Instigator / Pro
14
1810
rating
49
debates
100.0%
won
Topic
#803

Default Auto Loss On Forfeit

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
3
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
1

After 2 votes and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...

Barney
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One day
Max argument characters
6,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
10
1402
rating
44
debates
40.91%
won
Description

This stems from a disagreement on a feature suggestion (https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1655?). This was initially issued as a direct challenge, but with that contender unwilling to debate, it's open for anyone who believes his logic to accept.

Pro is arguing in favor of a single automatic conduct point allocation* for each forfeit committed during debates.
Con is arguing against such a system, on the basis that voters would be unable to mark worse conduct for rudeness.**

To not backtrack, pro takes the weakness to his case that the system is unchanged for debates scored via the Winner Selection method.***

Definitions: As this is a debate pertaining to a technical aspect of voting, so plain English, defaulting to the site CoC (https://www.debateart.com/rules) should any disagreement arise. Very basic math shall also be used.

Of course no K's (we're debating a technical and ethical aspect of this site, we are not debating if the internet exists etc.).

For reference (the conversation which lead to this debate, call it round zero if you like)...
Pro: "An easier way to handle [automatic loss on forfeit], would just be automatically giving a conduct point to the other side for each forfeit (could be done as "Admin" placing votes, even during the debate).
Con: "Counterpoint: What if I'm a rude bastard and you forfeit one Round?"
Pro: "Actual voters would still be able to override that through the length of the voting period."
Con: "What if voters tie us for arguments or enough voters disagree on who won them to make it so the conduct points aren't outweighed?"
Pro: "That would just be the system working as intended. By forfeiting one side has set the default end state to be a loss."
Con: "That's really idiotic, lol. That means they can't mark worse conduct for the rudeness."
Pro: "You may be having a comprehension problem. Nothing about the existence of prior votes, limits anyone's ability to cast future votes; to include assigning conduct in a different manner than the earlier votes."
Con: "You have a logic comprehension problem."
Pro: "Please enlighten us on why you believe it is impossible ('lol. That means they can't mark worse conduct for the rudeness.') for people to award conduct if conduct only votes exist previously? ... I'll point to one of your votes (https://www.debateart.com/debates/602?open_tab=votes&votes_page=1&vote_number=4) as an example, since you gave the opposite conduct score than every other voter, but are now insisting that logically cannot have happened."
Con: "you are a troll, end of story."

Notes:
* This allocation is could be handled as one vote per forfeit, a single vote edited with the summation, or even a direct point adjustment applied without a technical vote cast. The important detail is the point modifier influencing the voting outcome.
** That rudeness can be significantly worse than a forfeited round, is an accepted premise pro shall not argue against.
*** Under categorical voting, conduct is worth 1 point but arguments are worth 3. Under Winner Selection arguments are worth just 1, making a conduct vote for a single point worth as much as an arguments.

-->
@seldiora

I have an account on edeb8 (as much as I am inactive). If I remember correctly, they allow for full win but not a quick point assignment as per this proposal.

...

I just double checked: Their setting is for an instant victory to the other side once a single forfeiture occurs (such as http://www.edeb8.com/debate/secret-topic-1164). I don't think this is bad as an option, however it's not one I would embrace.

-->
@Barney

did you visit edeb8 to see this feature?

-->
@oromagi

If Con had stuck out his forfeit as an argument for "human-discernible context" I might have rewarded a very clever piece of evidence but Con apologizes first and never links the forfeit to argument so if there was any intention there, Con undermined.

Con's second argument, "Cui bono?" was soft, a question ably answered with IRL & relevant evidence in R1. I like the completeness of the Damage of Forfeits argument, essentially closing the cleverness threat.

Con's R3 falls flat. Yes, the description section is sometimes used as a tool to hedge the contender. If the confines are too narrow for success (I think I agree with Con that forcing Ralph to use RatMan's weak argument is narrow ground to walk) reject the debate, or if you didn't read carefully enough beforehand, K the best you can anyway (like I said, a full-frontal forfeit might have won over a few voters in this context). What does not work is forfeit

R1, argue R2, cry foul R3....but Con knows that which is why Con tosses some pineapples in at the end:

the better debater sometimes forfeits- fine
overriding- Con is arguing for and against automation
few ties- how does this link to human context?
no time saved- not bad, grammar hurts:
"Your preamble talks about voting fraud" It did? where?
penultimate round- con dismisses the disadvantage as commonplace. How does that recommend against point balancing the disadvantage?
Arguments to Pro
Tied on grammar in the name of proportionality, although Con at least once writes the opposite of intent: "So you solution is saving any time. " should be "your" "not saving,"

Sources to Pro: Pro's use of debates was effective and relevant.

Conduct to Pro: for Con's forfeit (even if Con had forfeited for effect, I would have deducted here)

Pro's got a simple plan for the benefit of all us here at DART. I like Pro's plan, I think it might save us from some bullshit. Con failed to introduce much doubt, with or without RM's approach.

-->
@oromagi

*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: oromagi // Mod Action: Removed

Points awarded: 6 points to pro for arguments, sources, and conduct

RFD: See above

Reason for mod action: The source point is insufficient. In order to award sources, the voter must: (a) Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate; (b) Directly evaluate at least one source in particular cited in the debate and explain how it either bolstered or weakened the argument it was used to support; and (c) Must explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's
Mere appeals to quantity are not sufficient to justify awarding sources points. Since there is no comparing and contrasting with the source points, this vote is deemed insufficient.

