Instigator / Con
36
1596
rating
42
debates
63.1%
won
Topic
#478

Mandatory Voting

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
9
12
Better sources
14
10
Better legibility
7
7
Better conduct
6
4

After 7 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

Alec
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
5,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
33
1687
rating
555
debates
68.11%
won
Description

The rules are:
1: The BoP is on Pro since he wants it to be mandatory.
2: I will waive the 1st round and my opponent will waive the last round. They must signify this in the round. Violation is an automatic loss of the conduct point.
3: A forfeit is an automatic loss unless apologized for in the comments.

-->
@Alec

I don't know if the issue is you lack IQ, information or both but I am not going to prove to you something that won't matter to you anyway. See, whether it was grudge-voting or not, you are better off either believing it wasn't and priding yourself on this win or knowing that you can rally voters against me.

Either way, I'm worse off so I'm going to stop explaining it to you, I've said my piece.

Debatevoter has no registered friends, so I doubt he would ally with Magic Aint real to vote in my favor. I made some pretty good arguments. You accused me of being a dictatorship supporter, which wasen't accurate. That would be poor conduct.

https://www.debateart.com/participants/DebateVoter

-->
@Alec

Two are friends IRL or colleagues IRL of Magicaintreal. The account DebateVoter's only activity on the site ever was to make that vote.

Why would they hate you? I mean, to be honest, I don't like you but I don't grudge vote against you. If their votes weren't adequate or too biased, they would have been reported.

All 3 had an agenda to vote against me.

-->
@Alec

I am telling you a truth, the three people who voted for you stretched point-allocation and the capacity to vote for a non-winner via ignoring arguments to the maximum capacity that they could (or at least 2 did, bifolkal was kinder).

I didn't complain when you beat me in one debate, even though I thought I deserved to win that debate. You win some, you lose some. That's how life works. The voting was pretty competitive. I thought you were going to win this one. Turns out I did. Good debate regardless.

I wouldn't call myself a bystander as I was someone who competed in this big boy debate.

-->
@Alec

You didn't. You were a bystander who profited from a grudge and rivalry.

I'm glad I won against RM.

Wow, I thought for sure RM had this debate in the bag...oh well, nice bump for Alec.

@RationalMadman

I didn't publicly complain when people voted for you and when I thought I would lose the debate. I expect the same courtesy.

You grudge voted me man

Vote moderating is to blame, a maniac with a grudge is a byproduct of a flawed justice system, not something that's enabled or encouraged in a proper one.

You're excused

Excuse me but I placed a satisfactory and substantial vote.

I won't need to fight back, soon you'll find another to pick on or you'll get banned from voting. I don't care.

Please do expose the vote mods who enable people like you to vote

Good job, great to see.

Conduct
Pro attempted two times to unfairly and rudely sway the voters.
1. Pro got a little testy and said to Con, “There is no way to deny it now Con, you dug your own grave on this one.”
Not only does Con mention that this should be considered bad conduct, I was thinking the exact same thing. Rather than provide a substantial argument, Pro resorted to angrily intimidating his opponent and saying that basically they lost.
I was debating on whether or not to give the conduct point here, but then Pro, in the last round sealed his conduct fate by ignoring the rules instructed to him to follow.
2. Instead of just nicely waiving the round without attempting to influence voters in a last ditch effort, Pro says “Unfair to bring so many new points in the last Round...Sadly I can't rebuke as per debate structure” this is both unfair to Con because it attempts to soften the voters one way AND it goes against the rules which say “my opponent will waive the last round. They must signify this in the round. Violation is an automatic loss of the conduct point” because it’s ultimately not a waiving of the round, but a rude little jab at Con attempting to swing the debate.

Conduct to Con for these reasons.

Con’s sources however referenced the Census Bureau and with these statistics, Con was able to substantiate his case by showing so many people to not have voted speaking to the flaw of the implementation of this mandate. Inspecting Con’s sources on countries’ statistics for mandating voting and for how many people abstained from voting in the last election showed that they were credible and without the sources, Con would not have been able to show such a negative impact of voting, so for solidly supporting a successful negation of the resolution with these inspected-to-be-credible sources and since Pro’s source was less than credible and slightly negated Pro’s intent, Sources to Con.

