go overlooked.
A. Then what is the point of the grammar point? If it’s not to correct grammar, then what does it do. If it solves zero problems in the status quo, but it has the risk for abuse, then don’t keep it for that risk.
4. Non-native English speakers can use a variety of translators + grammar check in order to write the most legible argument.
A. Translators aren’t always reliable because they translate into the most formal version of a language, which can be hard to understand.
B. Certain words don’t have direct translations, so choosing the wrong synonym gives contextual misunderstandings.
C. These issues wouldn’t be enough to cause a loss, but they are enough to cause a loss of grammar point, which makes the space inaccessible, especially since all three of the non-argument points outweigh argumentation.
5. Since there is no evidence of neurodivergent people leaving the site, treat this as an unsubstantiated claim.
A. Me and my opponent have both said the site is dying, so there is no contestation on that point. I posit that it is because the site is inaccessible because the four-point system creates inaccessibilities that are rewarded in ranking. Even without an academic source, I have the best explanation.
B. There are no exit polls when people stop using the site and we can’t message them on the site because they stop using the site. This means that this is something we can only analytically prove anyways. Unless Con has counter-evidence, take analytics as the best method of interpretation for this one issue.
C. As someone who left the sight twice under two previous accounts (Ancap460 and Bugsy460), I can give anecdotal evidence that it was because of inaccessibilities. I came back because I saw the value of this space with its flaws and can use my voice and vote as an agent of change, however, some people might not do that.
6. The 4 points system enforces the value system.
A. It shouldn’t affect them at all if we can still understand what they are saying. Grammar is used to support ableist, classist, and national hierarchies which exclude those farther down. Cross apply the framework that says accessibility is the most important question for debate, meaning even if Pro makes debate “worse” but more accessible, then you still vote there.
7. Using the winner selection gives voters the right to disregard their entire argument just because of their bad grammar & spelling which I would argue is worse than the former option.
A. This is blatantly false. If the grammar is so bad that it is truly unintelligible, then they would lose argumentation anyways. If it isn’t that bad, then we can moderate the win/loss metric like we moderate debates and voters now.
Contention 3: Conduct
1. Debate sites have a rule and custom which serves as the middle ground of expectations for all cultures to adhere and abide by.
A. If this is true, then wouldn’t it be better to have those discussed in rounds, punishing those who make the space less accessible, but at least having those conversations instead of having voters arbitrarily decide based on their own unexamined thoughts.
2. How are they punished harshly if Conduct falls lower on the 4 Points hierarchy?
A. Because it has to be evaluated in the debate. If someone is so egregious, like my linked example previously of Best.Korea using a slur in a debate, that they make the space inaccessible to other people, then this could be called out inround. If it isn’t that egregious, as proven through argumentation, then it doesn’t get evaluated. This is much better for accessibility writ large because minor offenses are ignored to keep those with different cultures or neurodivergencies on the site, and those who would run off other people get punished. Win win for accessibility.
Contention 4: What is debate?
1. Soccer is not a valid comparison.
A. Con just talks about boxing and doesn’t use their metaphor to explain how this relates to debate, so prefer my metaphor as it has an explanation.
B. Con's fighting metaphor also proves that debate shouldn't be evaluating anything but arguments, which would be the proverbial hits. How these get evaluated is different in different rounds, and that should be established by the debaters, where it then gets weighed by voters.
Con’s Case
1. The argument of majority support doesn’t make sense. The majority of people on a dying site utilize inaccessible modes of debate, and therefore they like it because they couldn’t hack it in a real debate. This probably shows that only the inaccessibility of the site in the status quo is holding it back.
2. If we are on a downward spiral now, as both sides agree, the site will ultimately die. This means that, since Con’s status quo will kill the site anyways, even a 1% risk that Pro can save the site should be evaluated as our last hope.
3. My opponent dropped all of my case turns from the previous round, so let me do a little extending. Because of character limits, I’ll have to summarize the turns. My opponent dropped that debate gets better because debaters have to call out bad sources, grammar, and conduct instead of relying on the judge to do it for them. My opponent also dropped judges are less biased and more accountable because they can’t intervene anymore on issues of conduct, grammar, and sources, but have to rely on argumentation made.