The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules

*******************************************************************

-->
@Ramshutu

Thanks for voting!

And it's good to see someone else handle final round blitzkriegs in the same way as me.

Sparrow's RFD:

Arguments: Pro provided a more soundly structured argument, whereas con merely tried to imply that something will always go wrong as a result of an auto-loss algorithm, but he cannot account for every possible way an algorithm could be made so he has not proven that a good one cannot be created.
Sources: Con provided no sources
Grammar: Pro structured his argument very well, breaking it down point by point in a clear and concise manner. Con's grammatical structuring of his argument is inferior.
Conduct: Con forfeited a round.

-->
@Sparrow

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

>Points Awarded: 7 points to Pro

>Reason for Decision: See above.

>Reason for Mod Action: The voter insufficiently justifies argument, sources, and grammar points. 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 completes none of these steps. To award sources points, even where one side did not use sources, the voter must (1) explain how the side which did use them used them well (how the sources impacted the debate), (2) directly evaluate at least one source from the debate, and (3) state that one side did not use sources (comparison). The voter completes just one of these steps. Finally, to award S/G points, the voter must (1) give specific examples of S/G errors, (2) explain how these errors were excessive, and (3) compare each debaters' S/G. The voter completes just one of these steps.
************************************************************************

-->
@oromagi

Thanks for voting.

And double thanks for taking the time to read the debate (I am not convinced anyone else has).

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

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

>Points Awarded: 1 point to Pro for conduct

>Reason for Decision: Con forfeited the 1st round and posted a half argument and did not address all the points thoroughly in round 2 because he ran out of time. This is poor conduct. Pro addressed all of the points, did not forfeit, and made substantial arguments the whole time. The forfeits were unfair because it interfered with the debate arguments and made a less productive debate. According to the Rules, "a debater may award conduct points solely for forfeited rounds, but only if one debater forfeited half or more of their rounds." Con forfeited 2/3 rounds, which is more than half. Good job pro.

>Reason for Mod Action: The voter fails to explain why the conduct violation was "excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate." The voter must perform this step to award conduct points. Only 1 round was actually forfeited, and so this vote cannot make use of the cited exemption. Since the points here must be awarded on a issue separate to the forfeit, it is necessary to demonstrate the excessiveness of this other conduct.
************************************************************************

-->
@Scott_Manning

Thanks for the attempted vote.

I do disagree with with your assessment that there were no sources, as I gave several to support my reasoning (the blue underlined words were links to evidence).

-->
@Scott_Manning

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

>Points Awarded: 1 point to Pro for conduct

>Reason for Decision: They both had decent arguments. No sources. Both had acceptable spelling and grammar. For the conduct, Con forfeited the first round and did not address all the points thoroughly, as Our_Boat_is_RIght has correctly stated.

>Reason for Mod Action: The voter fails to explain why the conduct violation was "excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate." The voter also failed to compare the conduct of both debaters. The voter must perform these steps to award conduct points. The voter cannot, in lieu of providing their own reasoning in their own words, cite other RFDs. Voting is not an activity to be farmed out.
************************************************************************

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

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

>Points Awarded: 1 point to Pro for conduct

>Reason for Decision: Arguments, spelling+grammar, and sources are tied.
Conduct--
Con forfeited the 1st round and posted a half argument and did not address all the points thoroughly in round 2 because he ran out of time. This is poor conduct. Pro addressed all of the points, did not forfeit, and made substantial arguments the whole time.

>Reason for Mod Action: The voter fails to explain why the conduct violation was "excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate." The voter must perform this step to award conduct points. Otherwise, the vote is fine.
************************************************************************

-->
@Barney

Yep. Thanks for voting on my debate as well.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

Thanks for voting.

-->
@Pinkfreud08

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Pinkfreud08 // Mod action: Removed

>Points Awarded: Tied.

>Reason for Decision: REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>Reason for Mod Action: No points awarded votes must now explain, based on the content of the vote, why the voter chose not to award points. For more details, see here: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1718
************************************************************************

-->
@David

Interesting

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

Yes people can report their own votes. We actually have had peopel do that and ask us to delete their vote.

-->
@Barney

You think that strange? I think people can report their own votes, lol.

That seems to be a weird vote for anyone to report. I'm guessing someone did a blanket report when he went to dozens of debates and voted profanity.

-->
@RationalMadman

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: Tied.
>Reason for Mod Action: Votes which do not award points are not subject to review because no standard exists in the COC against by which they can be removed.
************************************************************************

-->
@RationalMadman

Even though that accomplished nothing. It still felt good to get points :)

-->
@Alec

I would be mildly opposed to such a rule. However, I'd wholly understand someone opting to make a new account to distance themselves from their old behavior.

-->
@Club

It is oddly tempting...

Should people lose their accounts for forfeiting too many debates?

It'd be really ironic if Ragnar forfeited

-->
@Debaticus

I am pro. For the most part, I believe instigators should word resolutions such that they are the pro side, as it makes everything easier.

-->
@Debaticus

The green background behind the instigator would suggest Pro.

I support con, but I'm not sure if the instigator is con or pro