Sources:
Pro provided sources to show the keys to democracy and why democracy is the best.
While the stanford source both seemed credible and supported what Pro was trying to show, Pro's source that linked to "Eva Kooijmans’ essay" from the New College of Humanities is both underwhelming and carries with it very little weight, because Eva Kooijman is merely a student at some college who thinks "democracy is just so awesome" that she had to write about it. Kooijman has no apparent credentials and, since is only a student, has not even graduated from the very source being cited so we have no reason to buy anything from this source, and, perhaps Pro missed it, the source says some damning things about democracy with respects to Pro's case.
It says "In reality, however, democracy is slightly more problematic, because it can be difficult for leaders to satisfy an entire population." This not only shows democracy to be problematic, antithetical to Pro's intent here, it also shows that democracy fails to satisfy the entire population, directly in line with Con’s point that “in no country is the voter turnout at 100% and only 3 countries have a voter turnout of 90% or higher.”

Because of how you spoke to me on Hangouts and treat me in general. You friended me under false pretences and I have had enough of it.

Why did I get blocked by RationalMadman?

-->
@RationalMadman

Of course I read R1, I would not have voted otherwise.

-->
@Barney

If you read my R1, I explain how pseudo-democracy is the only time it goes wrong.

For a little entertainment, Iraq used to report having 100% voter turnout. SNL did a nice summery of how democracy worked there: https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/election-night-coverage/2869239

-->
@Barney

Thanks for the brilliant vote.

-->
@whiteflame

5k chars was why I wasn't more epic in this battle. Thanks for the vote.

-->
@Defender

It might be

-->
@RationalMadman

Is this you?
Bring what back to life? Unlike you sorry souls, I was always mistreated and built to hate DDO. F*ck Airmax, F*ck Juggle and what they did to me all these years unfairly and without recourse. I did not deserve to be permabanned for having some private flame wars where the other party was not even banned at all. F*ck off and study the history before you preach good about DDO and its moderation. I tell you straight to your face DDO is a pigsty of the Internet, YEAH YOU HEAR ME JUGGLE? WHAT DO I OWE YOU? LOYALTY? REPAYMENT? FOR WHAT? I'M ONLY UNBANNED BECAUSE OF YOU ACCIDENTALLY UNBANNING ME, YOU UTTER MORONS!

A month ago on the DDO forum......

-->
@RationalMadman

Not a problem. I'm trying to keep on top of the vote reports so that a debate outcome isn't changed by a few bad votes. Also I'm working on my RFD for the debate.

-->
@David

Good response time, ty.

-->
@Defender

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Defender // Mod action: Removed

>Points Awarded: 4 points to Con for arguments and conduct; 3 points to Pro for sources and grammar

>Reason for Decision:

Very clearly, both side were basically confused of each other's explanation. However, Con did give a more convincing argument as he did rebuke Pro side(rational Madman)'s argument. However, he lacked siting of reliable sources. On the Pro side, he did a wonderful job on how democracy is better than dictatorship, if this debate is with that topic, I will give it to him for sure. However the ultimate point is tied. You guys did both got points. (Next time, RM, don't make decisions so early.)

>Reason for Mod Action: (1) The voter does not survey the main arguments, analyze those arguments to determine who won each, or weigh the main arguments to determine a winner. In order to cast a sufficient ballot, the voter should do all three of these things. (2) the voter fails to sufficiently explain the conduct point. To award a conduct point a debater must be excessively rude or forfeit one or more rounds. (3) the grammar point is unexplained. To award this point one must go through to provide example of poor grammar AND explain why it made it hard to read; (4) the source point is insufficient. To award a source point one must compare the sources between the debaters and explain why their sources were better in quality.
************************************************************************

-->
@Defender

Idk what you think is tied. Enjoy your vote getting removed. I am losing because of that nonsense vote.

Oh I'll definitely post a vote here...honest engine.

-->
@David
@bsh1

You too please

-->
@coal
@whiteflame
@Logical-Master
@Ramshutu
@Hi_Im_Tim

Your duty to vote on this debate is mandatory!!!

wrote 'none of these' not wrong but 'wrote'*******

-->
@coal
@blamonkey
@whiteflame
@Logical-Master
@Ramshutu

One for the 'epic short debate' hall of fame section that will be made just for me. :)

I'm scared of Rational Madman.