Con
#6
Accessibility
Accessibility is one of the two major points of Pro's case. Here is an outline of why it is not currently a problem.:
- Tools and resources exist to accommodate disorders such as dyslexia and others in the same category.
- There are translators for people with underdeveloped English, as well as grammar checks to help them structure their arguments accordingly.
- If the 4 Points System IS that much of a disadvantage, they can always choose to participate only in debates where it is Winner Selection. Nothing changes by keeping the 4 Points System when the alternative already exists. Removing one option just limits the ability to choose.
A) The latter bullet point is a problem because in the previous round, I pointed out that the majority of the users on the site PREFER the 4 Points.
B) Since the option of Winner Selection already exists, removing the former is just taking away people's ability to choose.
Win/Loss Metric
We need to address the elephant in the room here.
- The Win/Loss Metric voids the Value System.
- There are FOUR important parts of a debate that make it good and the 4 Points structure judges each of these individual traits.
l. Conduct
A. This is very relevant. If Con can’t prove the world gets uniquely worse because of the resolution, then this isn’t offense. My argument is that we solve accessibility, they say sources get bad, I say they already are bad, no difference between the world of the Pro (the abolishment of the 4 point system) and the world of the Con (status quo). This means you should then focus on accessibility offense.
As stated before, the BOP is on Pro to demonstrate a need to abolish the 4 Points System.
Because of this, I am not required to do as much offense unless it were an on-balance debate.
- Keeping the 4 Points forces debaters to use sources. And sources actually enhance accessibility by virtue of saving readers the trouble of having to google the research on their own when the link takes them directly to it. The sources are for readers who are actually interested in the subject and not just voters.
- Without the requirement to post sources, most debaters are less inclined to research their arguments and may rely more on tricky wording and persuasion to sound more convincing. Extend my points from earlier about lazier debates and deception.
A. No evidence. If this were true, they could link one example. (This is also an example of how sources can be evaluated in a win loss metric.)B. Extend my II point. This is a bad model of debate because these three intervene in who they give points to by fact checking. This means that debaters get to be lazy and rely on judge intervention instead of having to call out bad evidence themselves, meaning you make debaters worse at source engagement.
The three voters who do fact-check do this as a courtesy, not a requirement.
The responsibility still falls on the debater to call out low-quality research, so this doesn't make a difference anyway. But to provide evidence, WeaverofFate specializes in video commentary votes and this is one example to illustrate his fact-checking of sources.:
A. No, it makes debaters get better at actually engaging and weighing sources for voters. This is good because it adds another layer of argumentation to debate.
The ability to engage and weigh sources exists for debaters under the 4-Points System too.
But the difference is the ability is not exclusive to debaters.
A. None of this actually answers the argument that hyper focusing on academic sources trades off with lived experience. Con is biting into the argument that they want to systemically make this space inaccessible to those who have experienced things and want to rely on their experiences for debate as opposed to the academic sources.B. Also, if they lose argumentation because they use bad sources, then they’ll develop these skills anyways. Instead of a having a judge intervene in determining what is or isn’t a good source, this allows that discussion to take place in the debate itself and be weighed with the rest of the debate. This means that if judges have misconceptions that about sourcing, that isn’t forced on the space, but a community norm is constructed through these debates happening.
- Sources need to be there for voters to judge anyway, but it can actually enhance accessibility. In practice debates, if the opposing side is unaware of the subject. The opponent using sources gives the opponent a chance to research the topic for the rematch, thereby increasing their education.
However, if Pro is suggesting for the prioritization of accessibility, then this is an inconsistency because.:
- Removing the 4 Points System is actually limiting users' rights to choose.
ll. Grammar
I. Perfect grammar, no issue in either model.II. Grammar with mistakes but can be understood, is punished under the four point system through grammar points but not the win loss system, causing inaccessibility.III. Grammar that is so bad that it can’t be understood, is punished in argumentation and grammar in the four point system and in the win loss system.
- Most mistakes like typos or misplaced commas are overlooked. The majority of voters here are charitable in that regard.
