Instigator / Con
42
1677
rating
24
debates
93.75%
won
Topic
#771

Resolved: In the US, plea bargaining ought to be abolished

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
18
6
Better sources
12
10
Better legibility
6
6
Better conduct
6
6

After 6 votes and with 14 points ahead, the winner is...

blamonkey
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
28
1485
rating
91
debates
46.15%
won
Description

Round Structure. I will cede the first round so that Pro can go first.
I will offer my constructive, and then we will alternate between Pro and Con until the final round, in which Pro is required to waive.

Other than that, standard rules apply.
In other words, don't post new args in the final round. Don't be a di**.

That's about it.

-->
@blamonkey

Yes I did. I could argue the con position as well, and think the con position is less abstract giving it an advantage, but I have a legitimate interest in addressing the massive injustices caused by allowing people to plea bargain

-->
@Wylted

Did you want to take the Pro position?

-->
@blamonkey

Any chance you would do this debate again. It should be easy for you since your first round is already written?

-->
@David

Thank you. I'm trying to get past my biases on the matter and think about what works for everyone.

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

Interesting suggestions. Will have a chat with bsh about them in the am

-->
@David
@bsh1
@Ramshutu
@Alec

C Tribunal.
This system would send all reported votes into a public tribunal that can be voted on by anybody on the website. This would give the public a voice in whether or not the vote was fair or not. The key here is to put the power in as many hands as possible. It's not that I don't trust any particular moderator. But no moderator can make the right decision all of the time.

I could probably come up with more. But I've already went on too long.

-->
@David
@bsh1
@Ramshutu
@Alec

Sorry, ran out of filibustering space :)

I've thought at length about this and I see the possible problems with a completely open system, so I've brought a few suggestions.

1. Sectioned Ballots. = This would consist of turning the voting card into a type of homework assignment. There's lots of ways you could do this. You could have a section for each round of the debate and they must fill out a description for each round. This could even be reduced further by having the debaters frame their premises in a formatted section during the start of each round. The second option would be optimal, but would limit the flexibility of debate styles and would require probably too much footwork on the coding end. The advantage to the first option is that it's just flexible enough to fit all standard formats and would also make it easier to vote. I think the best way to moderate this option would be to put more general focus on the effort that the voter puts into their vote. Pragmatically speaking, it's more important that the voter's RFD is sincere rather than whether or not it's logical. In the end, none of us can really say that one methodology of logic is superior to another on any specific topic. Only in a broad sense.

2. Public Moderation.
This one is more vague because I honestly don't know the best way to implement it. But the general idea would be to have a downvoting type system similar to what you say on youtube. There's several ways to do this.

A. Tournament system. In this system, Vote can be liked or disliked and only the votes at the top X spots of the list will count toward the debate. This could also be done in intervals. (X spots are full vote Y votes are half votes, etc.)

B. Fall off system. This would be a system that would delete a vote if it gets downvoted too much. Up votes don't have to exist in this system, but they could as a counterbalance to stop unfair downvoting.

C. Tribunal. to be continued.

-->
@David
@bsh1
@Ramshutu
@Alec

I feel like the current voting system leaves much to be desired. This is not in direct reference to my personal experience with the site, because for the most part, my votes have been handled more or less how I probably would have handled them under the current standard.

Let's call it the problem of judgement.

To vote objectively, one needs an objective standard.

The current voting system is certainly not arbitrary, but it doesn't have a truly objective standard.

Voters are objectively required to assess the arguments in an itemized fashion, but there is no rigid standard by which to control how these things are judged.

So far, the closets thing I've seen to regulating this problem is the standard that "the voter may not draw an outside conclusion". It's certainly a good start, but it has problems itself.

It would logically follow, that for a voter to vote, they'd have to at least take on one outside conclusion when weighing the burden of proof at the end.

to elaborate. If one is judging two arguments using only what the debaters have said, then the voter will be stuck with whatever convoluted logic that is presented by the debaters.

In general, the voter must judge whether they "believe" said arguments respectively.

But this causes a problem. If a voter believes or disbelieves based solely on the confines of the debater's arguments, then the voter is essentially trapped in a forced dichotomy where they must only adopt confidence based on two possible lines of reason that may not even logically follow with the burden of proof.

Ultimately, the voter is forced to believe or disbelieve based on their own general attitudes toward things. This means there will always be a subjective element and many voters will outright vote in a post hoc fashion (checking the points box first and explaining it after, I'm sure nobody's 100 percent innocent of doing this even if it was because they read the debate first)

-->
@David

I wondered about that, lol...