- The Win/Loss metric is an enabler. That is why the majority of users don't use it.
A. Then you don’t make people better at grammar. You make them better at copying and pasting into Grammarly. This means that evaluating grammar doesn’t solve anything.
It is the debaters' responsibility to structure their grammar accordingly. If they decide to use Grammarly as a crutch, that is their decision. But the majority will get tired of relying on software programs, and decide to learn the language better so they don't need to rely on it as much.
In that way, the Burden of relying on grammar tools actually motivates them to take action.
A. Then what is the point of the grammar point? If it’s not to correct grammar, then what does it do. If it solves zero problems in the status quo, but it has the risk for abuse, then don’t keep it for that risk.
Sloppy grammar is still punished by detracting a point, but one or three misspellings so long as your punctuation and grammar is consistent will be forgiven.
A. Translators aren’t always reliable because they translate into the most formal version of a language, which can be hard to understand.B. Certain words don’t have direct translations, so choosing the wrong synonym gives contextual misunderstandings.C. These issues wouldn’t be enough to cause a loss, but they are enough to cause a loss of grammar point, which makes the space inaccessible, especially since all three of the non-argument points outweigh argumentation.
The combo of translators + grammar, English tools can balance this out.
But even if it is insufficient, they can always rely on ChatGPT to write their arguments out for them.
A. Me and my opponent have both said the site is dying, so there is no contestation on that point. I posit that it is because the site is inaccessible because the four-point system creates inaccessibilities that are rewarded in ranking. Even without an academic source, I have the best explanation.B. There are no exit polls when people stop using the site and we can’t message them on the site because they stop using the site. This means that this is something we can only analytically prove anyways. Unless Con has counter-evidence, take analytics as the best method of interpretation for this one issue.
- This is more simple than it looks. If Pro is arguing a point that is impossible to prove, then he loses on that argument. As stated previously, most of the users here prefer the 4 Points System.
- ALL users have the option to choose Winner Selection. Removing one only limits the ability to choose, thereby lowering accessibility.
Dismiss Pro's statement on the basis that it is an unsubstantiated claim.
A. This is blatantly false. If the grammar is so bad that it is truly unintelligible, then they would lose argumentation anyways. If it isn’t that bad, then we can moderate the win/loss metric like we moderate debates and voters now.
Which is why the 4 Points System is better. The value system negates disqualifying voters on the basis of bad grammar because it understands the spectrum of the four attributes, while the Winner Selection denies it exists and boxes it into one category.
So the 4 Points System is fairer and more partial in that regard.
A. If this is true, then wouldn’t it be better to have those discussed in rounds, punishing those who make the space less accessible, but at least having those conversations instead of having voters arbitrarily decide based on their own unexamined thoughts.
- There is a Voting Guide which clearly summarizes up the policy of Conduct and what the expectations are. So voters are not just deciding on a whim. They're making objectively-based decisions.
Conclusion
Extending the BOP from Round 1.
The Burden of Proof requires Pro to demonstrate that DebateArt should remove the 4-point system.He can only do this in two ways.:
- Objectively weigh the pros and cons and declare that the cons outweigh the pros.
- Prove the need to abolish it.
Pro has yet to fulfill one or both of the criteria and has therefore not provided a convincing case for the resolution.
Round 4
Pro
#7
Preamble
As the rest of the rounds, it will be my case, and then since Con has no independent off, I will extend the turns I’ve made that my opponent has conceded. I would also like to extend a gentleman’s agreement to make the last speech less about continuing the line by line back and forth, but summarizing the round and layout where the voters should be. You can decide in the next speech.
Pro’s case
Framework
1. Extend accessibility comes first because any other metric of “good” debate is made moot if it’s inaccessible. Hasn’t been contested. All of my opponentsdirect attacks are handled in the body of the debate.
A. The majority of users preferring 4 points doesn’t prove that it is more accessible, especially since my opponent dropped that the only reason we have to think people leave the site is through accessibility, meaning that the people left are those who have made the space inaccessible for everyone. This means that we should make the space accessible to more people than the small site population.
B. Cross apply the second point. The ability to choose to not participate in 4 point systems is not enough to make the site accessible when ranking because it causes these debaters to be skewed from respect and meaningful engagement with the community. There has been no answer to this the entire debate.
2. Extend that opting out and “choice” is not enough because the ranking system makes it where bad debaters become esteemed/respected members of the community and push out better debaters who don’t have access.
3. Extend the argument I made on case that says both Pro and Con agree that the site is on a death spiral, so any minimum chance I can save it is worth evaluating as Pro winning because it’s try or die.
4. Lastly, on the BOP arguments, my opponent said there was two ways, one of which being
Objectively weigh the pros and cons and declare that the cons outweigh the pros.
This is done by weighing the desirability of the hypothetical world of the Pro versus the status quo world of the Con. If my world is better, even in the slightest, then I prove that we should abolish it as it would create a better world. “Need to abolish it” should be weighed as a last ditch attempt to save a dying site anyways, so I meet both burdens.
Pro’s Case
Contention 1: Sources
1. My opponent tried to hide their arguments against sources in the Conduct contention, but I will divide it back out for voters.
2. And sources actually enhance accessibility by virtue of saving readers the trouble of having to google the research on their own when the link takes them directly to it.
A. Win loss metric doesn’t abolish linking in the debate, so literally no difference between Pro’s world and the status quo on this question.
B. My question of accessibility wasn’t the ability to have people google things, but people who want to rely on their experiences as opposed to academic research. The example I used was workers talking about their hate of capitalism without reading Marx, and this hasn’t been answered. This means you have to weigh this still.
C. If the second speaker is relying on the first speakers sources alone, they will lose because the sources are curated. This means that you make debate uniquely worse by making them all one sided.
3. Without the requirement to post sources, most debaters are less inclined to research their arguments and may rely on tricky wording and persuasion to sound more convincing.
A. My opponent would like you to forget that I've proven debaters get better and less lazy when they have to call research out themselves and not rely on the judges to do it. Sources would still be required to win against good debaters, the only difference is we decide what a “good” source is in the debate itself instead of relying on judge intervention.
4. My opponent sited WeaverofFate fact checks. This bites into the fact that WeaverofFate is doing work for the debates that makes them lazy and get worse and allows the judge to inject their bias of what is or isn’t a “good” source, instead of having that decided through argumentation like everything else.
5. My opponent said that the ability to weigh sources is available in four points, but it allows the voters in on the process. Why don’t we let the voters make arguments and just vote for the side they personally agree with? Because their job is to evaluate what happens in a debate, not what they think prior. This means that we should be limiting judge intervention, not expanding/protecting it.
6. Right to choose is not accessibility writ large. Cross apply the framework that the site is dying because inaccessibility and the reason people prefer an inaccessible debate is because the people left are the people who have skewed out those of different perspectives.
7. Sources need to be there for voters to judge anyway
A. Everything past that about accessibility, cross apply that
I. Source evaluation happens better under win/loss metric.
II. They skew out those who hope to rely on experience over academic sources.
B. No warrant or explanation why this is true, so be skeptical.
C. They don’t, they need to evaluate what is said objectively. That is the purpose of voters. If they get to weigh the evidence for debaters without having the quality questioned by the debates, then this invites them to evaluate dropped arguments instead of marking them as conceded. Their job is to evaluate the quality of debaters and their arguments.
Contention 2: Grammar
1. My opponent mixed grammar and conduct under the grammar point. I will try to separate them for you.
2. A lot of these arguments come to a double bind. Either voters are charitable and don’t strongly evaluate minor grammatical issues, meaning there is no reason to keep it because it doesn’t do anything in the status quo and has the risk for abuse, OR, they do use it and this is actively being exclusionary to debaters. Either no offense for Con in proving the status quo is more desirable, or it is actively exclusionary to non-native English speakers and those with neurodivergencies.
3. My opponent says they wouldn’t use grammar checkers because they don’t like the crutch, but why would they want to make their life harder? There’s no warrant for this and people will continue to use easy outs. If people didn’t like the crutch, then society wouldn’t have developed the crutch unless there is a human urge to shift towards the easy way out. This means that the grammar point doesn’t make people better at grammar, meaning no benefit.