-->
@Ramshutu

It was actually me who hit the report button by mistake :haha:

-->
@Ramshutu

Lol

-->
@blamonkey

I think I may have reported the debate. I subscribe to debates that are near their final round and then unsubscribe when I vote. I accidentally report a Ronnie as I’m on mobile and end up clicking the wrong one :P

-->
@oromagi

Than you!

-->
@IsaiahDude543

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: IsaiahDude543 // Mod action: Removed

>Points Awarded: 7 points to Pro

>Reason for Decision: Big V all the way

>Reason for Mod Action: The voter re-voted in a way that can only be interpreted as a deliberate choice to ignore site voting policy, which was explained to him when his previous vote was removed. Further attempts to vote without making any genuine effort to meet the standards set out in the site's voting policy will result in the loss of the voter's voting privileges.
************************************************************************

-->
@blamonkey

Yeah and that's why I didn't go as hard against your case as I did as I didn't htink it would be fair. I'd love to redo this debate. I think I needed some more evidence in my rebuttals. Had I provided that, I think I would have won.

-->
@Speedrace

Thanks for the vote. Yeah, I didn't realize I could only defend. I wanted to add more refutations. It would have been unfair as it was the end of the debate though.

-->
@David

No problem

-->
@Speedrace

Lol! Thanks for listening to our rambling. Blamonkey is a tough cookie to beat.

-->
@David
@blamonkey

20 minutes of my life down the drain, that's every vote I've ever given for a debate between either of you, y'all talk too much lol

I'm so sleepy right now that I posted this comment to the wrong debate xD

-->
@Speedrace

Thanks for a great RFD!!

-->
@Alec

I care about the integrity of the voting process and will report any vote that doesn't meet the standards on my debate - especially the ones who are on my side.

-->
@David

I don't mean this in a rude way, but I'm surprised your reporting a vote that would help you. It's something that would take guts for me.

-->
@Alec

Already done. Even though the vote will be removed, I cannot remove votes on my own debate even when it clearly does not meet our standards. The vote has already been reported and bsh1 will get to it as soon as he can.

-->
@David
@bsh1

You might want to report the vote by IsaiahDude543.

-->
@Dustandashes

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

>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro for arguments

>Reason for Decision: So I came to this debate with a totally open mind, I didn't have a particular opinion about this matter. This was a fantastic debate and both debaters cleary know what they are talking about. In honestly, I believe blamonkey did a fantastic job of working within the framework of consequentialism. Dare I say he might have done a better job at this than virtuoso... On the surface. What was not negated however was the resolution. I feel virtuoso conclusively proved in his opening statement that plea bargaining is indeed a miscarriage of justice. Regardless of what would happen to this prison system if we were to abolish plea bargaining is not nearly as bad a consequence as innocent people going to prison. So I feel, although this debate was really close, virtuoso took this one. Thank you guys

>Reason for Mod Action: To award argument points, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision. The voter performs none of these steps; therefore, their vote is insufficient. The voter may re-vote by performing these steps. The voter can access site voting policy here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
************************************************************************

-->
@IsaiahDude543

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: IsaiahDude543 // Mod action: Removed

>Points Awarded: 4 points to Pro for arguments and conduct, 2 points to Con for sources

>Reason for Decision: I feel that this is the right choice

>Reason for Mod Action: To award argument points, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision. To award sources points, the voter must (1) explain how the debaters' sources impacted the debate, (2) directly assess the strength/utility of at least one source in particular cited in the debate, and (3) explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's. To award conduct points, the voter must (1) give explicit examples of misconduct, (2) show how this misconduct was either excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate, and (3) compare each debater's conduct in the debate. For all points awarded, the voter performs none of the requisite steps to award those points. The voter can access site voting policy here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
************************************************************************

-->
@IsaiahDude543

Thank you

-->
@David

He buddy. Great debate! I definitely think that you won.

bump
u
m
p

bumping for votes

-->
@Alec

not sure if there are reliable polling for it.

-->
@David

What percentage? Can you provide a source?

-->
@Alec

yep

-->
@David

Do you know how many people support abolishing plea bargaining?

-->
@Alec

I’m a student and part time retail worker

-->
@David

What's your job?

-->
@blamonkey

I’ll post my arguments when I get home from work

-->
@Alec

Thanks. He’s a great debater. I thoroughly enjoyed our last debate.

-->
@David

Blamonkey is good at debating. He's is as of the time of this comment 8-0. I wish you good luck.

-->
@David

Cool! Sorry, I forgot to post.

-->
@blamonkey

My opening arguments are ready whenever you are.