4. My opponent said the grammar point pushes people to use ChatGPT. This proves the entire thesis of the Pro. Debate is so hard and exclusionary that people feel like they can’t rely on their own arguments, so they turn to AI bots. This makes people feel like losers creating a form of psychological violence, makes debate worse because we’re all using bots or leaving if we don’t care so much, and the reason they would care so much is the ranking system, cross apply the framework. The Pro is the last ditch effort to make people still feel comfortable enough to debate themselves.
5. My sibling in Christ, you can’t just ignore my analysis that said the site is dying because it is inaccessible.
A. I have a reason that analytically makes sense. I never simply dismiss my opponents for not having evidence, I also answer the argument and prove why it logically doesn’t make sense. Since my opponent can’t do the same, you should probably buy that mine is true.
B. I also proved that hard statistics are impossible to collect on this issue, so hypothetical analysis is the best form of sourcing on this issue, no contestation, so my opponent is demanding the literal impossible, which is a goofy burden for any side.
C. My opponent is trying to hide by anecdotal evidence, so extend that as the proof my opponent demands (and hides from).
D. Cross apply that people prefer the 4 point system because they benefit from inaccessibility and that the ability to choose isn’t sitewide accessibility since we have a ranking system.
6. My opponent said that disqualifying voters for bad grammar is inaccessible, but extend my three tier system. If the grammar is so unintelligible that it can’t even be read, then it would lose argumentation and be an immediate loss under 4 point system anyways. The only difference is that for those who have simple mistakes, they don’t get bullied into leaving the site or using an AI chat bot.
Contention 3: Conduct
1. The entire argument has come down to the argument that my opponent makes. There is an objective conduct policy. This is what your account can be banned for and works as a TOS. Evaluation of conduct in a debate is a separate level, and is not objective, so my opponent has fundamentally dropped this point.
2. Extend why win loss is better for accessibility.
A. If the violations are not so bad that they make the site inaccessible as could be proven through argumentation in the debate, then no reason to vote them down, and we keep neurodivergent and differently cultured individuals.
B. If the violation is so bad it makes the site inaccessible by running people off, then them losing is better for accessibility sitewide.
There is no answer to this system at all, so this is the better system, conceded by Con.
Contention 4: What is debate?
My opponent dropped this, so extend that they are not evaluating debate, but are evaluating research, essay writing, and being nice, which are not debate so they don’t reward debaters in the ranking system, but researchers, essay writers, and nice people. Good skills, but not what debate is.
Con’s Case
1. The majority support and downward spiral arguments are on the framework now.
2. Extend the turns that debaters get better by not relying on judge intervention and voters get more accountable and objective by not interjecting into the debate.
Con
#8
To get an understanding of how weak Pro’s case is, we need to analyze where it went wrong.
- Pro yielded a lot of ground in the previous rounds.
- Most of his arguments are un-supported, unsubstantiated claims.
The Majority Preference vs Accessibility
- Opponent concedes the majority of users prefer the 4 Points System. Extend.
- Pro claims the reason the site died is inaccessibility, but doesn’t prove it. Disregard as an unsubstantiated claim.
- I point out that users already have the option to choose between Winner Selection and 4 Points System and abolishing it is just limiting the freedom to choose. Pro doesn’t contest this, extend.
- I point out that abolishing an option supported by the majority will curb the population to an already dying platform, not attract more people. This is dropped by Pro, extend.
Pro has delivered no evidence for a need to abolish the 4 Points System. His arguments are based on assumptions, not statistics. So I will move to dismiss them as assumptions.
Unless Pro proves that the current status quo is inhibiting accessibility, I simply cannot give him the point.
Value System vs Win/Loss Metrics
- The argument that the value system incorporates the whole spectrum of individual parts of a debate remains uncontested, extend.
- Pro argues that those who win by Winner Selection will lose respect by the site. This is not substantiated and is an assumption. Fundamentally, it’s the Freedom to Choose vs Scrutiny of Public Opinion.
- I point out that abolishing the 4 Points System gives debaters the excuse to ignore essential parts of a debate. This has yet to be refuted, extend.
- I state that debaters still have the responsibility to fact-check sources, even if voters do sometimes. Pro claims this will make debaters lazy but this isn’t a retort. This is just him repeating his original argument without proof. Extend.
Conclusion
Pro bears the full burden to prove the title’s resolution. Since he has not demonstrated a need, I’d assert that he loses this debate.
He has made unconvincing claims without further research. Conversely, I demonstrated why it is not only unnecessary to abolish the 4 Points System but how it could back-fire. Each of my arguments used examples from the site and gave suggestions for tools to accommodate those in need.
Extend my major contentions.:
- The Freedom To Choose.
- Majority Preference.
- Value System.
- Accountability & Motivation.
Vote CON.
Round 5
Pro
#9
Preamble
This is the last speech, so I’m not going to do any line by line work (except for the new argument on rankings translating into respect, I have to answer that). My goal is just to explain why you vote Pro. As always, my case and then the turn sat the bottom.
Pro’s Case
Framework
1. Extend that accessibility is the most important thing. This site being used as an educational and recreational tool can only happen if the site is accessible so that should be the most important thing we weigh, and this has never been contested. This means anything about “majority preference” or any other concept of “good debate” doesn’t matter. If I make the space “worse” but more accessible, then the space is de facto better because more people can access education and recreation.
A. Arguments about majority preference are irrelevant for two reasons.
I. If it isn’t filtered through the lens of accessibility, then any benefit of “majority preference” doesn’t matter.
II. The reason the majority that is left on a dying site enjoys the inaccessible model of debate is because they have skewed every other debater off the site. This is contingent on the site dying because it is inaccessible, which I’ll answer later. This does mean, however, that more debaters come to the site afterwards, regardless of what happens to the current debate population.
2.Extend that opt out/freedom to choose isn’t enough because the ranking system makes certain individuals less prominent as opposed to those who have higher rankers from skewing out other debaters, creating an inaccessible culture out of all the debates. My opponent finally contested this point by saying there was no evidence of this in the last round, so please allow me a new source to answer my opponent. If they wanted earlier, they should have said something earlier, they had three rounds they’ve dropped the point before this. This article, while discussing mental health and social media, specifically says that the comparison of engagement and positive interaction leads to mental health issues within people. The article talks about other social media issues, but the main message is important because it shows that high rankings from debate that is inaccessible to other debaters makes the entire site inaccessible, even if they are opting out of using the inaccessible debate. This happens because people instinctually compare their ranking against one another and feel bad that they are doing worse because of systemic inaccessibility.
A. Don’t let my opponent bring counter-evidence up in the last round, if they really wanted to challenge this framework point, they should have done it within the last three rounds and not waited till the very end. I don’t have a chance to answer any counter-evidence they bring up, and this is terminally unfair.
3. Extend that both me and my opponent say the site is dying. This means that, if you think there is any chance Pro’s plan could save it, regardless of why it’s dying, you vote Pro because it’s try or die to save the website.
A. Also, my opponent says I haven’t proven the site is dying from inaccessibility, but extend that statistical evidence is impossible to collect on this issue, my uncontested analytical evidence, and my uncontested anecdotal evidence. If I was so wrong about why the site was dying, Con could poke holes in that, but their lack of ability proves I’m probably right.
Contention 1: Sources
1. My opponent dropped the ball on the last round, and dropped all my arguments that how we do sources now is inaccessible to those who don’t have formal education. This is uncontested.
2. My opponent dropped that source evaluation ignores non-academic sources and makes this space inaccessible to those who rely on experience. This means that sources get better in a win/loss metric because the discussion of what is a good source happens in the debate and is evaluated objectively by a judge, instead of just having a judge intervene into the round.
Contention 2: Grammar
1. Extend that grammar is inaccessible to those who are neurodivergent or non-native English speakers. My opponent said it was so bad in the status quo that debaters are forced into using AI chatbots, which destroys debate, assuming they put in that effort and don’t just leave the site.
2.Extend that there is no unique offense for accessibility because if a speech was so terrible on grammar that the round is unintelligible, judges would give them argumentation on the 4 point system anyways, so only a chance that we protect those who make minor mistakes and don’t shame them into leaving thesite.
Contention 3: Conduct
1. Extend the double-bind my opponent dropped. If someone has a minor conduct issue because of neurodivergencies or different customs, then win loss protects them and makes the site more accessible. If the conduct is so egregious that they make this space less accessible, they get voted down, preserving this space. No answer to this.
Contention 4: What is debate?
1. My opponent has said these are different parts of debates, but any other competition we try to analogize it to, there is one way you get points and every other skill is to serve that purpose. In debate, that skill is argumentation and everything else is to serve that purpose, not to be separately measured. In soccer, it’s goals. In fighting, it's hits. My opponent has never answered this analysis.
Con’s Case
1. My opponent says I haven’t proven that debates get less lazy, but they sited a judge intervening in a debate and doing work that the debaters didn’t do. This is proof that debaters get lazy. If judges do this work for people, then debaters have no incentive to point our sources or conduct because the judges do that work.
2. Extend that dropped point this means that judges intervene in the debate. Instead of voting objectively, they interject their own personal opinions of “what a good source is” or “what egregious conduct is”, instead of letting argumentation create norms for a community and allows us to come to the best ideal through the clash of ideas.
In conclusion,
You vote Pro because, even if you are skeptical about large swathes of the claims I’m making, if there is any percentage of a chance that I save the site that’s on a downward death spiral, you vote to try or die on saving the site.
You vote Pro because Con spends a lot of time saying “no evidence” instead of engaging any of my analysis, meaning you should probably trust that the analysis is valid when Con can’t disprove it at all.
You vote Pro because I’ve proven accessibility is best upheld in all of the contentions and debate gets better by allowing for in depth conversations on what good evidence is that isn’t just judge intervention.
Thank you for the debate Sir.Lancelot, I’ve had a lot of fun.
Con
#10
Extend my closing arguments from previous round.
To get an understanding of how weak Pro’s case is, we need to analyze where it went wrong.
- Pro yielded a lot of ground in the previous rounds.
- Most of his arguments are un-supported, unsubstantiated claims.
The Majority Preference vs Accessibility
- Opponent concedes the majority of users prefer the 4 Points System. Extend.
- Pro claims the reason the site died is inaccessibility, but doesn’t prove it. Disregard as an unsubstantiated claim.
- I point out that users already have the option to choose between Winner Selection and 4 Points System and abolishing it is just limiting the freedom to choose. Pro doesn’t contest this, extend.
- I point out that abolishing an option supported by the majority will curb the population to an already dying platform, not attract more people. This is dropped by Pro, extend.
Pro has delivered no evidence for a need to abolish the 4 Points System. His arguments are based on assumptions, not statistics. So I will move to dismiss them as assumptions.Unless Pro proves that the current status quo is inhibiting accessibility, I simply cannot give him the point.Value System vs Win/Loss Metrics
- The argument that the value system incorporates the whole spectrum of individual parts of a debate remains uncontested, extend.
- Pro argues that those who win by Winner Selection will lose respect by the site. This is not substantiated and is an assumption. Fundamentally, it’s the Freedom to Choose vs Scrutiny of Public Opinion.
- I point out that abolishing the 4 Points System gives debaters the excuse to ignore essential parts of a debate. This has yet to be refuted, extend.
- I state that debaters still have the responsibility to fact-check sources, even if voters do sometimes. Pro claims this will make debaters lazy but this isn’t a retort. This is just him repeating his original argument without proof. Extend.
ConclusionPro bears the full burden to prove the title’s resolution. Since he has not demonstrated a need, I’d assert that he loses this debate.He has made unconvincing claims without further research. Conversely, I demonstrated why it is not only unnecessary to abolish the 4 Points System but how it could back-fire. Each of my arguments used examples from the site and gave suggestions for tools to accommodate those in need.Extend my major contentions.:
- The Freedom To Choose.
- Majority Preference.
- Value System.
- Accountability & Motivation.
Vote CON.
Now Pro misunderstands a crucial element of the BOP. Specifically, this argument he makes.:
A. Also, my opponent says I haven’t proven the site is dying from inaccessibility, but extend that statistical evidence is impossible to collect on this issue, my uncontested analytical evidence, and my uncontested anecdotal evidence. If I was so wrong about why the site was dying, Con could poke holes in that, but their lack of ability proves I’m probably right.
- There is no anecdotal or empirical evidence.
- Anecdotal evidence is not evidence.
- The BOP falls on the person making the claim, not the person questioning it.
If Pro had evidence that inaccessibility is what was currently the reason for the low userbase, he would have proven it. If I claim "God exists and I'm right because you can't prove me wrong," then I would be arguing a fallacy. The fallacy that Pro is using is called the Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam.
Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam - The logical error occurring when a proposition is unjustifiably claimed to be true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false.
Extend all my arguments from all the previous rounds.
Conclusion:
I have broken down each of Pro's arguments and analyzed why they are more likely to backfire than be of any benefit to the site. Pro hasn't weighed the Pros or Cons nor demonstrated a need to abolish the 4 Points System.
Proving the second option would have won him the debate and since he has not done so, you may vote Con.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
It felt like pro was leaning too much on pathos appeals about how the system discriminates against people who are bad at various aspects of debating, which con was able to counter with it encouraging improvement in those areas.
Were this debate to be on making winner select the default, pro would win. Con pointing out that people opt into the systems made it an uphill battle for wholly doing away with one system mainly because the other is easier for the less able to showcase intelligence.
Some potential harms would win out had con not been able to show benefits. Again, this is a proposal to abolish a system, which needs overwhelming harms, or some harms and a lack of any benefit.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
i feel that in the end pro addresses the concepts of why a 4 point system is bad, whereas con simply addresses the applications. pro shows the harms of the 4 point system and its applications: 1: sources do not instigate critical thinking or application, pro asserts that fact checking is the debater(s) priority and that sources can create a mask of indisputable fact, when really it could be illreputed evidence . con argues the application of peer reviewed information and discounts pro's assertion of personal experience. experience is vital and should be communicable in a debate.
2: grammar is not a large issue in most debates, as con points out, there are spelling and grammar checks to negate it. pro refers to the purpose of grammar is to be understood and is not needful to be weighed in debates if its understood.
3:conduct pro argues custom, autism etc is what affects conduct votes and that the process of weighing conduct should be normalized, wereas con wants a forced standard of conduct this site currently supports, which fails in regards to certain language barriers and interpretation of information. potentially facts can be disregarded because someone is offended, affecting more than conduct, but sources, grammar and arguementation.
4: arguement is where i feel both sides were weakest. the main purpose of a debate is the strength of the arguement, fact, opinion.
pro argues that the point for arguement could be affected BY the other 3 points, and i agree, an arguements strength is dependent on the others and the vote toward or against it can be misinterpretated. con argues with the metaphors presented...
also, just because alot of people use something, doesnt mean its the best, there is always room for improvement.
in total, i agree with pro on all points. 4 point system needs to be abolished entirely.
One hour away just in case you still wanted to vote.
Also, thanks Barney!
Yep, thanks. This is my total focus tonight, I have it about half way done.
I got a bit busy.
I haven't read this one, but did you say you wanted to vote on this? Voting period is almost over.
I thought I had voted on this… I’ll get something g together
Bump
I'll probably vote on this in a little while.
Bump to encourage voting.
Alright, sure.
I just finished this one. I'll probably wait a little bit. A little burnt out on this topic, lol.
I'm cool with that. I'm pretty bad about sitting down and cramming out a speech, but if it helps you, I'm down.
The resolution seems fair - I would prefer if the "time for argument" was set to 1 week, so both sides have more time to make higher-quality arguments.
Sure! Are there any changes to the wording, rules, or description you would want?
Would you be willing to challenge me to the same topic after you're done with this debate? I'm an ardent supporter of the four-points system.
I ignore preambles sometimes, so I wanted to reach out here as well. If you would like to agree to make the last speech only weighing and describing why the voter should vote for you as a sort of summary, then you should agree in your next speech. I put the agreement in my preamble.
I think you make solid arguments.
You forced me to use all but thirteen characters in that last speech. Hopefully, I'm pushing you to your limits as well.